New Studies Add to Growing Evidence That Notorious Pesticides Harm Bees
'At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees.'
Two new studies published in Nature on Wednesday show that neonicotinoid pesticides--or neonics for short--may be even more harmful to bees than previously thought.
Those studies, Bees Prefer Foods Containing Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Ecology: Tasteless Pesticides Affect Bees in the Field, add to the growing list of evidence that neonics are a major contributing factor to bee population decline and reinforce the case for restricting the use of those pesticides.
In the first study, researchers from Newcastle University conducted a test to determine how honeybees and bumblebees responded to nectar laced with three of the most commonly used neonics, and found that both species actually preferred those solutions. The data also indicated that the bees preferred the pesticides--imidacloprid (IMD), thiamethoxam (TMX), and clothianidin (CLO)--even though they could not taste them and the consumption of the pesticides caused the bees to eat less overall.
"Like nicotine they are essentially amplifying the rewarding properties of the sucrose solution that they are located in and the bees think its more rewarding so they go back to that food tube to drink more of it," Professor Geraldine Wright, who led Newcastle University's study, told the Guardian on Wednesday.
It was unclear if that preference would remain in the wild. However, the researchers note, "Sublethal concentrations alter the behavior of social bees and reduce survival of entire colonies... This work shows that bees cannot control their exposure to neonicotinoids in food and implies that treating flowering crops with IMD and TMX presents a sizeable hazard to foraging bees."
"At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees."
--Dave Goulson, bee expertIn a separate 'real world' experiment, scientists from Sweden's Lund University found that wild bee populations were cut in half around fields where neonics were used to treat crops. In those areas, bumblebee hives stopped growing and produced fewer queens.
As Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, explains, "This is an especially dangerous effect in wild bees that nest in small colonies of only ten to one hundred bees, or solitary bee species that live alone, and may not be able to survive a reduction in their numbers."
Dave Goulson, a bee expert at Sussex University who was not involved in the studies, said the conclusions were hugely significant. "At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees," he told the Guardian, adding that the second study was "a major step forwards in clarifying the neonicotinoid debate... This was the first fully field-realistic, well-replicated trial so far, an impressive piece of work."
The EU has temporarily banned IMD, TMX, and CLO over concerns that they may hurt pollinators, but there are no such restrictions in the U.S., and the EU's moratorium will be up for review in December.
The studies show that "such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated," the researchers stated.
Over 100 scientists and researchers sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture head Tom Vilsack and Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy in November, urging them to take immediate action on pesticides and abolish bee-harming neonics.
Pollinators play a crucial role in larger global ecosystem, the letter states--and allowing them to fall victim to harmful pesticides "is not sustainable."
Earlier this month, the EPA announced it would restrict use of neonic pesticides that could harm bees and other pollinators, but environmental groups said the ban did not go far enough, as it did not include products that were already on the market.
"These studies demonstrate why the White House task force reviewing the issue should move quickly to tighten U.S. regulations," Sass continued.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Two new studies published in Nature on Wednesday show that neonicotinoid pesticides--or neonics for short--may be even more harmful to bees than previously thought.
Those studies, Bees Prefer Foods Containing Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Ecology: Tasteless Pesticides Affect Bees in the Field, add to the growing list of evidence that neonics are a major contributing factor to bee population decline and reinforce the case for restricting the use of those pesticides.
In the first study, researchers from Newcastle University conducted a test to determine how honeybees and bumblebees responded to nectar laced with three of the most commonly used neonics, and found that both species actually preferred those solutions. The data also indicated that the bees preferred the pesticides--imidacloprid (IMD), thiamethoxam (TMX), and clothianidin (CLO)--even though they could not taste them and the consumption of the pesticides caused the bees to eat less overall.
"Like nicotine they are essentially amplifying the rewarding properties of the sucrose solution that they are located in and the bees think its more rewarding so they go back to that food tube to drink more of it," Professor Geraldine Wright, who led Newcastle University's study, told the Guardian on Wednesday.
It was unclear if that preference would remain in the wild. However, the researchers note, "Sublethal concentrations alter the behavior of social bees and reduce survival of entire colonies... This work shows that bees cannot control their exposure to neonicotinoids in food and implies that treating flowering crops with IMD and TMX presents a sizeable hazard to foraging bees."
"At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees."
