Chemistry Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientists, academics, teachers, and students in the field of chemistry. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Alfatoxin and benzene are carconogenic, and this is the major concern for low, chronic doses. They are regulated to the few parts per billion level in food. However, according to http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/ChemicalTable.pdf, aflatoxin is three to five orders of magnitude more carcinogenic, as evident from the lower doses needed to induce tumors in rodents.
Why are the permissible thresholds similar?
It is usually assumed that there is no finite threshold below which carcinogens will not exert an effect. Therefore, there may be no safe exposure level below which there is no health risk.
Accordingly, a target value that is based solely on possible health risks (considering exposure over a lifetime, possibly even demanding an adequate margin of safety) would be zero.
Nevertheless, permissible limit values for carcinogens should not be set as low as possible since the exposure should not be reduced as much as possible at all costs. Instead, the potential exposure and limit values should be as low as reasonably achievable taking into account economic factors, other benefits and disadvantages, and the ability to detect and remove contaminants.
Hence, there may be similar limit values for various substances with different carcinogenic potentials. On the other hand, there may be different limit values for one substance depending on the exposure pathway (e.g. for different foodstuffs).
