Insecticide link to bee collapse based on flawed report?

Imidacloprid link to CCD based on bad science?
  • Although a new study claims to have established a link between imidacloprid and bee colony collapse, the symptoms observed in the study bees are not consistent with, or even remotely similar to, those of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), says Bayer CropScience.

Bayer CropScience has reviewed the study for publication in the June issue of the Bulletin of Insectology regarding imidacloprid's supposed impact on honey bee colony health. The study is factually inaccurate and is seriously flawed, both in its methodology and conclusions.

Although the study claims to have established a link between imidacloprid and bee colony collapse, the symptoms observed in the study bees are not consistent with, or even remotely similar to, those of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). As such, the authors' claims that their study explains the causes of CCD are spectacularly incorrect.     

Additionally, the authors assume erroneously that the majority of corn grown in the United States has been treated with imidacloprid. In actuality, over the past 8 years, the annual percentage of total corn acres in the U.S. treated with imidacloprid has been less than half a percent. Thus, the suggestion that imidacloprid is affecting honey bee health via residue found on corn or through corn products is also grossly inaccurate.

The study's additional flaws include the following:

• The imidacloprid concentrations selected for testing were NOT based on measured residues in high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), but on a series of implausible and unsubstantiated assumptions.

• The study bees were fed HFCS spiked with different levels of imidacloprid that were far above real-world exposure levels.

• In separate research, analysis from actual field grown corn samples, have shown no detectable imidacloprid residues in HFCS.

• The study lacked replication of test colonies within apiaries and the total number of colonies per treatment group were too few to allow a meaningful statistical analysis of colony survival.

• The authors ignored the scientific consensus that bee health is impaired by multiple factors, including inadequate diet, pests and parasites such as the varroa mite, microbial diseases, mismanaged colonies, and loss of genetic diversity.

Imidacloprid and neonicotinoid insecticides generally, remain safe and effective management tools to control a wide range of destructive insect pests. Throughout the many years that imidacloprid has been commercially available and used, there has been no credible scientific evidence demonstrating a link between this active ingredient - or other neonicotinoids - and increases in honey bee colony losses and declining honey bee colony health. This latest study is no exception.

All new bee research involving bee health is welcome and great care should be taken to avoid sweeping, unsupportable conclusions based on artificial and unrealistic study parameters that are wildly inconsistent with actual field conditions and insecticide use.

Bayer is committed to bee health and has been actively involved in finding solutions to improve honey bee health for more than 25 years. As a company dedicated to crop protection, Bayer is also committed to environmental stewardship and sustainable agricultural practices, including the protection of beneficial insects such as honey bees.

For more information on Bayer's commitment to bee health in the U.S., visit click here.

Discuss this Article 20

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

More 'the scientists are wrong' news!

Straight from the chemical companies!
Isn't that called propaganda?

Timely reliable Propaganda, courtesy of the Western Farm Press?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 11, 2012

systemic pesticides, the one like agent orange, roundup ready corn. the planting of seasonla products over large areas. my poor bees what chance do they have. we can't abuse nature, its a fragile ecosystem. honeybees. butterfliels, frogs, these are the indicator species that tell us something is wrong with the environment. Really no other species defecates in its nest other than man. and time is running out rapidly. Is there really a controversy over global distruction of the environment. not really. the only problem is corporations that are making money in the short term at the distress and aniliation of the environment. what a legacy we are leaving to our prodgeny. so sad.. so they can drive 100 K$ cars really..

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 11, 2012

You are using a few non-realistic experiments as 'PROPAGANDA' against the chemical companies, your suspected 'evil empire'. You are ignoring the simple scientific fact that CCD resembles the 'spread of disease', not the result of chemical exposure.
Those people that promote backyard honey beekeeping in the name of 'sustainability' are the real destroyers of the environment? Wikipedia states that Varroa mites ONLY reproduce in honey bee hives. Parasites spread disease. How is relying on and concentrating this single non-native insect pollinator species throughout this country not a destructive form of 'monoculture'?
Meanwhile, scientific consensus has been that our native pollinators are going 'extinct' due to the 'spread of disease'. What if honey bees, as well as native pollinators, are disappearing due to diseases spread by modern honey beekeeping techniques? Keep on trucking those bees back and forth across the country in Langstroth hives? Can't farmers provide enough surrounding open space for native insect pollinators to flourish, and quit relying on hiring honey bees from across the country? Are jars of honey, or pollination, more important for a sustainable future?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

