Is this principle being well used when applied to beekeeping affairs?

Debates relating to antibiotic applications polarize from extremes of
using them whilst they are still useful to points of view stating that
they should not be used at all, through to the opinions of using them
sparingly - taking into account the pros. and cons..
In this case and as in many others the application of the "Principle of
Precaution" has levels of effect depending on the starting position of
the argument.
If one starts at the "never should be used" position then the principle
means- "beware, don't use.".
If the start point is "use with care", the principle means "use but
watch what happens.".
If the start point is "they should be used when ever possible", then the
principle means "use but in an uncontrolled fashion until they are of
little or  no use.".

This principle may be applied to pesticides - but how? -  many sides to
the argument and therefore starting positions.

Those who need to use pesticides to protect their livelihoods (farmers
etc.)and those who are possibly affected by non intended damage - bee
colonies that are poisoned.

The principle is put into operation to protect humans (extensive
testing) - I suppose most people will agree with that!, but at what
level should it be applied to protect bees
- straight away the principle is weakened by economic arguments.

Few companies, if any are willing to state that such and such product
doesn't damage humans but will at a certain level damage bees, so
looking at the overall economic gain bees loose out - tough on you
beekeepers.

Here instead of precaution use the word risk!

Beekeepers present at the moment  low risk to agro-chemical
manufacturers - we are  financially weak and often disparate.

The result is the undermining of present day protections that are in
place. Difficulties in getting proper toxicological studies underway.
Also the great difficulty in bringing to light and getting accepted as
fact any problems associated with un-intentional pesticide damage.

Should beekeepers continue to accept that they are on the wrong end of
risk assessment and start insisting that "the principle of precaution"
is applied automatically?
AND is held in place until proven safe to remove it - especially when
referring to the introduction of pesticides.

At the moment it is often the other way around. Instead of the
manufacturer proving it is safe, and whilst doing so, having the
principle of precaution in place, materials are presented with risk
assessment attached, often then approved leaving beekeepers to prove
when damage occurs that it is not safe !!

Entering the stage is the problem of SUB LETHAL TOXICITY - not often
tested for when viewing bees!

HOW OR SHOULD WE AS A GROUP ENSURE THAT "THE PRINCIPLE OF PRECAUTION" IS
APPLIED TO THIS PROBLEM ?

Analytical methods now allow for the detection of highly toxic
pesticides at levels where previously no detection was possible, and at
these levels sub lethal intoxication disrupts bee colony organization.
Previously pesticide manufacturers did not have to take this into
account - will they now?
It is obviously not in their direct interest to do so.
I hope that I am proven incorrect and they start to apply "THE PRINCIPLE
OF PRECAUTION".

Peter