Neonicotinoids: Trying To Make Sense of the Science

[Dan]

As a subscriber to American Bee Journal, I follow Randy Oliver's column with interest; indeed it is often the first part of the magazine to be read. I like the way he tries to take the pulse of beekeeping experience, and unearth the science behind it, or indeed vice versa. His articles are reproduced for free on his website shortly after print publication.

His recent two-part series entitled Neonicotinoids: Trying To Make Sense of the Science is well worth reading. I would say it is the most even-handed review of the topic I have seen, and of direct relevance since it is written by beekeepers for beekeepers.

Perhaps the most important comment comes late in the 2nd article, after he has reviewed the scientific consensus and the practical experiences of beekeepers (original emphasis retained, with apologies to Gavin):

The Absence of any “Smoking Gun”

If neonics were actually causing colony mortality, it should be child’s play to demonstrate—just feed a colony syrup or pollen spiked with the insecticide and see how long it takes to kill it. The fact is, that try as they might, no research team has ever been able to induce colony mortality by exposing the bees to field-relevant doses of any neonicotinoid (although one can get a significant kill from corn planting dust). Nor has any investigation ever been able to link neonic residues in the hive to colony mortality. Every claim that neonics are causing serious bee mortality is unsupported supposition, not backed by any concrete evidence.

Neonicotinoids: Trying To Make Sense of the Science

Neonicotinoids: Trying To Make Sense of the Science - Part 2

Can I please recommend that those interested take the time to read and digest what is quite a lengthy pair of articles, and some of the referenced materials, however stimulating you may find the summary quoted above

Enjoy!

[Jon]

Here's another review paper by Blacquière et al which takes a good run through the published literature.

[gavin]

Perhaps the most important comment comes late in the 2nd article, after he has reviewed the scientific consensus and the practical experiences of beekeepers (original emphasis retained, with apologies to Gavin):

I'm starting to appreciate a little bolding and italicising.

Thanks Dan. These are crucial papers and should be read by all beekeepers, whether or not you are turned off by the anti-pesticide campaigning and the unpleasantness on the bee fora.

[Neils]

Both articles are a very interesting read. Randy Oliver again seems to provides a decent summary and useful Layman's context into some of the findings and apparent contradictions. I dare say it'll do nothing to influence anyone whose mind is already made up, one way or another, but for the rest of us I reckon it's well worth a read.

[chris]

I found the articles interesting and helpful. I am now trying to find the concentration necessary to read Jon's suggested summary. The problem for someone like me, who has no scientific training, is to understand the papers without spending a second lifetime on them. In the end, it's a question of faith, of believing one scientist's overall assessment rather than another's. Why believe Randy Oliver rather than Stromnessbee? Ahem.
I find the answer comes from trying to fit what is said into my own experience, however limited that may be. During many years I did a lot of volunteer work for Greenpeace, so I already had a certain leaning towards knowing who was the culprit in the various "pesticide incidents" before they even happened. And then I looked at the little I did know, about what was happening around me. I tried to square what the pesticide banners were proclaiming with the few facts of my experience. That is when I found that misinformation was going round in spirals. The little I do know fits in with what Randy Oliver says.
Does that make me a supporter of pesticides?
For me the question is simple: should a chemical be put on the market before we know of all its potential dangers, or should we wait the number of years necessary for research to prove its *innocence* ? But then, nothing is completely harmful or totally beneficial, so the answer is not simple.

[Dan]

Chris - I have great sympathy with your position. I have frequently been denounced as "pro-pesticide" for questioning some of the more extreme or baseless assertions that get posted, and for suggesting that beekeeping is being mis-used by those with an environmental agenda. Eventually I realised that I was neither pro-pesticide nor ant-pesticide, but anti-anti. I find it hard to sit back and watch beekeeping press, fora, and such like being used by a small element to gain disproportionate publicity for a cause which is invariably negative, emotive, and which does not appear to withstand serious scrutiny. The issues involved are far too complex to trivialise into a black-and-white question.

I do not claim that Randy Oliver's articles prove that neonics are safe, but neither can anyone claim they prove that they are harmful. It is a readable and apparently well researched assessment by a beekeeper, which ultimately echoes the cautions and questions raised by the body of literature he reviews. Along the way, I think Mr. Oliver covers some important and thought-provoking points of direct relevance to beekeepers.

[Neils]

Dan, out of interest, how much debate is there over this within the Bee Farmers Association?

I'd be very interested to get a feel for how much debate there is in the NFU as well. My suspicion is that in comparison to places like here, the Bbka forum, beekeeping forum and, dare I invoke their name, biobees that it's relatively quiet.

As I've mentioned elsewhere I'm a member of numerous wildlife and environmental charities and organisations and this "debate" is non existent outside of hobbyist beekeeping.

[gavin]

I've spoken to four Scottish bee farmers about this. None have the time or inclination to study the topic in detail but all volunteer that there seems to be nothing the matter with the OSR their bees visit. A couple did express disquiet that they were asked recently if they had data to back up a small data set from hobbyists that seemed to show higher winter losses when exposed to rape, and that the questioner lost interest when they said that their bees were fine with it.

Sent from my BlackBerry 8520 using Tapatalk

[Neils]

Rather than bump the other thread relating to the harvard study, this one seems somewhat less heated, stumbled across this paper tonight:

Are agrochemicals present in High Fructose Corn Syrup fed to honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)?

[Jon]

Spoilsport. Have you lost your sense of conspiracy. The men in black probably switched the HFCS samples on advice from Lance Armstrong.

This was one of about 27 fundamental errors in the Harvard study carried out by Dr Who, ie there is no Imidacloprid in commercially supplied HFCS.
In the study they added it at low concentrations in PPB and then half way through at massive concentrations in terms of PPB to get a good clean bee kill and be able to shout CCD. I noticed that this study was cited in at least two of the submissions to parliament in the link I posted earlier today. Sad.