Pesticide - A good CR question

[bend_the_rulz]

Can somebody please explain this?
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Although the pesticide TDX has been widely used by fruit growers since the early
1960’s, a regulation in force since 1960 has prohibited sale of fruit on which any TDX
residue can be detected. That regulation is about to be replaced by one that allows sale of
fruit on which trace amounts of TDX residue are detected. In fact, however, the change
will not allow more TDX on fruit than was allowed in the 1960’s, because ______.
A. pre-1970 techniques for detecting TDX residue could detect it only when it was
present on fruit in more than the trace amounts allowed by the new regulations
B. many more people today than in the 1960’s habitually purchase and eat fruit
without making an effort to clean residues off the fruit
C. people today do not individually consume any more pieces of fruit, on average,
than did the people in the 1960’s
D. at least a small fraction of the fruit sold each year since the early 1960’s has had
on it greater levels of TDX than the regulation allows
E. the presence of TDX on fruit in greater than trace amounts has not been shown to
cause any harm even to children who eat large amounts of fruit

[goelmohit2002]

It looks that there is something missing from the above sentence. It says that

1. "a regulation in force since 1960 has prohibited sale of fruit on which any TDX residue can be detected."....

Also it says that:

2. "In fact, however, the change will not allow more TDX on fruit than was allowed in the 1960’s"....

I am a bit confused....How can these two statements be compatible to each other together. When in 1960..it was prohibited to sell fruits with residual TDX...then how can it again say that "more TDX on fruit than was allowed in the 1960’s"....

Please tell if I am missing something here.

Thanks
Mohit