Bees may become addicted to nicotine-like pesticides in the same way humans get hooked on cigarettes, according to a new study, which was released as a landmark field trial provided further evidence that such neonicotinoids harm bee populations.
In a study published in the journal Nature, scientists from Newcastle University in England showed that bees have a preference for sugar solutions that are laced with the pesticides imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, possibly indicating they can become hooked on the chemicals.
Also published in Nature on Wednesday was a study that has been endorsed as the most conclusive evidence yet that the group of pesticides, neonicotinoids, harm wild bee populations, which include bumblebees and solitary bees.
Scientists from Lund University in Sweden carried out the first successful “real world” experiment on the effect of neonicotinoids on bees and found that wild bee populations halved around fields treated with them. Bumblebee hives stopped growing and produced less queens where the chemical was present. However, the study did not find evidence that more robust honeybees, which are used to pollinate many crops, were affected.
Maj Rundlof, the lead author of the study, said the impacts on wild bees were “dramatic.”
“I think it’s really important evidence when discussing how neonicotinoids used in real agricultural landscapes influence bees,” she said.
Sussex University bee expert Dave Goulson, who was not involved in the research, hailed the findings as 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 said.
He said the paper 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.”
Previous field experiments on neonicotinoids have been shown to be inadequate. The current EU moratorium on the use of a group of neonicotinoids on certain crops has been criticized, particularly by the UK government, on the basis that field evidence of neonicotinoids harming bee populations has been difficult to obtain.
Nick von Westenholz, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association that represents neonicotinoid producers Bayer and Syngenta, said: “The latest studies in Nature must be seen in the context of an ongoing campaign to discredit neonicotinoid pesticides, regardless of what the real evidence shows.”
He said Rundlof’s results were questionable as the levels of the pesticide found in pollen on the bees was higher than in previous studies, suggesting that Rundlof had treated the crops herself rather than using industry-standard seeds.
Rundlof said the rapeseed in the study were treated following the manufacturers’ recommendations.
“Bayer CropScience is pleased the Swedish study demonstrates yet again there is no effect of neonicotinoids on honeybee colonies in realistic field conditions, consistent with previous published field studies,” a spokesman for the agrochemical giant said.
However, it criticized the methodology of Rundlof’s experiment and said the study offered no proof of increased bee deaths.
Rundlof said the field trial was not sensitive enough to detect anything less than a 20 percent drop in colony strength. Honeybee colonies are larger and contain far more worker bees than wild bees, meaning it would take longer for neonicotinoids to impact the hives.
Christopher Connolly, from the Medical Research Institute at Dundee University, said: “Much longer periods would be required to detect deficits in honeybee colonies.”
He said the evidence of the effect on bumblebees was a “major advance.”
In the other study published on Wednesday, a team at Newcastle University discovered bees cannot detect the presence of neonicotinoids at low levels. In fact for two varieties of pesticide they tended to prefer toxin-laced sucrose.
Scientists suggested that the chemicals, which have a similar molecular structure to nicotine, may be affecting the reward centers in the bees’ brains in the same way humans are affected by cigarettes.
Geraldine Wright, who led the study, said that the addictive effect was not something they had tested for and was only a hypothesis.
“Like nicotine, they are essentially amplifying the rewarding properties of the sucrose solution that they are located in and the bees think it’s more rewarding so they go back to that food tube to drink more of it,” she said.
Previous studies have showed rats’ brains responding to neonicotinoid in this way.
Wright said she was confident the evidence that bees cannot taste neonicotinoids would be replicated in the field. This contradicts previous suggestions, again from the UK government among others, that bees can choose to collect pollen from non-treated plants.
“It will be interesting to see if insects become addicted to neonicotinoids over time as humans become addicted to nicotine. Given that the neonicotinoids are commonly found in our farmed environment at these levels, this may have already occurred,” Connolly said.
The pesticide industry said that even if there was a preference, there was no effect on the bees’ health.
“What’s important is not whether bees show a slight preference for these crops, but that there is no effect on their health when field-realistic amounts of these pesticides are used,” Von Westenholz said.
Goulson said that even before the new studies were published, “there was already a large body of evidence which very strongly suggested that exposure of bees to neonicotinoids at field-realistic doses did them substantial harm.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers