yes sic, a lot of what we eat depends on bees, approximatively 60% of the food supply. (i'm not just picking that figure out of thin air, but i've no way to back up the claim)
How and ever, you are given two choices. The techno-solution to all our problems, ie we find cheaper better ways to produce food to supply rising demands, hopefully adding protein to some strain of rice to improve nutrition among the ~2.5 billion asians who already eat rice (without increasing demand for meat)
OR you take the retro-grad approach, fear anything which is new and could cause any sort of damage ever to anyone, ban handguns, private transport, herbal medicines, experimental new drugs, cosmetics, and every other chemical which *MIGHT* cause a human/mammalian cell to mutate and thus become cancerous.
Because this is seen to preserve the status quo, or conserve what we have today, i refer to it as the conservative approach, ignoring the fact that some americans seem to think they own that word.
OR you find alternative number 3. Teach people to do their own risk assessments, incorporate public debate over scientific issues into larger issues of decision making (where the science isn't being debated, public policy is being debated, and we merely try to understand the science) Demand that scientists make their understanding more publically accessible and expect that the public will make an effort if they want to appreciate and take part in such a debate (because communication is always a two-way thing)
You approach the legal question of property/intellectual property rights over life and copyright/patent protection of the same in a sensible manner. You don't simply follow the old ways of doing things and you don't group all behaviour of corporations under the same umbrella as all possible damage created by any science ever.
(For example, it is entirely possible that Soviet scientists, operating in a communisnt tyranny, were able to develop nuclear weapons which could have wiped out the majority of human life on this planet, and it is equally possible that a US corporation could have acquired the same technology. The fact that both can do damage is true regardless of whether the US legal system and the USSR legal system allow, lets say, the state to sue for damages on behalf of the people or not)