Here's the problem with " you have no proof" mindset: why not apply this to the other side of the equation? Bayer and others want to use chemicals in new place

Here's the problem with " you have no proof" mindset: why not apply this to the other side of the equation? Bayer and others want to use chemicals in new places to give us a benefit and them a great benefit. Why shouldn't they be asked to prove that their chemicals will do no harm? The fact is, in our "release it first and wait for absolute 100% proof that it does harm", there are many, many examples of harm being done, even in the pharma industry where the subjects consuming the product are humans, and not several generations away from them. What's easier to believe? 1) The pesticides used on plants are perfectly safe and there's a much more complex answer to this mystery, or 2) Bayer's self interest prevents them from even caring to do the research to find if the chemicals they use are safe for bees, and the chances are that they are not safe. Just on the face of it, #2 is far more likely than #1. We don't have evidence that proves either, though, so I'm going to say we should be conservative and try to mitigate the problem by reigning in the pesticides.