You still have not addressed the fact that with perhaps one or two tiny
exceptions (which some people spend all day searching for, and then use to
refute what I'm saying), chemicals are not tested on the target population
we're concerned with, namely, people. Therefore, nobody can truly predict
toxicity unless they have solid information from events such as accidental
exposure to manufacturing personnel, followed by illnesses which can only be
attributed to that exposure.

I don't know how old you are, so you may or may not be familiar with the
little dance that the chem industry has done over the past 30-40 years. It's
fun to watch. They'll test chemicals on mice or rates, find no problems, and
proclaim a product is, or seems safe. A non-industry researcher will test
another chemical on rodents and find that they develop cancer or other
problems. The chem companies will then say that we cannot extrapolate from
results obtained using animals because they respond differently than we do
to chemical exposure. So, it's a matter of convenience. Both sides can pick
and choose the results they like.

But, you cannot dispute two things:

- As I mentioned before, legislation dating back to the early 1970s exempts
a long list of so-called "inert" ingredients from testing. Unfortunately,
this list includes things which are KNOWN to cause health problems in
humans, such as toluene. The chem industry loves this legislation. They
bought it. You should be concerned about it.

- The U of Rochester does drug research. They run radio & newspaper ads
asking for people who may want to participate in drug tests for all sorts of
stuff. Maybe some organization near you runs similar ads. Please let me know
right away if you EVER see an ad asking for people to be used as test
subjects for agricultural chemicals. I won't hold my breath. This is the
ONLY valid method for determining the relative safety or toxicity of these
products, according to the chem companies.