So do any apiculturists question this rebutal? 3 peer reviwed articles are not enough? it is actually quite plausible given how neonics are so broadly used and dispursed througout the environment.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

You really need to read the actual research articles and then judge how well these studies realistically relate to real world environmental conditions.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

Since Bayer has no reason to distort the truth (oh, except for millions/billions in profits), we should probably take their word for it and stop worrying about these silly bees.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

A denial written by the creator and original maufacturer of the product? How absurd and undeniably biased could this possibly be? Also, the bees don't drink Coke, so I wonder about the validity of constatnly referring to high fructose corn syrup studies to debunk the science that identified the association between bees and Imadacloprid.

Bees that were exposed to amounts of Imadocloprid acted strangely. This study didn't address the facts but focused on several of the ancilliary conclusions drawn from the study such as the amount of corn treated with Imadocloprid or the amount of residue in HFCS.

Does Imadocloprid have a negative impact on honey bees: Science indicates yes.
Does Imadocloprid cause CCD: Science indicates that there may be a direct link. Bayer CropScience is denying the possibility and are spectacularly foolish for doing so. They must deny the science to protect the revenue stream.

Anonymouse (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

Not a single link or reference to any supporting data in this "denial" letter...

OK so based on the logic above.. If i say "your face is burning off... I think it might be the fire that is surrounding your head"....
Bayer would reply - "you fail to recognize the scientific consensus that there are many potential sources of burns. You have failed to provide an accurate measurement of the naturally occurring amount of fire on faces in an average population. In fact there is more fire present on my face than other typical faces, so clearly it is not a good example of the effect of fire on a face and there is no cause to correlate the fire with the burns"

..yeah right.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

P
R
O
P
A
G
A
N
D
A

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

Well who didn't see this type of response coming. It was just a matter of time. Plenty of board room meetings will be held before the next few articles are released. It happens every day...everywhere. There are a lot of chemical and pharmaceutical companies getting by with literal murder.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 10, 2012

What I find completely appaulling is that the individuals who have designed and manufactured the pesticides actually have to gaul to announce with a straight face that the problem does not center around their product as they are busy counting the money they have reaped from an obviously unstable product. You cannot honestly believe that the public will listen intently at your suggestion and throw up their hands and say "Damn fuctose corn syrup" - Are you the same bunch of "EXPERTS" they sent down to the oil spill in the gulf that suggested that there was only a minute amout of oil leaking from the BP oil rig explosion?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 11, 2012

This article will not be taken seriously without references and data backing up its claims, as Bayer, a maker of insecticides and therefore not a neutral party, wrote the piece.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 11, 2012

Call it propaganda if you want, but I will scratch and bite before I let someone take an important tool out of my bag without due process. Bees, like us, can tolerate a lot without detrimental effects so long as chemical concentrations remain below their critical levels. As a grower of crops very reliant on honey bee pollination, I am committed to the responsible application of pesticides. The beekeepers we deal with have blockbuster colonies. But please: don't let my real life factual experience get in the way of your impassioned, uneducated preachings ... speaking of propaganda!

ChemieBabe (not verified)
on Apr 11, 2012

How about both sides keeping an open mind? Just a thought.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 12, 2012

You dipped your chocolate in my peanut butter. No, you spilled your peanut butter on my chocolate..... Unfortunately, the outcome does not taste as sweet.....no pollinators.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 13, 2012

Read the study for yourselves to know that Bayer is actively engaging in PR: http://www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lu-fin...

Despite the claims to the contrary in this article, the scientific study takes into account everything that Bayer says they don't. Apparently Bayer just hopes that people will take their word for it and not bother doing further research on the subject. How they can get away with such blatant lying is beyond my comprehension.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 16, 2012

Thank you for posting a link to the research study in question. After reading the study I would have to agree with this article's author, "Imidacloprid link to CCD based on bad science?"
Respected Harvard makes strong claims based on some real poor science.
One example, it is common fact that CCD involves the disappearance of honey bees, which did not result from this experiment (bottom of page 4), "with the highest imidacloprid dose appeared to be weakening as observed by smaller clusters and frozen dead honey bees scattering (on snow) in front of the hives." Bees scattered in front of the hive is a classic example of chemical exposure, not CCD. How did the snow and cold affect this study? Figure 1 shows that the control hives (no chemical exposure?) also declined significantly during the winter.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 17, 2012

