Ok, I may have been missing some info first time I looked at PAN, because now it seems clear as day.
http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Myclobutanil :
So that would explain the PAN listing.
But they don't give specific info there, or in PAN.
However, I DID give that specific info, or rather the Canadian govt did (or the original publishers of the study, go look it up).
Here, I'll repeat it in its entirety, again:
Ok, one more time. Try to pay attention now.
NOEL is No Observable Effect Level. That means they gave x amount of whatever and ran a bunch of tests on your body and found no abnormal function. None.
They kill the animal and biopsy it. They measure residuals. They measure breakdown products. They have toxicity info separately on those breakdown products. It's all there man.
Let's take the lowest NOEL (which is lower than that for reproductive effects). 3.7mg ai/kg bw.day.
That's 3.7 mg of active ingredient (myclobutanil) per kg of body weight per day.
An average adult male could weigh 80 kg - 175 pounds. Their NOEL would be about 300 mg of myclobutanil per day. (assuming it scales linearly - possibly a bad assumption but consider the huge amount at the end, even if it's not linear we are WAY under the danger area)
We could assume a milliliter of myclobutanil weighs 1 mg, water does I imagine it's close enough. And
Eagle 20 is a little less than 20% myclobutanil.
So to reach 300 mg, you'd need 1.5 Liters of
Eagle 20 per day.
1.5 Liters per day. Okay? Explain if I'm wrong. I'm not. It's the same study.
Proposition 65 that lists myclobutanil as a PAN bad actor doesn't consider doseage levels at all, even if exposure to a toxic sized dose is absurd in any half sane situation.
Look it up, here I already did.
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Docs/ref_regulatoryCA.html#CAProp65
You people are all talking and you haven't read jack shit. It's very obvious.