I'm unconvinced about the utility of a scale that (apparently) is incapable of saying any substance whatsoever does *not* cause cancer.
Perhaps a "percentage of deaths over a set time period" - for some well-defined dosages - would be a better mechanism for evaluating risk of tested candidates? It always bugged me when they declare a substance cancer-causing, and "in lab mice, in dosages 10,000x higher than normal exposure" is left out. Is real guidance so much to ask?