Neonicotinoids are back in the news. Risks to bees are pretty much confirmed according to one report:
“Most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides represent a risk to wild bees and honeybees, according to assessments published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) . The Authority has updated its risk assessments of three neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – that are currently subject to restrictions in the EU because of the threat they pose to bees. These new conclusions update those published in 2013, after which the European Commission imposed controls on use of the substances.
“For the new assessments, which this time cover wild bees – bumblebees and solitary bees – as well as honeybees, EFSA’s Pesticides Unit carried out an extensive data collection exercise, including a systematic literature review, to gather all the scientific evidence published since the previous evaluations. The team also applied the guidance document developed by EFSA specifically for the risk assessment of pesticides and bees. Jose Tarazona, Head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit, said: “The availability of such a substantial amount of data as well as the guidance has enabled us to produce very detailed conclusions.
“There is variability in the conclusions, due to factors such as the bee species, the intended use of the pesticide and the route of exposure. Some low risks have been identified, but overall the risk to the three types of bees we have assessed is confirmed.”
Randy Oliver in the latest University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources UC Nursery and Floriculture Alliance Newsletter (Winter2018) concludes: “Everyone’s heard about the claim that honey bees are going extinct due to the neonicotinoid insecticides. Although I’m glad that folks are concerned about the bees, the fact is that that claim is not accurate.”
His “objective analysis” is more nuanced than the former release. He looks at two reasons the neonicotinoids are generally effective and less toxic. These include their more targeted use, being systemic, and the fact that their toxicity for many non-targeted organisms, including humans, is much less problematic than previous pesticides. These include the so-called “dirty dozen” persistent organic pollutants, which include some extremely highly toxic chemicals, many classed as organophosphates .
Unfortunately, these benefits come with major downsides, including extremely toxicity to insects in general and at the same time directly targeting those that interact with plants in a number of ways, particularly pollinators like honey bees.
Mr. Oliver concludes that neonics (abbreviation for “neonicotinoids”) are “ideally applied as seed treatments, where the amount per seed can be carefully controlled, so that by the time that a plant produces nectar and pollen, the residues are too diluted to harm pollinators. Unfortunately some serious incidents of inadvertent bee kills when the seed coating rubbed off in pneumatic seed planters occurred. Although this issue has now been resolved, according to Mr. Oliver, the question of neonic residues in nectar and pollen has not been resolved.
“In general, the residues in the nectar and pollen of properly-treated agricultural crops (typically less than 3 ppb) do not appear to cause significant adverse effects on honey bee colonies. I’ve personally visited beekeepers in corn, soy and canola growing areas, and they report that with the introduction of Bt genetically-engineered crops and the use of neonic seed treatments, that the pesticide issues that they suffered from in the 1960s and ‘70s have largely gone away.”
That said, he continues “ insecticides by definition are designed to kill insects. No insecticide is environmentally harmless, and as we learn more about unintended effects, our regulators must revise the approved allowable applications. We have now found that the honey bee colony is a special case, and it is able to ‘buffer’ the sublethal effects of the neonics on the colony. Despite clear adverse effects on individual workers, the net result to the colony is generally minimal.”
Unfortunately, he writes, “although properly-applied neonics appear to generally cause minimal measurable adverse effects on honey bee colonies, they may have more deleterious effects upon bumblebees and solitary native bees. This is a serious concern, of which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is well aware. Another concern is that especially with the widespread prophylactic use of neonic seed treatment, more and more residues are ending up at agricultural field margins and in aquatic ecosystems. Certain uncultivated plants in the field margins concentrate neonic residues in their nectar and/or pollen. For example, a study in Saskatchewan found residues up to 20 ppb in some flowers — enough to start causing problems in bee hives (serious problems occur at 50 ppb), and strong adverse effects upon some native pollinators. These unintended effects upon native pollinators and aquatic invertebrates need to be addressed, and the universal use of treated seed should be restricted.”
