Peter Dillon's brief essay was right on.  I've watched this
discussion with interest, having been involved in lawsuits for control of
environmental poisons as early as 1971.
        I'm happy to tell that the old doctrine that those who 'came to the
nuisance' have lesser rights against poisoning (or other nuisance) is
pretty much defunct, at least in Commonwealth courts.  I have the
impression it has receded far into USA legal history too.
        The bigger problem is burden of proof.  If the legal system stacks
its reasoning so that the complainant has the burden of proving that a
particular chemical or radiation caused the damage complained of, in nearly
all cases this can't be done (even to the civil-law standard of proof).
Many nations have set up agencies which go thru a form of examining a
chemical before registration, and thereafter imposing barriers to lawsuits.
Improving the administrative law has accordingly been one aspect of action
for control of environmental poisons such as pesticides.  Progress has been
patchy and in general unimpressive.  Much scope remains for improving
pre-registration tests.  The case of GE crops is only the most luridly
slack.
        Many chemicals can cause harm which is so delayed that no
detectable residue remains in the carcass.  This is true of most
cancer-causing chemicals.
        The tired old smokescreen 'if used according to label' conceals
many "off-label" uses, and legal systems have taken insufficient account of
this fact.

        If beekeepers are to mount any effective action against preventable
bee-poisoning, it should take account of these principles:

1  Identify a chemical that does remain detectable in the victims, and is
known to cause at least one well-characterised type of harm.  It will be
most useful if 'on-label' uses have been the main cause.

2  Identify a jurisdiction that seems relatively ready to change statutory
regulation of the chemical(s) in question.

3  Coordinate legislative initiatives with any civil suit or prosecution
that may be brought in court.

4  Work on the old EDF pattern of a scientist/lawyer team, in which the
scientists' judgement on priorities should be dominant.

5  Keep in touch with beekeepers in other jurisdictions who may be able to
launch similar actions.

        I must add that I see little chance of such cooperation.  The
approach of some heavies on this list is among my reasons for pessimism.  I
have previously mentioned some of my qualifications to opine on such
matters, to my astonishment, these facts evoked some startling jealous
insults.  Wouldn't it be better to proceed in the normal civilised way,
taking advantage of informed opinion?

R