Jumbled regulations

Federal regulation is a necessary reality. The level of regulation is debatable, but it is certain that some level of oversight must be implemented for the general welfare (we all know what money hungry conglomerates can resort to when they aren't regulated, just look at the working conditions of factories in the early 1900s). Logically, regulatory laws and rules should be specific, concise, and reviewed often. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In fact, due to lack of updating and a vagueness that allows for individual interperatation, many regulations have been buried under beureacratic red-tape and essentially stripped of their initial meaning. For example, the Delaney clause, which prohibits any measurable chemical residue in processed food that has been proven to cause cancer in humans or animals. When this clause was put into effect, the chemical residue was measured by part per thousand, but now, due to advances in science, it can be measured in part per quintillion, making the likelihood of finding a bit of leftover pesticide almost a certainty.
Under this clause farmers have to buy alternatives to the chemicals that neutralize insect and disease threats, that most often are less effective and more expensive. According to a USDA estimation, under the Delaney clause, due to the necessity of buying a different pesticide, apple growers who now use chemicals on the Delaney list would produce yields that declined 3% from the previous year, while production costs would increase $7 million.
There should be a law prohibiting use of harmful amounts of chemicals, for sure, but there is a great need for this clause to be updated, for more research to be put into what chemicals will cause what effect at what amount, before this clause causes uneeded damage to the agricultural economy.