> Carcinogenic in my world is relative.  Every 5 years or so, the cancer
> gurus change their minds about grilling food . . . bad for your-cancer .
> . .  good for you-low fat . . . repeat.  In the minute quantities
> needed, I choose to use it in the gumbo I eat once, maybe twice a year.
> Adding maybe 1/16th teaspoon (US) to a 16 oz volume will start
> thickening it up in a few seconds, and add sufficient flavor.  "Just a
> pinch between the cheek and gums" as it were.  Carcinogenically, making
> tea from the Sassafras root would be a story of a different color over
> grinding bits for a little file'.  YMMV, so make an informed choice and
> enjoy it if you can .  .  . no substitute for it.

<offical doctor hat>
Let's face it, folks, in the modern, industrialized West, LIVING is
carcinogenic. What most folks fail to understand is that the average study
demonstrating "carcinogenicity" tests these things at quantities and
concentrations no one would ever eat. The (rather poorly designed) studies on
sodium saccharin, way back when, fed those damned rats something on the order
of 20 mg/kg/day - the equivalent of a 150lb person eating 3+ POUNDS of
saccharin a day.

You have to (a) understand what these studies REALLY say and (b) THEN make an
informed decision. I will volunteer that, as long as I'm on this list, if you
hear of a study that concerns you, if you provide me an adequate reference so I
can find the study, I'll review and summarize it for you, or the whole list, if
I think it's pertinent. If you have the skills and background to read and
understand a biochemistry study yourself, but lack access, send me the
reference and I'll forward you the study (if I can access it myself).

****************************************
Avraham haRofeh
mka Randy Goldberg MD