http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
informed decisions.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
informed decisions.
--
I thought you distrusted the Fed?

In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

By and large. So what does that have to do with the Pesticide Action
Network?

I'm sure that the big lobbies that spread lots of cash around, aren't
too happy with them.

Chemical companies want to sell. Framers don't want to test.
Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands just want subsidies.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

This is the kind of information you need, if you are going to make
informed decisions.

I thought you distrusted the Fed?

By and large. So what does that have to do with the Pesticide Action
Network?

It is just good to see PAN agrees with the Fed and their database , but
most importantly that the findings show we are all safe.
My first thoughts were these Guys had an agenda and were going to push
Precautionary Principles.

I'm sure that the big lobbies that spread lots of cash around, aren't
too happy with them.

Chemical companies want to sell. Framers don't want to test.
Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands just want subsidies.

I do have to ask, do these pickup lines still work? True, their totally
diversionary, but they both also seem so, I don't know.... irrelevant.

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and
such.

another info site on chemicals:
http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/
you can use your zip to drill down to see whats is in your area, even gets
down to specific issues.

& If you promise not to nit-pick,
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6075 has some very good background
facts. Some still floats around the Internet discussions a bit,
......But do check out Dr. Ames, he has a lot more to say about pesticides,
quite illuminating, not casually dismissed.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and
such.

I'm sure, there are lots of good reads, like John Yoo and the torture
briefs (also Cal Berkeley). It's nice to have an argument before cites
are given. What do you have to say. Where is the site for the government
database on pesticides? Where is the PAN site that says all pesticides
are safe?

Precautionary Principles, are you out of your mind, Dow, Monsanto,
Bayer, Nisus, and Novartis would break their political legs. Cargill,
and Archer Daniel Midlands profit handsomely from corn, and soybean
supports, which allows them to make cheap food like stuff, for
consumption.

http://www.ewg.org/node/26928 is a nice toxic read, as is
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/....publhealth.25
..101802.123020
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-...s-Linked-to-La
sting-Neurological-Problems-for-Farmers-337-1/
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/200...es_pesticides/
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/c_2.htm

And did you ever consider that if we didn't do the same monocultures in
the same place most of the pesticides wouldn't be needed, under the most
conservative of judgments. GMO crops are no more productive than
standard crops, but some do allow more pesticide be used. And how about
the increase in diabetes since we started eating faux foods 30 years
ago? Prior to that they were called imitation foods.

So gunner, make your argument, and present your citations. If you've
been to school, you should know how it works.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins
and
such.

You are aware that the PAN database IS the USDA's PDP?

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
.... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

gunner wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Gunner--

Really good post.

People generally aren't generally smart enough to quantify such data.
Most people can't tell the difference in meaning between Parts per
hundred million and percent. The perception is.....If there is ANY of it
present it's going to kill you.

EJ in NJ

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/acknowledgements.jsp

METHODOLOGY
Q: What data is shown here and where did it come from?
A: USDA¹s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) cross-referenced with toxicology1
data from EPA and other authoritative listings.
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/methodology.jsp

Great, since it's government information, you shouldn't have a problem
with it;O)

TOXICOLOGY: MAKING SENSE OF PESTICIDES
What¹s On My Food? also contains toxicological information for most
pesticides tested by USDA, and for many of the pesticide residues
(chemicals found on foods that may be different from the actual
pesticides used). The toxicological information here is pulled from
www.PesticideInfo.org, a comprehensive database that we've developed and
maintained for ten years.

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

Certainly makes me glad that I grow as much as I can. I'll read it when
I can but it still doesn't answer the questions below.

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."
The EPA under Bush was a joke and we all know that the USDA isn't to aid
consumers, it's meant to aid agriculture (marketers).


Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.
1% of what? How much does it take before there is a response? A response
to the one isolated chemical, or to the stew of chemicals in the food
chain and in the environment??
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years
And dioxin is measured in femtograms (10^-15 g). Which would equal
6 millionths of a sec.

