Upon being told that the honeybee population is mysteriously disappearing, the average United States citizen might have to pause for a moment to recall the last time they had observed a large number of bees in a garden. This mysterious fact is substantial beyond daily observations; entomologists, farmers, and beekeepers have already begun to investigate the massive losses of civilization’s most valuable pollinator, the common European honeybee. The mysterious decline in honeybees has been reported in several developed countries including France, Spain, Poland, and in at least twenty-four states in the U.S. (Howe). “Daniel Weaver…” [head of the American Beekeeping Federation], “…estimates that about 600,000 of 2 million hives… nationwide have been lost” (Wilson). The term that has been applied to signify this syndrome is colony collapse disorder (CCD). Of the possible causes of CCD currently under investigation, the introduction and increased application of certain agricultural chemicals should be considered as the primary catalyst behind the recent acute decline of honeybee populations occurring in countries worldwide.

The common European honeybee, Apis mellifera, is a unique social insect and has an intrinsic relationship with humanity which has endured through hundreds of years (Bailey 3). Honeybees live as a rigidly structured unit, or colony, within a hive (Nari). The large and respected queen is the sole reproductive female, and is fertilized by the flightless male drone bees (Nari). Pollen is collected and honey is produced by female worker bees, both of which comprise the colony’s diet (Nari). Worker bees also strive to maintain the brood, or larval bees. (Nari). Honeybees may be most well-known for their production of honey, a natural sweetener and byproduct of evaporated floral nectar and enzymes (Bailey 5). However, their importance as agricultural pollinators is inarguably more significant. Apiculturists, or beekeepers, have long been drawn to the bees’ value as producers of honey, pollinators, and their transportability within hives (Bailey 3). Beekeepers were the first to sound the alarm when their bee colonies began rapidly disappearing (Maxin & Sluijs 5).

Several factors have played a role in honeybee population declines over the past several decades; however, bee populations have diminished at an alarming rate since the end of 2006. Commenting on persistent gradual declines prior to the onset of CCD, May Berenbaum, an entomologist with the University of Illinois claims “Bee colonies have declined 60 percent since 1947, from an estimated 5.9 million to 2.4 million” (Howe). In considering that bee populations have already been offended by other threats in past decades, the rate at which the population has decreased in the last several months is deeply concerning. Current evidence strongly suggests that chemical pesticides have significantly contributed to this ecologic crisis.

*********
Though many possible catalysts are under investigation, the symptoms of CCD are unique when compared to the signs of disease processes which have insulted bee populations in the past (Howe). CCD is classified as rapid hive collapse in which worker bees abandon the queen and brood to die; presence of evidence of recent brooding prior to collapse; presence of honey and bee bread (indicating healthy colony function up to collapse); and the abnormal absence of colony pests or ‘robbers’ for several days after the hive is abandoned (Ellis). In addition to pesticides, several other general theories are under investigation and include parasitic infestation, pathogenic disease, and cell phone radiation interference.

The symptoms associated with the aforementioned theories fail to comply with the characteristics of CCD. New studies have begun to affirm the harmful effects of pesticides, which cooperate with these signs. “Though parasites have affected honeybee populations to some degree for several decades ...there is no evidence that any parasite we know today has been the cause of wholesale losses of bees" (Bailey 84). For instance, Acarapis woodi or “the tracheal mite” causes death of infested bees only slightly prematurely” (Bailey 62). Viruses and bacteria have been found on bees affected by CCD, leading to some speculation of a pathogenic cause. Penn State entomologist Dr. Diana Cox-Foster has analyzed bees from CCD-affected colonies and claims to have found twice as many pathogens than she has ever observed before in honeybees (Howe). She suggests that something has seriously damaged their immune systems, leaving the honeybees more vulnerable to disease than before (Howe). Dr. Cox-Foster’s conclusion implies that the bacterial and viral infestations which have been observed are not occurring as primary pathogens, but are secondary to a colony’s weakened immunity. Furthermore, it would be rational to suspect that the abandoned queens would also be killed by bacterial or viral infections. Strong evidence is lacking that supports that global honeybee population reduction is caused by cell phone radiation, despite unconfirmed reports by the mass media. This theory appears to be based entirely on “a small study at Germany's Landau University found that bees would not return to their hives when mobile phones were placed nearby” (“Dramatic Decline”). Though cell phone radiation may affect bees’ navigation, the secondary immune suppression that accompanies CCD colonies is left unexplained. With much at stake, a conclusion has not been drawn on this perplexing issue. “More than an intriguing scientific conundrum, what's called "colony collapse disorder" has serious agricultural implications” (“Bee Mystery”).

