Although I respect Peter's purely rational, science based approach, it
seems that there may be several possible oversights in his arguments:

1)  Measurements of wax & honey residues are based on *proper* use of
pesticides.  This does not take into consideration dolts who don't
believe the directions apply to them, and leave treatments in place during a
honey flow, or leave them there for prolonged periods.

2)  There is an underlying assumption that all pesticides have the same
relative ability to harm us, whether they're natural (phyto-chemicals)
or synthetic.  Personally, I'm much more worried about synergistc
possibilities resulting from synthetic pesticides than I am from natural
sources.

3)  We always assume that the EPA somehow magically knows what the
actual safe levels are for any particular synthetic compound, even if it's
only
been around for a few years.  Science News has repeatedly reported
considerable effect on fish populations from a variety of hormones and
medications which are not being captured by water treatment plants.
These compounds are in extremely low concentrations, and yet are capable of
significantly altering the sex ratio of the populations, with other
undesirable effects.  Synergy has been suggested as one potential
culprit.

4)  Time and again, synthetics previously thought to be "absolutely
safe" have been found to have very tragic effects.  A few notables to come
to
mind:  Thalidamide, DDT, etc.  The herbicide Roundup (Glyphosate) has
been used in such quantities by farmers that many crops no longer germinate
properly in heavily treated soil - thus the need for GMO food crops
which are "Roundup Ready".  This stuff was heavily marketed as "absolutely
safe" to the soil.

All I'm suggesting here is that we probably know a hell of a lot less
than we think we do about effects of synthetic compounds on the world around
us, and the little we do know usually comes from painful realizations after
the fact.

Cheers,

Todd.