> In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the
> public, should bear the burden of proof.

Interesting.  This concept cuts both ways, it seems.

If I understand this correctly, now the burden of proof is on the
proponents of the proposed action, namely banning the chemicals in question.

This particularly true in light of what we know would replace them.  The
alternatives have well documented widespread harmful effects on both
people and the environment.  That experience trumps anecdotal and
suspected harm attributed to this class of pesticides.

Of course the extreme would be to ban all farm chemicals, but we know
that that would result in famine, and that famine results in war, and
war is very hard on both the environment and on people.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html