WWF: "threat of chemicals" fact or fiction?

In regards to "threat of chemicals" by Gwynne Lyons now part founder of CHEMtrust, I would like to know the WWFs principles/stance on how chemical information is gathered and presented to the public. The reason for this question is that I found this article to be a bias (albeit sincerely written) collaboration of scientific literature which gathered "hot button words" from a multitude of sources in an effort to present a one sided view on chemicals which had been used, and are still used everyday.

With no mention of bioavailability, toxicity, estimated daily intakes, or the like, how is it relevant to create an entire article detailing the detrimental effects of a chemical at its highest levels (a level no person would likely be exposed too)?

Is there a Chemical Toxicologist or any member in the WWF who curates articles pertaining to chemicals?

~ Its simple to write about a chemical to someone in the general public and make them scared of it (I could say acute exposure to 42mg of Capsaicin will kill 50% of rats it is given to, but what would that tell the reader about eating peppers?)

~ Gwynne Lyons is a well respected chemical advisor, but why is no mention of specific congener toxicity or EDI mentioned? The general public may not understand why most of the 209 PCB congeners do not illicit the same chemical effect as 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), but why make no attempt at creating analogies to bridge such a gap.