Jerry,
Thanks for the corrected information. (As you get older your memory doesn't fail, it just gets fuzzier.) Searching the Internet, I found some good sites, like
Lois Swirsky Gold1,2,*, Thomas H. Slone1,2, and Bruce N. Ames2
at http://potency.berkeley.edu/text/drugmetrev.html which has nifty quotes like
Among chemicals to which humans are exposed, we estimate that 99.9% occur naturally [12]; however, among chemicals in the CPDB only 22% (293/1298) are natural. Since half the natural chemicals tested are positive, human exposures to rodent carcinogens are likely to be ubiquitous. (See Section VI below.)
About the law itself, there is "The Delaney Clause Effects on Pesticide Policy" at
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Pesticides/pest-1.cfm?&CFID=7080632&CFTOKEN=60570172
which has little tidbits like
Delaney's standard of absolute zero or "no cancer-causing food additives" does not allow for the characterization of relative risk in various foods, even if the risk of the residue is extremely small.
and
After EPA decided to use a de minimis (insignificant) criteria to set pesticide residue tolerances, several environmental and consumer groups objected. They asked the courts to review EPA's 1988 order to use the negligible risk interpretation to permit four pesticide residues as food additives, although the residues were found to be carcinogenic in animals. These groups alleged that EPA had violated the provisions of the Delaney Clause. On July 8, 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and decided in their favor in Les vs. Reilly.(3) The court ruled that the Delaney Clause's history and purpose reflected that Congress intended to prohibit the use of any food additive that is a carcinogen, regardless of the degree of risk involved
My impress is that the Delaney Clause was supposed to protect the population without a clear understanding of the limits our our knowledge about the risk are and the consequences of what the law would do. In legislation, like life, "no good deed shall go unpunished."
Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
John,I believe the legislation you refer to is the so-called "Delaney clause" circa 1957 which mandated pretty much what you describe. This was the landmark policy that officially sanctioned a non-scientific basis for formulation of health and safety regulations and began the trend we are seeing today. Substances are labeled and regulated as carcinogens based on the Ames test which I believe uses yeasts (or some form of single-celled critters) as the test animal.No wonder the opinions of movie actors and rock stars carry equal or greater influence than those of scientists. It is the will of Congress.