CCD poses a threat to the agricultural productivity of the United States, as well as to other countries where it has been reported. “Experts estimate that across the U.S. honeybees help to pollinate more than 80 crops with an economic value of approximately $20 billion” (Thomson 1). In California, the honeybee’s work is vital to the success of valuable almond crops; honeybee pollination increases crop production by 600% (Nordhaus). As contract hives for pollination become less available and the almond industry expands, “pollination fees have risen from $30 per hive in the late 1990’s to around $140 this winter” (Nordhaus). Economic concerns arise from this serious situation, as well as concerns for international food stores. If honeybees continue to die at the current rate, American citizens may experience increased food prices and decreased food availability (Ellis). Jeff Hayes of the Florida Department of Agriculture stated, “I read a figure from the USDA that they project by 2015 that 40% of our vegetables would be coming from China” (Howe). A failure to change current agricultural modalities could compromise current food production in the countries where CCD is occurring. “Several recent publications…. have alerted the general public, policy maker and planners, and politicians to the importance of pollination and pollinators, the seriousness of their demise, and the urgency for their conservation” (Kevan 16). The impact of CCD on natural pollination and plant productivity must also be taken into consideration. In an area in Canada where fenitrothion, a pine worm pesticide, was used, several plant species in the forest suffered decreased fruit and seed production, which consequently may have deprived wildlife of adequate food stores (Kevan 7). In a society of pesticide-dependent agricultural practices, a solution may not be determined in time to prevent the consequences of their use, namely CCD.

A multitude of factors attest to pesticides’ role in the rapidly declining honeybee population. “Lending credence to this theory is that organic bee colonies, where chemicals and genetically modified crops are avoided, are not experiencing the same kind of catastrophic collapses, according to the non-profit Organic Consumers Association” (“Dramatic Decline”). Chemical pesticides have long been known to be hazardous to bees, and studies have been conducted to determine safe levels of pesticide application for bees and other beneficial insects (Bailey 80). However, the introduction of a new class of pesticides challenged the agricultural industry’s ability to accurately determine toxic levels. These new systemic pesticides are applied in the soil and spread throughout the plant and its pollen, unlike the previous forms used, which were sprayed onto plants directly. (Pierrehelm et al 4). Imidacloprid is a prime example of a systemic pesticide; its use was implemented in 1994 and was primarily used on sunflower and maize crops. Areas with high sunflower production reported a drop in honey production since its use was implemented. (Pierrehelm et al 4).

Imidacloprid has previously been known to cause neurological abnormalities in honeybees; however, the previously determined ‘safe’ levels were not accurately obtained. The prior method of toxicity assessment only measured topical spray-on pesticides. “Unlike sprayed insecticides, which have short-lasting action on plants, systemic pesticides are persistent. Moreover, these molecules are detected in low concentrations in the pollen and nectar of treated plants, and are far more likely to affect honeybees by acute, chronic, and sub lethal intoxications rather than by acute intoxications alone” (Pierrehelm et al 1). These findings reveal that systemic pesticides have the potential for causing more intrinsic problems which could weaken the function and health of an entire colony, as oppose to prior observed pesticide-related kills which would cause rapid colony death by acute exposure. Mr. Edward Weiss, a professional beekeeper in Connecticut, says that a typical pesticide kill will render an entire colony dead within the hive (Hirshey). With pesticides evolving, their impact on Apis mellifera becomes more complex.

The studies conducted with the new method for assessing toxicity levels only investigated oral exposure to pesticides and did not consider topical contamination, which leads to some degree of concern when it is taken into consideration that as pollinators, bees are naturally designed to collect what they come into contact with on their bodies (Nari). Peirrehelm et al state that studies on topical exposure are not readily available. Nonetheless, valuable information about the harmful effects of imidacloprid on honeybees- including death, immune suppression, and behavioral and motor function deficits- was revealed based on oral exposure alone (Pierrehelm et al 2). These effects of toxicity strongly correlate with the unique traits of CCD, and suggest a logical reason as to why affected honeybees disappear rather than return to the hive as is typical. It also presents a reason as to why CCD colonies are also afflicted with other secondary pathogens such as viruses and bacteria. The studies demonstrate “that the risk posed by imidacloprid is alarming for all categories of honeybees” (Pierrehelm et al 2). In understanding the dangers of pesticides such as imidacloprid, it becomes vital to investigate the forces behind its production and promotion.

