Peter Borst wrote:

>>
>> It is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the
>> supermarket contains natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.
>> Even though only a tiny proportion of natural pesticides have been
>> tested for carcinogenicity, 35 of 64 that have been tested are
>> rodent carcinogens and occur in common plant foods and spices. Since
>> 99.9% of the chemicals humans ingest are natural, and the 50%
>> positivity rate for natural chemicals is similar to that for
>> synthetic chemicals, nearly all rodent carcinogens that humans
>> ingest are likely to be natural. Therefore, when risk assessments
>> are published for synthetic pesticide residues, it might help to
>> educate the public and broaden perspective if they were compared to
>> this enormous background of naturally-occurring chemicals in the
>> diet.
>
Thank you, Peter.

The tests for carcinogens is a bit suspect since the chemical is added
to the rat's diet in quantities far in excess of anything the rat or a
person might eat, sometimes in a lifetime. Even bread has fallen under
the do-not-eat absurdity of cancer testing. Onions and garlic, both
touted for their health-giving qualities would be banned under FDA regs
because of their chemical mix. Broccoli, also, but I would not fight that.

To compare cumophose treatments ( spray or dip for cattle) to strips for
bees is a matter of great difference in concentration and method and are
not comparable as to risk. (I will never use it no matter what the
concentration.)

We have beat this horse often, so one more go-around will do little more
than increase the entropy of the universe a fraction more.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine