It’s kind of a – yeah – so what?
My old biochem lecturer (Peter Molan – Waikato University) had identified over 200 different alkaloids commonly found in a natural honey sold here in New Zealand called Manuka Honey, last time I talked to him (a decade or so back – he started the work over 30 years ago). Many of those had positive medicinal properties in some situations, and some didn’t.
Biology is like that – really complex, when you look at it closely.
There is no such thing as “is toxic” without reference to concentration and exposure. Water is toxic to most people at 100% concentration for periods of 10 minutes or more (it’s called drowning), yet at zero % concentration we die of a lack – called dehydration. In between the extremes is a happy zone where we need it. Most things in life are like that.
Without specific reference to established toxicity profiles (some people are always more sensitive to anything than other people, so there is no such thing as a safe level for everyone, and one always gets a distribution curve when one plots such data), and lack profiles, product half life in a household environment, then we learn nothing about the risk profiles that actually exist (either positive or negative – ie from an excess or a lack).
Publishing the established concentrations is one thing.
Publishing links to the works that establish likely risk profile curves in the population, and identifying any particular at risk groups is the next useful stage.
This seems more about marketing than actual identified threat!