Although agricultural deployment of neonics can be regulated, other uses such as nurseries and home-owners are more difficult to contend with. No insecticide is harmless, Mr. Oliver says, “All of agriculture should shift towards integrated pest management practices to reduce reliance upon pesticides. California is the most proactive state in the Nation as far as safe pesticide use. The ag community and chemical companies have gotten the message loud and clear that the consumer wants them to reduce pesticide use and develop more eco-friendly pesticides — both of which they are doing.” A recent release May 25, 2019 says the EPA has indeed now canceled registration for 12 neonicotinoids.
Finally, he says the best future will be the adoption of agroecology, which goes beyond “certified organic.” The field of agroecology is “based upon biology, soil improvement and sustainability, rather than arbitrary rules that exclude precision breeding and environmentally-friendly synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and practices. Keep in mind that it is the consumer who can affect the most rapid change — even the largest agribusinesses respond immediately to consumer demand.”
A report in the March 2018 Alberta Bee News about the Western College Veterinary Medicine (WCVM) program concludes that “bees need veterinarians too.” This group is also looking at the interface between agriculture and ecology, hoping to characterize the possible physiological effects that chemicals such as neonicotinoids might be having on honey bees. The health of of the bee population is “undeniably at risk,” the group reports, and it “may be that neonicotinoids” are partially to blame.
A Bee-L posting by Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk discusses some historical aspects of neonicotinoids.
Re: Comparisons between neonicotinoids and other alternatives
From: Jerry Bromenshenk <[log in to unmask]>
Bill Hesbach: “If one is interested in some perspective on past US alternatives to neonicotinoids, it’s worthwhile to get a copy of book Pollinator Protection by Johanson and Mayer.”
Bill provided a URL to a copy of the out-of-print original book. Larry Conner at Wicwas re-issued the book so we could use it in our Journeyman Online Classes – it’s a required book. The text is by J and M, the tables giving LD and RT values for every pesticide tested up through the 90s includes the work of Larry Atkins. The new, reprint (still retains all of the original’s text, charts, tables – just has a new cover) is available at: http://wicwas.com/project/pollinator-protection-32-00/
This book provides the history of pesticides in USA by the three people who were formative in terms of establishing the testing protocols used to this day by EPA and in terms of testing and ranking for hazard just about every pesticide used in the US during their careers. Unfortunately, Dan is the only one still with us.
Louisa Hoovens, Ramish Sagili, Erik Johansen (Carl’s son) updated Larry’s data with information for the more recent pesticides in an Oregon State Extension Brochure, How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides:
OSU also makes this available as a Smart Phone App in iOs and Android versions. It’s free and every beekeeper and grower should have a copy. One note, the OSU Brochure/App updates the old Riverside Extension Brochures of Atkins – in a similar style and format.
The Johansen and Mayer book provides the history, the background, explains testing protocols, and puts the information together in a readable manner that emphasizes application of their life-long experience into the context of protecting pollinators – not just pesticide toxicity and residue rankings but also basic information of apiary locations, pesticide drift, effects of weather, etc.
Get the book and the brochure and you’ve got the ability to make the comparisons that have been requested.
When we started our classes, the J&M book was out-of-press. Larry was able to find the original and re-print it. We get some comments about it being an old book. But it’s all based on testing for pesticide registration – the data and information never goes out of date. It has a dated look – all black and white, but it is what it is – a gold mine of information, all in one place. The good news is that we get reports of class members buying copies to give to their local bee associations, new beekeepers, and many give them to growers. This information is further referenced in an October 2018 article in Bee Culture magazine concerning the history of testing honey bees for pesticide toxicity.
There are the other effects of neonicotinoids we continue to learn about as noted in the abstracts of the
Proceedings of the 2018 American Bee Research Conference
4. Honey bee food glands can be affected by neonicotinoids
Selina Bruckner1,2,3, Lars Straub2,4, Laura Villamar-Bouza2,3, Peter Neumann2,4, Geoffrey R. Williams1,2,4.
1Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. 2Institute of Bee Health, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy. 4Swiss Bee Research Center, Agroscope, Bern, Switzerland.