Maxin and van der Sluijs rationally and scientifically propose a valid theory that directly criticizes Gaucho, a brand name of chemical pesticide which contains imidacloprid, as the primary cause of the massive colony deaths that several nations are experiencing. Through an analysis of the French debate surrounding Gaucho, they identify the factors involved in the delayed identification of the cause of CCD and its prevention. This analysis reveals the complex role of socioeconomic factors in the implementation and continued use of imidacloprid.

Chemical pesticides are used worldwide and have immense economic worth; therefore, their safety approval is an extremely high priority of the companies who make them and the farmers who use them. For instance, “insecticides containing imidacloprid are among those sold the most globally,” and the chemical industry as a whole is the “third most important economic sector in the world” (Maxin and Sluijs 13). Additionally, Maize, which imidacloprid is frequently used on, is one of the most valuable crops in France (Maxin and Sluijs 6). The application of Gaucho as a systemic pesticide reduces labor for crop maintenance, thereby making it very economical for farmers to use (Maxin and Sluijs 6). When considering the widespread demand for such a financially beneficial product, the profit motives of the producer must be closely examined.

Maxin and van der Sluijs confirm the reports of previous sources, emphasizing that out-dated methods of testing spray-on pesticides are not applicable to systemic pesticides such as imidacloprid (Maxin and van der Sluijs 5). However, these methods have continued to be used in determining the safety of systemic pesticides, and perhaps with lack of negligence on the part of the stakeholders involved with these chemicals. Maxin and Van der Sluijs assess that stakeholders can manipulate scientific uncertainties in public debates with strategic use of political bias (4). This assessment becomes relevant when examining Bayer, the company that produces Gaucho (RT). “Reviews of Bayer’s studies, conducted by independent scientists (honeybee specialists) showed major deficiencies” such as “inadequate experimental conditions, incorrect use of scientific terms,…imprecise measurement methods,” and “lack of replication” (Maxim and Sluijs 10). With the upper-economic hand, and without a proven alternative means of chemical testing readily available, Bayer took advantage of a scientific uncertainty, using topical chemical testing methods to persuade the public to approve the use of Gaucho.

The French debate surrounding Gaucho’s use began soon after its introduction to sunflower and Maize crops in the country, when beekeepers observed a sudden onset of heavy colony mortality rates in which their bees were either disappearing or dying in front of the hives in massive numbers. In conjunction with the population decline, they also noticed behavioral symptoms of intoxication and a 40-70% decrease in honey yield. Incidentally, this was reported by the beekeepers the same year that Gaucho was introduced in the French crops. Distinct patterns became relevant after a couple of years, linking these symptoms specifically with sunflower and maize foraging bees in geographic locations where Gaucho was used. Despite the reports of farmers and beekeepers, Bayer’s studies claimed that their product was not a risk to honeybees because imidacloprid applied on seeds could not be present in the flowers. However, the notable effect on bees after foraging contradicted this information. As a result, “the sunflower honey harvest fell significantly and the economic status of many beekeepers was severely affected” (Maxin and van der Sluijs 5, 10).

Gaucho’s use was finally banned in 1999 in response to independent research, social pressure, and media attention; Bayer continued to insist that it did not affect honeybees. It is extremely concerning that the honeybees symptoms continued until 2001, suggesting that imidacloprid is highly persistent in the environment. However the ban was lifted in 2003 with further studies pending, and the process of the case against imidacloprid was paralyzed by analysis. When the independent studies were finally released, they confirmed that “the risk imidacloprid formed for honeybees is worrisome, when Gaucho is used to seed-dress sunflower and maize.” Once again, the ban was implemented and Bayer immediately challenged decision in the highest administrative court in France, and eventually filed suit against representatives of beekeepers’ alliances for discrediting Gaucho (Maxin and van der Sluijs 5, 6, 18). The power of the stakeholders in this debate becomes readily apparent through these facts. Despite inarguable research, Bayer’s stance remains, as stated in their publication Cropscience in 2006: “….it is clear that seed–dressing products based on imidacloprid pose, at most, a very weak risk for honeybees” (Maxin and van der Sluijs 6).

