[4] In addition to apples and ornamental plants, Uniroyal also registered daminozide for use on cherries, peaches, pears, Concord grapes, tomato transplants, and peanut vines.

[4] When consumed by mammals, daminozide is catabolised into succinic acid (a non-toxic general intermediate in primary metabolism[citation needed]) and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH, a compound with a history of studies associating it with carcinogenic activity in animal models relevant to humans).

[4] When daminozide residue on fruit is consumed by mammalian species, it is catabolised into two chemical components, succinic acid (a non-toxic general intermediate in primary metabolism[citation needed]), and 1, 1-dimethylhydrazine ("unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine", UDMH).

[5] In 1985, the EPA studied daminozide's effects on mice and hamsters, concluding that it was a "probable human carcinogen" with a dietary risk possibly as high as one cancer for every thousand people exposed, and proposed banning its use on food crops.

in which the pesticide program at the FDA was accused of being "riddled with pro-industry bias", charging that 7 of 8 SAP members had worked as "consultants for the 'chemical industry'" — that the worst of them, after serving on the SAP (see below), had "later broke[n] conflict-of-interest laws", with career university academic toxicologists Wendell Kilgore and Christopher Wilkinson (29 years, UCal-Davis and 22 years, Cornell) being singled out as "possible violators of the [FDA] ethics code", with invitation to the "EP[A] inspector general [IG] to investigate".

[11] Marshall further noted that the event was being seen, in the months following, more for its forcing clarification of rules regardinghow much the government [can limit its]... more than 100,000 advisors, including scientists... who deal with issues ranging from biomedicine to arms control... [quotes spliced to clarify advisor roles] involvement with industry without isolating itself from the expertise it seeks,[11] than for unearthing formal wrongdoing in the Alar case (wherein, after reversal of an earlier, similar conviction on appeal, no charges were ultimately brought[verification needed]).

'"[14][better source needed] In February, 1989, the CBS television program 60 Minutes broadcast a story about Alar that featured the NRDC report highlighting problems with the chemical.

[15][17] Hence, the consequences of CBS broadcast were swift and severe; as Percival, Schroeder, Miller, and Leape note in review of legal aspects in their Environmental Regulation text,"[t]he denouement... came quickly.

[22] U.S. District Judge William Fremming Nielsen ruled in 1993 that the apple growers had not proved their case,[23][better source needed] and it was subsequently dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

[27][page needed] Taken together, the complexity of the problem of assigning risk to this agent—the debate over assumptions concerning risks from early-in-life exposure, the principal role of a decomposition product rather than the agent itself in determining its long-term toxicity, the generation of that product both abiotically and through metabolism after consumption, as well as challenges in determining appropriate "subpopulations for study, representative parameters of the potency distribution, and corrections for bioassay length"[5]—have had as a consequence that disagreement and controversy remain about the safety of daminozide and the appropriateness of responses to it in its history.