Hypopharyngeal glands (HPGs) of mature worker honey bees (Apis mellifera) are responsible for the production of royal jelly that is used to feed developing individuals. Neonicotinoids, systemic insecticides widely used for insect management, are suggested to negatively affect HPGs. However, it is unknown how timing of exposure affects HPG development. Based on previous literature, we hypothesized that field realistic concentrations of neonicotinoids would negatively affect HPGs, and that negative effects on individuals both developing (i.e., eggs, larvae, pupae) and residing (i.e., adults) during pesticide exposure would be strongest.
To test our hypotheses, we employed a cross-foster experimental design. Fourteen queenright colonies were randomly allocated to either control or neonicotinoid treatment groups. For 49 days, a pollen paste was fed to the colonies used to rear experimental workers; the pollen paste fed to the neonicotinoid group was spiked with 4.9 ppb thiamethoxam and 2.1 ppb clothianidin. At adult emergence, half of the experimental workers from each colony were transferred to another colony within the same treatment (Control to Control or Neonicotinoid to Neonicotinoid), and half to another colony of the opposite treatment (Control to Neonicotinoid or Neonicotinoid to Control). Experimental workers were recaptured 8 days post-emergence, the typical age of nursing, for HPG examination (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Example of measurement of an acinus to determine the effect of neonicotinoid exposure on hypopharyngeal gland development.
We found that size of HPGs was negatively affected by neonicotinoids. Moreover, individuals both developing and residing (Neonicotinoid/Neonicotinoid) under insecticide exposure exhibited the smallest HPGs. These data suggest that impaired HPG development due to exposure to field-realistic concentrations of neonicotinoids may be an important risk factor for honey bee health. Considering the importance of HPGs to colony development and queen health, pesticide risk assessment schemes should consider HPG quality in the future.
It turns out, neonicotinoids are just one of the materials currently being examined within the context of both environmental impact, as well as effects on specific insects, such as the honey bee. The genetic literacy project looks at pesticides and honey bee losses in this context in some detail.
An ABJ Extra also looks at pesticides in general:
Commercial Pesticides: Not as Safe as They Seem
Lack of information on the effects of all pesticide ingredients makes them appear safer than they are — potentially causing serious harm to people and the environment. New regulations are needed to protect people and the environment from toxic pesticide ingredients that are not currently subject to safety assessments.
This is the conclusion of the first comprehensive review of gaps in risk assessments for “adjuvants” – ingredients added to pesticide formulations to enhance the function or application of the active ingredient.
Ignoring the potential dangers of other ingredients in commonly used commercial pesticides leads to inaccuracies in the safety profile of the pesticide solution, as well as confusion in scientific literature on pesticide effects, finds the review published in Frontiers in Public Health. “Exposure to environmental levels of some of these adjuvant mixtures can affect non-target organisms — and even can cause chronic human disease,” says Dr. Robin Mesnage from King’s College London, who co-wrote the review with Dr. Michael Antoniou. “Despite this, adjuvants are not currently subject to an acceptable daily intake and are not included in the health risk assessment of dietary exposures to pesticide residues.”
Pesticides are a mixture of chemicals made up of an active ingredient – the substance that kills or repels a pest – along with a mixture of other ingredients that help with the application or function of the active ingredient. These other ingredients are known as adjuvants, and include dyes, anti-foaming agents and surfactants.
Regulatory tests for pesticide safety are currently only done on the active ingredient, which assumes the other ingredients have no effects. This means the full toxicity of a pesticide formulation — including those used in both agriculture and domestic gardens — is not shown.
“Currently, the health risk assessment of pesticides in the European Union and in the United States focuses almost exclusively on the active ingredient,” explains Dr. Mesnage. “Despite the known toxicity of adjuvants, they are regulated differently from active principles, with their toxic effects being generally ignored.”
Based on a review of current pesticide literature, the authors describe how unregulated chemicals present in commercial formulations of pesticides could provide a missing link between pesticide exposure and observed negative outcomes. The researchers focused on glyphosate-based herbicides, the most used pesticide worldwide.