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
Yes, and the renowned Frederick Seitz said that "Global Warming" isn't
man made. Yada, yada, yada. There are lots of scientists. You have to
take a poll and measure their quality.
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...e-n-ames-stron
g-views-on-origins-of-cancer.html?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
1994? you might say so.
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.
Lots of cow patties out the
EXCLUSIVEŠPentagon Pundits: New York Times Reporter David Barstow Wins
Pulitzer Prize for Exposing Military¹s Pro-War Propaganda Media Campaign
Pundits-double-web

In his first national broadcast interview, New York Times reporter David
Barstow speaks about his 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of the
Pentagon propaganda campaign to recruit more than seventy-five retired
military officers to appear on TV outlets as military analysts ahead of
and during the Iraq war. This week, the Pentagon inspector general¹s
office admitted its exoneration of the program was flawed and withdrew
it.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/8...imes_reporter_
david

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...29climate.html

Lots of people are playing fast and loose with critical facts. I just
reads them the way that I sees them.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.
The governors of West Virginia always call me an environmental
extremist. You¹ve got to be an extremist in order to achieve things.
You¹ve got to be ready to make enemies in order to accomplish something.
And it¹s absolutely necessary that the people here today continue to
demonstrate against this highly destructive practice.

- REP. KEN HECHLER (94 years old)

"The only congressman who marched with Martin Luther King in Selma,
Alabama, was this hillbilly from West Virginia . ."
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/29/coal


Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
"I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit."
-- Mel Brooks
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames

http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html

Bruce is going on 81 and has done good work. That said science has a
difficult time adding up total exposure and the possible impact. I'd
hazard a guess that our immune systems are strengthened and weakened by
impact of all our sensual imputes.

Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know.

Gardening and invoking mother nature I believe is a good thing. Belief
system raises it complexities. Love and gratefulness for sustenance
primary sometimes expressed as saying grace in one way or another.

Looking at the fancy Ames graph I noticed no mention of Alpha or Beta
Naphthalene which caused a hot spot for bladder cancer in Pennsville
NJ. Rural area with A Dupont Plant providing employment not far from
here it smelled like death and it was the most frequent sample turned
over to the next shift. .

Exposure to harmful or helpful mediums seem to be secretive. Vit D,
Vit K and Resveratrol along with family interaction seems good.
Allopathy good for burns and accidents only. Yea that¹s me. YMMV. Fresh
home nibbling has to be superior but I may be wrong. Energy more
direct in a way from the earth and sun.

Bill whose sister is a MD and Husband a Virologist.

Small birds happy singing or protecting.

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-Philo of Alexandria

http://www.youtube.com/usnationalarchives

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

snipped
I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the Lithium.
There are better class of drugs these days for your condition. Hopefully one
of them can balance your mood swings and attention span out a bit better.
With the proper care and counseling you should make a full recovery.

I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.

"Bill who putters" wrote in message
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames

http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html

Bruce is going on 81 and has done good work. That said science has a
difficult time adding up total exposure and the possible impact. I'd
hazard a guess that our immune systems are strengthened and weakened by
impact of all our sensual imputes.

Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know.


No doubt. I am hoping they get the operating manual and troubleshooting
guide on Man written soon..

Charlie wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:20:00 -0700, "gunner"
wrote:


"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

snipped
I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the
Lithium.
There are better class of drugs these days for your condition. Hopefully
one
of them can balance your mood swings and attention span out a bit better.
With the proper care and counseling you should make a full recovery.

I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.


Oh very good, the meds insult (always very funny and insightful),
right before somehow working in a Nazi reference.

Oh wait, so sorry, I did......Godwin's Law invoked.

Charlie

So YOU can make sense out of his rambling BS and the stupid wiki links or
you just a fan of his?

Regardless that was rich Charlie , I will try to work that one in the next
time. I'm sure there will be more BS coming out of eco fringe element .
It almost is like an OCD.

sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"
Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context
And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe' residues
you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it curious that no
matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal, you will find
people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I call that 'The
Lemming Effect.'

as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court










--
Wilson N44º39" W67º12"