--Dave Goulson, bee expertIn a separate 'real world' experiment, scientists from Sweden's Lund University found that wild bee populations were cut in half around fields where neonics were used to treat crops. In those areas, bumblebee hives stopped growing and produced fewer queens.
As Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, explains, "This is an especially dangerous effect in wild bees that nest in small colonies of only ten to one hundred bees, or solitary bee species that live alone, and may not be able to survive a reduction in their numbers."
Dave Goulson, a bee expert at Sussex University who was not involved in the studies, said the conclusions were hugely significant. "At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees," he told the Guardian, adding that the second study was "a major step forwards in clarifying the neonicotinoid debate... This was the first fully field-realistic, well-replicated trial so far, an impressive piece of work."
The EU has temporarily banned IMD, TMX, and CLO over concerns that they may hurt pollinators, but there are no such restrictions in the U.S., and the EU's moratorium will be up for review in December.
The studies show that "such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated," the researchers stated.
Over 100 scientists and researchers sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture head Tom Vilsack and Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy in November, urging them to take immediate action on pesticides and abolish bee-harming neonics.
Pollinators play a crucial role in larger global ecosystem, the letter states--and allowing them to fall victim to harmful pesticides "is not sustainable."
Earlier this month, the EPA announced it would restrict use of neonic pesticides that could harm bees and other pollinators, but environmental groups said the ban did not go far enough, as it did not include products that were already on the market.
"These studies demonstrate why the White House task force reviewing the issue should move quickly to tighten U.S. regulations," Sass continued.
Two new studies published in Nature on Wednesday show that neonicotinoid pesticides--or neonics for short--may be even more harmful to bees than previously thought.
Those studies, Bees Prefer Foods Containing Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Ecology: Tasteless Pesticides Affect Bees in the Field, add to the growing list of evidence that neonics are a major contributing factor to bee population decline and reinforce the case for restricting the use of those pesticides.
In the first study, researchers from Newcastle University conducted a test to determine how honeybees and bumblebees responded to nectar laced with three of the most commonly used neonics, and found that both species actually preferred those solutions. The data also indicated that the bees preferred the pesticides--imidacloprid (IMD), thiamethoxam (TMX), and clothianidin (CLO)--even though they could not taste them and the consumption of the pesticides caused the bees to eat less overall.
"Like nicotine they are essentially amplifying the rewarding properties of the sucrose solution that they are located in and the bees think its more rewarding so they go back to that food tube to drink more of it," Professor Geraldine Wright, who led Newcastle University's study, told the Guardian on Wednesday.
It was unclear if that preference would remain in the wild. However, the researchers note, "Sublethal concentrations alter the behavior of social bees and reduce survival of entire colonies... This work shows that bees cannot control their exposure to neonicotinoids in food and implies that treating flowering crops with IMD and TMX presents a sizeable hazard to foraging bees."
"At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees."
--Dave Goulson, bee expertIn a separate 'real world' experiment, scientists from Sweden's Lund University found that wild bee populations were cut in half around fields where neonics were used to treat crops. In those areas, bumblebee hives stopped growing and produced fewer queens.
As Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, explains, "This is an especially dangerous effect in wild bees that nest in small colonies of only ten to one hundred bees, or solitary bee species that live alone, and may not be able to survive a reduction in their numbers."
Dave Goulson, a bee expert at Sussex University who was not involved in the studies, said the conclusions were hugely significant. "At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees," he told the Guardian, adding that the second study was "a major step forwards in clarifying the neonicotinoid debate... This was the first fully field-realistic, well-replicated trial so far, an impressive piece of work."
The EU has temporarily banned IMD, TMX, and CLO over concerns that they may hurt pollinators, but there are no such restrictions in the U.S., and the EU's moratorium will be up for review in December.
The studies show that "such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated," the researchers stated.
Over 100 scientists and researchers sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture head Tom Vilsack and Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy in November, urging them to take immediate action on pesticides and abolish bee-harming neonics.
Pollinators play a crucial role in larger global ecosystem, the letter states--and allowing them to fall victim to harmful pesticides "is not sustainable."
Earlier this month, the EPA announced it would restrict use of neonic pesticides that could harm bees and other pollinators, but environmental groups said the ban did not go far enough, as it did not include products that were already on the market.
"These studies demonstrate why the White House task force reviewing the issue should move quickly to tighten U.S. regulations," Sass continued.