If you had continued reading, you would have observed that the scientists had taken this into account: "Snow usually fell between weekly hive examinations making the observation of scattered dead honey bees in front of individual hives noticeable. Although this observation is not quite reminiscent of the reported CCD symptoms, it is important to consider that if these hives were located in a warmer climate region, such as in Florida USA where migratory hives overwinter, bees exiting the hives would have dispersed some distance from the hives and therefore would not be observed in front of the hives" (bottom of page 5 in "Discussion").

It is also well known that bee hives normally decline during winter, with typical losses between 15 and 30% (this figure can be found in the "Introduction" on page 1). Also discussed on pages 1 and 2 is the acknowledgement of other stressors that Bayer claims the scientists did not take into account: "A long list of biological, chemical, and environmental stressors has been linked to CCD, including Varroa mites (de Miranda et al., 2010), Israel acute paralysis virus (Cox-Foster, 2007; Blanchard et al., 2008), Nosema ceranae (Higes et al., 2008), and exposure to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, e.g. imidacloprid (Girolami et al., 2009; Maini et al., 2010). The practices of migratory commercial beekeeping, which often involve moving hives long distances to pollination sites, and malnutrition associated with monocultural food sources, have also been blamed for causing CCD (Spivak et al., 2011). Although a recent report concludes that biotic factors (e.g., pests and pathogens) are most likely responsible for the extensive loss of honey bee colonies, such a conclusion remains debatable considering these stressors have been associated with beekeeping for decades and are as common among sedentary as migratory colonies (Neumann and Carreck, 2010). None of these potential culprits, either alone or in combination, has been demonstrated to trigger the symptoms of CCD" (pages 1 - 2 in the "Introduction").

Another study should definitely be done in another state where migratory bees are kept over winter (like Florida for example) to see if the same thing happens, because, of course, the most important aspect of scientific study is replicability. Furthermore, it seems apparent to me that while imidacloprid is certainly not the sole or even leading cause of CCD, it's also apparent that imidacloprid and chemicals like it absolutely play a role in the bees' decline. Here is another report worth considering that also claims that neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid are affecting bees: http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Are-Neonicotinoids-Kill...

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 17, 2012

Better yet, how about a study in which honey bee hives are isolated in a temperature-controlled greenhouse with a wide assortment of wildflowers and potted fruit trees. Is there a synergistic effect from exposing honey bees to additional pesticides, like those used in the Harvard study to control bee parasites? The experimental honey bees need to be kept from interacting with other potential-disease-carrying insects in the environment. That would be a more convincing study.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 17, 2012

I am all for bringing down the (evil?) chemical companies that are polluting our environment with chemicals and genetically altering our food, but I am still not convinced that imidacloprid is direct cause of CCD. When millions of dead honey bees were found scattered around their hives in Florida last year, it was quickly determined that the honey bees were killed by pesticide exposure, not cold, and not Colony Collapse Disorder.
German banned this family of pesticides many years ago, yet they still lost a third of their hives this year. Germany claims that the Varroa mite is the culprit in their apiary losses. Studies from all over the world show that viruses and other microorganisms, as well as Varroa mites, were present in those remaining honey bees gathered from collapsed colonies.
What if the Varroa mite, carrier of infectious bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. were primarily responsible for the disappearance of honey bees? Society's attitude would need to drastically change. If Varroa mites only reproduce in honey bee hives, but not in other insect nests, then shouldn't the number of honey beekeepers and apiaries be reduced, not increased, and definitely not introduced into every (non-agricultural) environment? What if 'survivor stock' honey bees are spreading diseases (that they have survived and now carry) into the environment? As beekeepers and apiaries increase, so does the mite population, and the transmission of diseases from apiary to apiary, from one local environment to the next. Shouldn't US agriculture, and US society in general, invest in our local native pollinators instead of transporting honey bees across the country or trying to engineer a super honey bee? How important is honey over pollination? Easy profit or future existence?

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
(optional)

Continuing Education Courses
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...
New Course
The 2,000-member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...

The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Newsletter Signup