testing of agrochemicals involves looking at their effects at high concentrations, assuming that those who will work with them risk exposure to them in undiluted form. There are strict regulations concerning their use, and also concerning residue levels that are permitted in food. The regulations err on the side of safety. From the information widely available on the internet, it seems that the residue levels present in wine are not going to have any negative health effects. However, I can understand why the results cause concern. If a chemical has the potential to be carcinogenic, should we be using it at all on wine grapes? Wouldn?t it be safer not to use any pesticides at all if there is a risk that they might end up in wine? While this position sounds a sensible one, it ignores the fact that many substances are harmless at normal levels of exposure, but with repeated exposure at high concentrations they can be carcinogenic, or toxic in other ways. Let?s give an example. It could be that the active ingredient in sunscreen (and I?m making this up), when used at 100 times the concentration found in commercial preparations, can cause cancer when rubbed on the ears of laboratory rats every day for a year. Does this mean that sunscreen is carcinogenic? No. There is such a dose that has no observable adverse effects, and to avoid using sunscreen because of worries about health could end up putting you in much worse danger. It is