Sorry, you lost me.
I know the farmers don’t follow the rules. I was pointing out that the rules don’t make any sense in the context of known harms. Making exceptions for this and that application is completely illogical, because it’s still getting into the food chain and/or the environment. It doesn’t matter what route it takes. Either ban the stuff, or don’t.
I’m wondering if some of it gets into the chickens by way of chickenfeed, if it’s permitted for agricultural use. In fact I don’t see how it could not be present somewhere along the line, since it’s permissible for so many other applications.
Yes, that was my point really. They encourage farmers to cram chickens into conditions that inevitably result in disease and pest infestations, and then get all sniffy when the farmers spray noxious chemicals. And then they punish the chickens.
I know chickens tend to attract mites etc like keyboards attract fluff, even under free-range conditions, but if the animal is allowed to dust-bathe they stay at manageable levels.
Seems a bit unlikely, since it’s far more toxic to chickens that it is to humans. The chicken would die long before egg residue levels became high enough to be a serious food-safety issue.
The lethal dose of Fipronil for a human, incidentally, is apparently about 5g. That’s in the same ballpark as sodium nitrite. Check out the regulations for sodium nitrite. I know different chemicals will behave very differently at sub-lethal doses, but I’m not convinced that’s meaningful when you’re talking about micrograms vs. grams, even in the case of bioaccumulators (Fipronil apparently isn’t one).