Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Safe Food Matters

Channel

Safe Food Matters

@safefoodmatters

On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

24subscribers

+1 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001814652121
TypeChannel
Username@safefoodmatters
CreatedBetween 1 October 2022 and 30 September 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded11 August 2026
Last confirmed live16 August 2026
Measurements held3
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 16 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/safefoodmatters

Growth

232423.57 August 2026 — 23 subscribers11 August 2026 — 23 subscribers16 August 2026 — 24 subscribers7 August 202616 August 2026
3 measurements spanning 9 days, net +1. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 23–24 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
16 Aug 2026, 20:3824+1
11 Aug 2026, 12:0123no change
7 Aug 2026, 23:2123first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 22 March 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
25.0%
avg views ÷ 24 subscribers
Avg views / post
6.0
2 posts measured
Reaction rate
14.3%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
2
of 20 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 1 of 2 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 5 August 2026
Posts held20 (22 March 20265 August 2026)
Views total12
Reactions total1
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken11 Aug 2026, 12:01 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

What this channel posts

Video runtime
11m 21s
Average length
1m 37s

Measured directly from 7 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no mark.

Reaction mix

7 reactions across 6 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 28.6% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
👍228.6%
😡228.6%
114.3%
👏114.3%
😱114.3%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 6 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 7reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 22 March 2026 to 5 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

5 Aug 2026, 15:11 UTC5 viewsread 11 August 2026
Video

🇨🇦 Should Canada be raising the bar on food safety—or lowering it? In this clip from Mary Lou’s interview with Keith Wiley of “The EcoCentric Radio Show,” she points out that Canada is choosing to align more closely with the U.S. and Australia on pesticide standards instead of following countries like France, which has taken a stronger stance to protect its food supply. Canada should be leading on food safety—not l

22 Jul 2026, 13:06 UTC7 views1 reactionsread 11 August 2026
Forwarded from @childrenshdVideo

⚠️ STOP SCROLLING. If you’re still in disbelief that glyphosate is harmful to your health, you need to watch this. Here’s your proof. Watch the full interview only on CHDTV: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/glyphosate-injury-miracle--how-to-do-a-safety-study/

😡1

12 Jul 2026, 18:04 UTC8 viewsread 11 August 2026
Photo

🇨🇦 Federal Cabinet Gives Itself Power to Sidestep Regulations, Including on #Pesticides Mary Lou McDonald spoke with Keith Wiley on "The Ecocentric Radio Show” about the government’s new powers to sidestep regulations, including those affecting pesticides and environmental protections. They also discuss Safe Food Matters' ongoing #glyphosate litigation. Read more: https://safefoodmatters.org/2026/07/10/federal-cab

12 Jul 2026, 18:02 UTC6 viewsread 11 August 2026
Video

⚖️ 🇨🇦 Glyphosate Lawsuit Is Still Alive Since 2017, Safe Food Matters has been challenging Health Canada’s renewal of glyphosate for pre-harvest use—and as President Mary Lou McDonald says, “It’s still alive.” A court date is expected this summer, so stay tuned for updates as this important case moves forward! Full interview: 🔗 https://safefoodmatters.org/2026/07/10/federal-cabinet-gives-itself-power-to-sidestep-r

19 Jun 2026, 20:10 UTC8 viewsread 11 August 2026
Video

Bill C-30 is now law. Safe Food Matters President Mary Lou McDonald explains why the legislation represents a significant shift in Canada’s approach to democracy and pesticides. Bill C-30 was rushed through Parliament as budget legislation despite containing major pesticide policy changes. The bill grants Cabinet sweeping powers to overrule scientific findings of harm, raising concerns about transparency, accountab

18 Jun 2026, 00:24 UTC5 viewsread 11 August 2026

Public health organizations call on federal government to stop weakening pesticide safeguards Omnibus legislation is ramming through Bills C-30 and C-31, which take away legal protections against pesticide risks...all in the name of undefined "economic security." Contact your MPs https://www.cpha.ca/pesticides #pesticides #Canada #safefoodmatters

6 Jun 2026, 17:45 UTC7 viewsread 11 August 2026

☠️🇨🇦 Why Does Canada Keep Toxic Pesticides on the Market? An eye-opening OpEd by Bruce Lanphear explores how pesticide regulation works in Canada — and why some chemicals linked to health and environmental concerns remain in use. Read more: 🔗https://safefoodmatters.org/2026/05/31/how-canada-keeps-toxic-pesticides-on-the-market/ . . . #Pesticides #FoodSafety #EnvironmentalHealth #SafeFoodMatters

31 May 2026, 23:25 UTC184 views1 reactionsread 11 August 2026
Photo

🚨If a pesticide is known to cause harm, is it OK to keep it on the market? New amendments buried in Bills C-30 and C-31 would give politicians the power to trump scientific findings of risk and also eliminate current mandatory scientific reviews and public input. Safe Food Matters is joining organizations across Canada 🇨🇦 in calling for these changes to be removed. Read more: 🔗 https://safefoodmatters.org/2026/05

👍1

29 May 2026, 22:35 UTC32 views1 reactionsread 11 August 2026
Video

🇨🇦 Proposed Changes to Canada’s Pesticide Laws Bills C-30 and C-31 would make significant changes to Canada’s pesticide regulatory system. Bill C-30 would allow Politicians to override science-based pesticide decisions, while Bill C-31 would remove mandatory cyclical safety reviews and associated public input. Together, these changes weaken both scientific and democratic accountability in Canada, and favour pestici

😡1

13 May 2026, 22:16 UTC6 viewsread 11 August 2026
Video

HEALTH CANADA 🇨🇦 POWER GRAB Weakens Public Check on Pesticides and PFAS Health Canada wants Canadians to just trust them on pesticide approvals—here’s SFM President Mary Lou McDonald explaining why we don’t. 🔗 https://safefoodmatters.org/2026/02/12/legal-challenge-filed-over-federal-approval-of-pfas-pesticide/ . . . #Pesticides #PFAS #HealthCanada #SafeFoodMatters #Canada

10 May 2026, 10:45 UTC4 viewsread 11 August 2026
Photo

Happy healthy #MothersDay from #SafeFoodMatters 🍓🧀🥂 #ChooseOrganic #GlyphosateFree

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @safefoodmatters. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Forward network

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 16 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Safe Food Matters” (@safefoodmatters), 24 subscribers as measured 16 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/safefoodmatters.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.