Widely used insecticides damage the survival of honeybee colonies, the world’s largest ever field trial has shown for the first time, as well as harming wild bees.
The farm-based research, along with a second new study, also suggests widespread contamination of entire landscapes and a toxic “cocktail effect” from multiple pesticides.
The landmark work provides the most important evidence yet for regulators around the world considering action against neonicotinoids, including in the EU where a total ban is poised to be implemented this autumn. The insecticides are currently banned on flowering crops in the bloc.
Illustration: Mountain People
The negative impacts found varied across different countries, leading pesticide manufacturers to question whether the results of the research, which they funded, were real.
The new research is published in the prestigious peer-review journal Science.
Neonicotinoids represent a quarter of the multibillion-dollar pesticide market, but have been repeatedly linked to serious harm in bees in lab-based studies.
Bees and other pollinators are vital to food production, but are in decline, in part due to loss of habitats and disease.
However, there had been few realistic field studies to date to address the role of the insecticides and only occasional evidence for colony-level harm in wild bees.
The new research took place at 33 large farmland sites spread across the UK, Germany and Hungary. Honeybees, bumblebees and solitary bees living by insecticide-treated fields of oil seed rape were compared with those in fields where insecticides were not used in the year of the study.
The survival of honeybee colonies was reduced by exposure to the insecticides in the UK and Hungary, but not in Germany, where the bees foraged far less on oil seed rape and had lower levels of disease. The reproductive success of the wild bees was cut as the insecticide exposure increased in all three countries.
“We showed significant negative effects at critical life cycle stages,” said Richard Pywell, from the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and part of the research team. “If the bees are foraging a lot on oil seed rape, they are clearly at risk. This is a large and important piece of evidence, but it is not the only evidence regulators will look at.”
Scientists not involved in the research backed the conclusions.
“Together, the two studies make strong contributions to the growing scientific consensus about the harms of neonicotinoid pesticides to bees,” University of California San Diego professor James Nieh said.
Addressing the differences between countries, University of Ottawa professor Jeremy Kerr said: “Neonicotinoid applications are a kind of reproductive roulette for bees. Depending on local environmental characteristics, they can materially reduce survival prospects.”
The US$3 million cost of the research was met by Syngenta and Bayer, the companies that sell the two neonicotinoids tested, as part of a voluntary commitment to increase the available field data. However, the companies were not involved in the designing, conducting or reporting of the study.
The study found that the bees in Germany got just 15 percent of their food from the oil seed rape fields, compared with 40 to 50 percent in the UK and Hungary.
“Clearly the bees in Germany are feeding on other flower resources in the landscape and are less exposed to neonics,” Pywell said.
The scientists also discovered that the wild bees were exposed to a neonicotinoid that was not even used in the trial and concluded the harm caused may result from “persistent residues in arable systems due to their widespread and often very frequent use.”
However, both Bayer and Syngenta expressed doubt about the “simplistic” interpretation of complex and “inconsistent” results.
“We do not share CEH’s interpretation and remain confident that neonicotinoids are safe when used responsibly,” said Richard Schmuck, director of environmental safety at Bayer CropScience.
“The negative and positive results reported by CEH could easily be random, ie not real,” said Peter Campbell, from Syngenta.
He added that even taking the results at face value “demonstrates that neonics can be used safely or even with benefit to bees under certain circumstances, such as reported in Germany.”
Defending the study, Pywell said: “We stand by our peer-reviewed paper. We undertook the statistical analysis and reported the findings as we saw them and those are underpinned by the data. We are absolutely independent.”
The second new study published in Science carried out on corn farms in Canada also found crops were not the main source of neonicotinoids to which bees were exposed. Instead, the contaminated pollen came from wildflowers, as has been shown recently in the UK.
“This indicates that neonicotinoids, which are water soluble, spill over from fields into the surrounding environment, where they are taken up by other plants that are very attractive to bees,” said Nadia Tsvetkov, an associate professor of biology at York University in Canada and who led the research.
“The detection of the potential long-term persistence of neonicotinoids in the soil by both studies raises the specter of a reprise of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,” said Robert Paxton, a professor at Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg in Germany.
The Canadian research also found that the presence of realistic levels of a fungicide made the neonicotinoids twice as toxic to bees.
“The effect of neonicotinoids on honey bees quickly turns from bad to worse when you add the fungicide boscalid to the mix,” said Valerie Fournier, a professor at Laval University in Canada who was part of the team.
Pesticides are not tested in combination by regulators and “this study shows that mixtures matter,” Kerr said.
Environmental campaigners said the new research exposed the full impact of neonicotinoids.
“The horror story is clear: We have contaminated our land and water with persistent neonicotinoid pesticides,” said Matt Shardlow, chief executive of the British charity Buglife.
“This major study marks a watershed moment in the fight to protect our bees [and] fills a crucial gap in our scientific understanding,” Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist Doug Parr said. “The case for a permanent ban on these pesticides is now unassailable, and our politicians will have to take action.”
However, Guy Smith, from the National Farmers Union in Britain, said neonicotinoids were important in protecting crops and producing food.
“We strongly believe that policy decisions — such as restricting the use of neonicotinoids — must be based on sound science which gives strong evidence, and while this CEH study provides more useful information, we still don’t have that definitive evidence for the impact of neonicotinoids,” Smith said.
“In the light of these new studies, continuing to claim that use of neonicotinoids in farming does not harm bees is no longer a tenable position,” said David Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex.
“In my view we should also consider the bigger picture; the current model of farming based on huge monocultures treated with dozens of pesticides is causing devastating environmental harm, undermining vital ecosystem services that keep us all alive,” Goulson said.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath