Save the Bees: The Negative Effects of Pesticides on Bee Populations
The argument concerning whether a ban should be placed on pesticides has been a source of contention since the publishing of Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking book Silent Spring in 1962. In her book, Carson (1962) highlights the dangers of pesticide use by describing the effects of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) on birds of prey, including peregrine falcons, osprey, and bald eagles. DDT has since been banned, but many pesticides are still being used today. Proponents for banning pesticides acknowledge that while they may present a short-term solution to issues such as insect infestations, the long-term effects of pesticide exposure cannot be ignored. On the other hand, those in favor of pesticide use argue that the benefits often outweigh the risks, as pesticides are responsible for maximizing crop yields while also reducing the risk of disease in humans and livestock. Within the last 20 years, beekeepers have begun to witness record losses in their bee populations. The phenomenon is known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), and beekeepers affected by CCD have reported losses as high as 50–90%, sometimes within a matter of weeks (Ellis, 2016). Research has pointed to pesticide usage, specifically Neonicotinoids (neonics), as a potential cause of CCD. According to the study, Neonicotinoids are used in agriculture to kill pests such as aphids and grubs but are indirectly impacting bees (Claydon, 2017). Bees are responsible for pollinating most of the World’s crops; therefore, many are advocating for the ban of neonics. However, the opposing side argues that the research naming neonics as the culprit of sudden bee deaths is weak and that neonics are safe for use. Also, government entities like The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are concerned about the negative impact a pesticide ban would have on disease control. Besides, the economic impact on farmers due to a loss in crop yields resulting from a pesticide ban would be costly. While there would be an initial cost to explore alternative methods, continuing to expose key pollinators to harmful pesticides should not continue. Therefore, Neonicotinoids should not be used due to their adverse effects on bees. Instead, alternatives such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) should be utilized.
Literature Review
To better understand the controversy concerning Neonicotinoids use and its effects on bee populations, it is necessary to review the origins of pesticide usage. Besides, this review will carefully examine pollination and the role of the bee in that process. The study will continue by more closely examining the phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CDD) and its potential impact on the environment. Finally, the literature review will explore the opposing sides of the controversy surrounding Neonicotinoids use, beginning with arguments in favours of banning its use and favouring alternative methods such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Then, the position of those against the banning of Neonicotinoids, or the con side.
The Origins of Pesticides
The concerns surrounding chemical pesticide use have been discussed for several decades. According to (Sheldon, Pinion, Klyza, & Anne Marie Zimeri, 2019), it was the discovery of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) in the 1930s that allowed modern agriculture to grow into what it is today. At that time, DDT was cheap to manufacture and known only to be toxic to insects. Therefore, DDT was used to eliminate insects from crops, to delouse prisoners and military personnel, and to control mosquitos (Katsoudas & Abdelmesseh, 2000). Within a few decades, scientists began to observe a decline in many species of carnivorous birds. Research led them to the presence of concentrated DDT in the food chain, which indirectly impacted the reproductive cycles of birds of prey (Sheldon, Pinion, Klyza, & Anne Marie Zimeri, 2019). Due to this discovery, various government entities have stepped in and imposed regulations to either ban them, in the case of DDT, or control their usage (“Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides,” 2013). Despite the recognized hazardous effects of these chemicals, many pesticides are still being used today.
Pollination and Colony Collapse Disorder
Pollination is the process of sexual reproduction for all higher plant forms, including flowers, herbs, bushes, grass, and most trees (Blanchfield, 2011b). Mainly, pollination is the process of moving pollen (male sex cells) to the pistil (female reproductive organ) of a plant of the same species to form a seed in which a new plant will grow (Blanchfield, 2011b). Pollination occurs by either abiotic means, such as by air or water, or through biotic means by being transferred with the assistance of another organism. Bees are considered to be the most effective biotic pollinator and, therefore, are critical to the process of pollination. This is due to the species’ social nature, high demand for food, and its ability to remember specific plants (Blanchfield, 2011b). It has been estimated that “of the 100 crops responsible for producing the majority of the earth’s food, 71 of them are pollinated by bees” (Ellis, 2016). Therefore, the bee is considered a key pollinator and is integral to the process of pollination. Within the last 20 years, beekeepers have noticed a dramatic reduction in the population of bees in their hives. Scientists have named this phenomenon “Colony Collapse Disorder,” also known as CCD. Colony Collapse Disorder is when a colony of bees abandons their pack while leaving their brood or larvae, behind (Watanabe, 2009). The rapid decline of bee populations due to CCD places a threat on the process of pollination and the success of many of the World’s crops.
The Argument in Favor of Pesticide Use
Those against the banning of pesticides base their reasoning on economics and public health concerns. According to the (US EPA, OCSPP, 2019), there are too many significant health problems that are caused by pests to discontinue the use of pesticides altogether. Some examples of these public health concerns include asthma and allergies, Avian Flu, and vector-borne illnesses such as West Nile Virus (US EPA, OCSPP, 2018). A paper published by Whitford et al. (2006) from Purdue also presents persuasive examples that support the argument for pesticide usage. Pesticides are utilized in many advantageous ways that often go unnoticed by the public. For example, pesticides are used to control vegetation along highways to allow for visibility and safe passage. They are also incorporated into many household products such as paints and caulks to prevent the growth of mould in our homes (Whitford et al., 2006). Concerning CCD, proponents of pesticide use say that there is not enough research currently available to determine that pesticides are the sole cause of CCD. Research concerning the sudden decline in bee populations has pointed at a combination of factors that result in CCD, including habitat loss, global warming, and parasites such as the Varroa mite (Kaplan, 2012). Ultimately, those who support the use of pesticides argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are concerns that a complete ban on pesticides would present a threat to public health. Without pesticides to protect our crops and livestock, there would be a reduction in crop yields, which would lead to increased famine. Also, humans would be exposed to more diseases transmitted by insects that would have otherwise been eradicated through the use of pesticides.
The Case against Pesticides
When pesticides are used, many species that may not be the intended targets are often affected (National Research Council, 2013). This was the case with DDT and birds of prey and is also the case with Neonicotinoids (neonics) and honey bees. Contrary to the studies backed by pesticide supporters, opposing research has linked the cause of CCD to the use of neonics. Neonics are toxic to bees and can alter their behaviour, ultimately making it difficult for them to find food (Hopwood et al., 2016). In place of pesticides, parties, including beekeepers and environmentalists, are asking that alternative pest management systems be utilized. Integrated Pest Management or (IPM) is the idea of providing the best level of pest management without negatively impacting human health or the environment (Blanchfield, 2011a). It is believed that using environmentally-friendly alternatives to pesticides such as IPM will protect keystone species and pose less harm to the ecosystem.
While the debate on the use of pesticides is ongoing, it is clear that both sides have concerns surrounding public health. Those for the continued use of Neonicotinoids either believe that they are the most effective way to kill pests that damage crops and cause disease. Therefore, they are monetarily invested in the increased crop production afforded through their continued usage. For those calling for a ban on neonics, the projected outcome of the extinction of beneficial species such as the honey bee is of more profound concern. To reach a middle ground, they propose that alternative pest management systems be utilized. By using alternatives methods such as IPM in place of Neonicotinoids, the risks of indirectly harming beneficial species and the ecosystem dramatically decrease. Therefore, the use of neonics should be banned, and alternative pest management systems should be implemented.
Save the Bees: My Argument against the Use of Neonicotinoids
Neonicotinoids have a sub-lethal effect on the target subject. The continuous use of Neonicotinoids has a lethal sub effect, especially on unintended species. Most pesticides are applied to the surface of a plant, and so are Neonicotinoids. However, the pesticide works systemically by affecting all parts of the plant, including the pollen and nectar. (Goulson, 2013). The aftermath of spraying Neonicotinoids in the pollen and nectar affect bees and other pollinators such as moths and butterflies. The animals are continuously exposed to the toxin each time they feed (Bonmatin et al., 2014). While an initial exposure may not be directly threatening, small doses over an entire lifespan compound, the dangers to any given species. According to research by Hopwood et al. (2016), when bees are exposed to Neonicotinoids, it can affect their ability to forage and return home to their hives. When a bee cannot return home, it cannot bring food back to the colony, resulting in colony collapse, or CCD. As a critical pollinator responsible for pollinating the majority of the World’s crops, the implications of a mass die-off of bees would have a drastic effect on the food chain (Ellis, 2016). While neonics often impact unintended species, they also have an equally adverse impact on the ecosystem.
These pesticides affect the whole ecosystem. Due to their tendency to accumulate in the soils and contaminating water sources, Neonicotinoids not only have a detrimental effect on beneficial species such as the bees, but they also affect the entire ecosystem. Research by Dave Goulson (2013) has indicated that the majority of the active ingredient in neonics persists in the soil, with the half-life lasting for as long as 1,000 days. The chemicals tend to accumulate when the substances are used repeatedly. This persistence in the soil concentrates the amount of toxin, making it more harmful to the environment.
Neonicotinoids use in seed treatment first became popular after surveys indicating they would have a less environmental impact (Hopwood et al., 2016). However, Neonicotinoids are also water-soluble, having the ability to move freely through the soil into surface water and, in some cases, groundwater (Goulson, 2013). This water solubility and soil persistence exposes multiple organisms to the toxin, and even allows for the uptake of the pesticide in unintended plants. Rather than continue to tell non-target species and the environment to toxic neonics, it would be more beneficial to utilize alternative pest management systems.
Substitute methods of spray application may help mitigate hazardous effects. The use of alternative methods such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides a safer, more environmentally friendly approach to pest management. The main principle of IPM is to provide the best possible pest control without causing damage to human health and the environment (Blanchfield, 2011a). The issue with Neonicotinoids is that the seeds are often dressed with the pesticide when the targeted pest is not present (Hopwood et al., 2016). The application of effective measures causes needless exposure to non-target plants and animals. IPM incorporates several methods to reduce pests, starting with identifying the specific pest that is causing damage rather than chemically treating for the incorrect pest or a pest that may not be present. Another strategy of IPM is prevention by eliminating the habitat, food sources, and shelter that attracts the pest.
References
Blanchfield, D. (2011a). Environmental Encyclopedia, fourth edition volume 1 and 2. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from epdf.pub website: https://epdf.pub/environmental-encyclopedia-fourth-edition-volume-1-and-2.html
Blanchfield, D. S. (2011b). Environmental Encyclopedia, fourth edition. Retrieved November 7, 2019, from epdf.pub website: https://epdf.pub/environmental-encyclopediaee36c2c95ed203b5b81e852545f2a29991478.html
Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C., Tapparo, A. (2014). Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7
Claydon, S. (2017). About Neonicotinoids. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from Pesticide Action Network UK website: http://www.pan-uk.org/about_neonicotinoids/
Ellis, J. (2016). Colony collapse disorder (CCD) in honey bees. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in720
Goulson, D. (2013). REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), 977–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12111
Hopwood, J., Code, A., Vaughan, M., Biddinger, D., Shepherd, M., Black, S., Mazzacano, C. (2016). How neonicotinoids can kill bees. Retrieved from https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/16-022_01_XercesSoc_How-Neonicotinoids-Can-Kill-Bees_web.pdf
Kaplan, J. K. (2012). Colony collapse disorder: An incomplete puzzle. Agricultural Research, 60(6), 4–9. Retrieved from https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA302901643&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=0002161X&p=AONE&sw=w
Katsoudas, E., & Abdelmesseh, H. H. (2000). Enzyme inhibition and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methods for carbamate pesticide residue analysis in fresh produce. Journal of Food Protection, 63(12), 1758–1760.
National Research Council. (2013). Assessing risks to endangered and threatened species from pesticides (pp. 1–141). Retrieved from The National Academy Press website: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5cc2/f9af628c7ac314d1db43b6903d6d29409b26.pdf
Sarich, C. (2013, August 15). List of foods we will lose if we don’t save the bees. Retrieved from https://honeylove.org/list-of-food/
Sheldon, M., Pinion, C., Klyza, J., & Anne Marie Zimeri. (2019). Pesticide contamination in central Kentucky urban honey: A pilot study. Journal of Environmental Health, 82(1), 8–14. Retrieved from https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA594429510&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00220892&p=AONE&sw=w
US EPA, OCSPP. (2018, July 9). Introduction to Integrated Pest Management | US EPA. Retrieved from US EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management
US EPA, OCSPP. (2019, May 10). Why we use pesticides. Retrieved from US EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/why-we-use-pesticides
Watanabe, M. E. (2009). What’s new with honeybees? BioScience, 59(11), 1010–1010. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.19
Whitford, F., Pike, D., Hanger, G., Burroughs, F., Johnson, B., & Blessing, A. (2006). The benefits of pesticides: A story worth telling. (pp. 1–29). Retrieved from https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ppp/ppp-70.pdf