They point out that this weed killer has so many different adjuvant formulations that a safety test of one weed killer does not test the safety of another. “Studies comparing the toxicity of commercial weed-killer formulations to that of glyphosate alone have shown that several formulations are up to 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on human cells.
We believe that the adjuvants are responsible for this additional toxic effect,” says Dr. Mesnage. The authors also highlight neonicotinoid insecticides — strongly suspected to be involved in the collapsing of bee colonies — as another example of adjuvant toxicity affecting non-target organisms. An adjuvant used in these insecticides to increase the penetration of the active ingredient has been shown to cause varying toxic effects in bees.
On top of this, residues of the toxin have also been found in honey, pollen and beeswax produced by contaminated bees. The authors hope their review will stimulate discussion on the toxicity of commonly used pesticides and encourage more thorough regulations.
“Testing of whole pesticide formulations instead of just active ingredients alone would create a precautionary approach, ensuring that the guidance value for the pesticide is valid for the worst-case exposure scenario,” says Dr. Mesnage. Their findings have already had a considerable impact. The European Food Safety Authority is now reassessing the validity of pesticide risk assessment in the EU, and authors hope that this reassessment can extend to entire commercial formulations of pesticides and their other ingredients. Not the previous reference to the EFSA stance on neonicotinoids.Part of the problem in many of the conversations that currently exist concern asking the right question.
In conclusion, it seems that every discussion concludes that on some level are all pesticides bad for the environment? Perhaps, but another question needs to be answered as well. Should agriculture practice be abandoned in favor of no chemical inputs?
And then there’s the issue of honey bees as an “agricultural activity,” as opposed to their importance in conserving “biodiversity.” As a Bee Culture Catch the Buzz concludes: “Both wild and cultivated pollinators are afflicted by pesticides such as neonicotinoids, as well as other anthropogenic effects – from loss of hedgerows to climate change – which drive the much-publicized die-offs among farmed bees and the decline in wild pollinator species over the last few decades. Honey bees may be necessary for crop pollination, but beekeeping is an agrarian activity that should not be confused with wildlife conservation.”
The Risk Monger has his own take on the neonicotinoid debate calling it a A Failure in European Leadership
His conclusion: “After five years of writing on this, around two dozen blogs and several threatened lawsuits, I once again am feeling rather lonely in Brussels. For the second time in six months, I find myself apologising to European farmers even though I am not in any official channel representing them. People have a right to be furious.
But I am not angry at the expedient cowards in official positions. I understand how the activists are biased to the point of feeling they can justify their lies and cherry-picking. I get that there are many under-employed and unappreciated scientists who were attracted to the attention and money from the NGO anti-pesticide community. I have long given up on the organic food industry lobby ever adopting or following an ethical code of conduct. I am not surprised by any of the bullshit these groups can claim responsibility for.
What surprises and disappoints me is how the food manufacturing industry sat back and did nothing as the farmers who supply them got strangled by the naturopathic cult machinery. The big food companies depend on a reliable supply of agricultural yield to produce the food Europe is famous for and yet, to my knowledge, not one of them stuck their neck out to defend farmers and the tools they need. The word “neonicotinoid” did not appear once on the FoodDrinkEurope website nor among their main members.
Perhaps the food industry doesn’t think the plight of European farmers is important. If costs go up, so will their margins. If European farmers can no longer farm, will Nestlé and Danone simply import more food from another continent? Were they so afraid of how a small band of activist zealots might activate a twitter storm on their brand pages that they decided to step back and pretend that evidence did not matter? Would they rather sell unsustainable food than try to educate European consumers on the science behind reliable crop technologies? In their hunger for higher organic margins, are food manufacturers willing to see those less fortunate go hungry?
These are the real cowards … and they’re disgraceful!
As the European neonic saga closes, the real victim is leadership. Europe has made failure its objective, cowardice its political virtue and ignorance its culture. With the recent cancellations of 12 neonicotinioids on May 25, 2019 it now appears that the U.S. EPA is following the European example.
