Plummeting bee populations across the world have mystified and worried scientists for decades, but now they believe they can be sure of at least one of the answers. Common crop pesticides have been shown for the first time to seriously harm bees by damaging their renowned ability to navigate home.
The new research strongly links the pesticides to the serious decline in honeybee numbers in the US and UK — a drop of about 50 percent in the last 25 years. The losses pose a threat to food supplies, as bees pollinate a third of the food we eat, such as tomatoes, beans, apples and strawberries.
Scientists found that bees consuming one pesticide suffered an 85 percent loss in the number of queens their nests produced, while another study showed a doubling in “disappeared” bees — those that failed to return from food foraging trips. The significance of the new work, published in the journal Science, is that it is the first carried out in realistic, open-air conditions.
“People had found pretty trivial effects in lab and greenhouse experiments, but we have shown they can translate into really big effects in the field. This has transformed our understanding,” said David Goulson, a professor at the University of Stirling, Scotland, and a leader of one of the research teams. “If it’s only 1m from where they forage in a lab to their nest, even an unwell bee can manage that.”
Mickael Henry, a professor at the National Institute for Agricultural Research in Avignon, France, who led a separate research team, said: “Under the effects we saw from the pesticides, the population size would decline disastrously, and make them even more sensitive to parasites or a lack of food.”
The reason for the huge decline in bee numbers has for many years remained uncertain, but pesticides, the varroa mite and other parasites, and destruction of the flower-rich habitats are believed to be the key reasons.
Pesticide manufacturers and the British government deny that a class of the chemicals called neonicotinoids cause significant problems for bees, but Germany, Italy and France have suspended key insecticides over such fears.
A spokesperson from Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the research did not change the government’s position.
“The UK has a robust system for assessing risks from pesticides and all the evidence shows neonicotinoids do not pose an unacceptable risk to honeybees when products are used correctly. However, we will not hesitate to act if presented with any new evidence,” the spokesperson said.
Henry said the research showed that approval processes for the pesticides were inadequate.
“We now have enough data to say authorization processes must take into account not only the lethal effects, but also the effects of non-lethal doses,” he said.
The pesticides investigated in the studies are applied to seeds and flow through the plants’ whole system. The environmental advantage of this is it reduces pesticide spraying, but chemicals end up in the nectar and pollen on which bees feed. Goulson’s group studied a type called imidacloprid, primarily manufactured by Bayer Cropscience and registered for use on more than 140 crops in 120 countries.
Bumblebees were fed the toxin at the same level found in treated rape plants and it was found that these colonies were about 10 percent smaller than those not exposed to the insecticide. Most strikingly, the exposed colonies lost almost all of their ability to produce queens, which are the only bee to survive the winter and establish new colonies.
“There was a staggering magnitude of effect,” Goulson said. “This is likely to have a substantial population-level impact.”
Julian Little, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, criticized the study because the bees were exposed to imidacloprid in the laboratory before being placed outside to feed.
“All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation,” he said. “This study does not demonstrate that current agricultural practices damage bee colonies.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with