Bayer has also been criticized by independent scientists whose research conflicted with their own (Maxin and van der Sluijs 11). For instance, in 1997 Bayer initially claimed that the first biologic effects (lowest observed effect concentration, or LOEC) of Gaucho on honeybees occur at 5000 ppb (parts per billion), and another study in 1999 by Bayer declared that the new LOEC was 20 ppb (Maxin and van der Sluijs 11). Independent studies in 2000 did not coincide with this data whatsoever; the LOEC was identified at the low dose of 3 ppb of diluted imidacloprid (Maxin and van der Sluijs 11); therefore, the actual LOEC was so low it could not be determined with full-concentration imidacloprid. In response to the information which contradicted their own, Bayer claimed that “the first observed effect of imidacloprid is a refusal to feed from the contaminated source and thus the end of foraging” (Maxin and van der Sluijs 12). The contrary study did not agree; the apparent aversion of bees to contaminated plants is actually a result of the bees’ intoxication (Maxin and van der Sluijs 11). As previously discussed imidacloprid affects bees’ neurological function and behavior. This neurological affect ultimately influences the wagging dance that is used by worker bees in a colony to communicate locations of forage sites, so bees are not able to direct each other to the site where they became intoxicated (Maxin and van der Sluijs 12). The deceptive, profit-driven actions of Bayer have contributed to a great insult against the environment. The consequences, when examining the global implications of CCD, are immense. Ironically, the following excerpt was derived directly from Bayer’s website:
“If someone asked you to list the domesticated animals which were most useful for mankind, you probably wouldn’t immediately think of honeybees. Indeed, bees would likely be fairly low on the list, if you even remembered to name them at all. But when you think about it, it becomes clear that this is a big mistake. For one of history’s greatest thinkers, Albert Einstein, summed up the importance of these insects concisely:”
“If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then Man would only have four years left to live. No bees, no pollination, no plants, no animals, no Man.” -Albert Einstein
(Bayer Bee World Homepage)
Based upon current evidence provided through research, it can be argued that colony collapse disorder is caused by the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. Ultimately, the implementation of alternative modalities of pest control may be the primary solution to CCD. It is critical that the tactics of stakeholders in the global economy must be monitored with caution; ethical scientific research must prevail. Failure to shift the current methods of chemical use within the environment could have detrimental outcomes for agricultural industries across the world, as well as for global ecology. As pollinators and as part of the global ecosystem, Apis mellifera plays a significant role in many societies; the crucial connection must be recognized between their existence, and that of humanity’s. It should be fortunate if the next generation could know more of bee stings and honey than from stories of decades past.

Works Cited

Bailey, Leslie. Honey Bee Pathology. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Bayer Healthcare. Bayer Bee World. 30 June 2006. <http://www.animalhealth.bayerhealthcare.com/3136.0.html>. .
"Bee Mystery Poses Threat." Editorial. Denver Post. 23 Apr. 2007: B-07. Newsbank, Auraria
Library. 1 June 2007. <http://docs.newsbank.com>.

Ellis, Jamie. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in Honey Bees (16 April 2007). Honey Bee
Research and Extension Laboratory, Department of Entmology and Nematology, University of Florida. <http://www.organicconsumer.org/>.

Hirshey, Gerri. “The Keeper of the Bees Faces his Biggest Task Yet.” New York Times. 10 June
2007. Skyline, Auraria Lib., Denver. 15 June 2007.
<http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.skyline.cudenver.edu/iw-search/we/InfoWeb>.

Howe, Linda Moulton. “Honeybee Disappearances Continue: Could Pesticides Play a Role?”
(16 March 2007). Earthfiles. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/>.

Kevan, Peter G. “Pollinators as Bioindicators of the State of the Environment: Species, Activity
and Diversity.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 74:1-3 (1999): 373-393. Science Direct. Skyline. Auraria Lib., Denver. 27 June 2007
<http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.skyline.cudenver.edu>.

Marie- Peirrehalm, A. Rortais, G. Arnold, J.N. Taseai, and S. Rault. “New Risk Assessment
Approach for Systemic Insecticides: The Case of Honey Bees and Imidacloprid (Gaucho).” Environmental Science & Technology 40:7 (2006): 1-4. Skyline, Auraria Lib., Denver. 19 June 2007.
<http://0pubs.acs.org.skyline.cudenver.edu/cgi-bin/article.cgi/esthag/ 2006/40/i07/pdf/es 051392i.pdf>.

Maxim, Laura and Jeroen P. van der Sluijs. “Uncertainty: Cause or Effect of Stakeholders’
Debates? Analysis of a Case Study: The Risk for Honeybees of the Insecticide Gaucho (registered trademark).” Science of the Total Environment. 376.1-3 (2006): 1-17. Science Direct. Skyline. Auraria Lib., Denver. 27 June 2007
<http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.skyline.cudenver.edu>.

Morse, Roger A., ed. Honey Bee Pests, Predators, and Diseases. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1978.

Nari, Jerry. Personal interview. 11 July 2007.

Nordhaus, Hannah. “The Silence of the Bees.” High Country News. 19 Mar 2007.
http://www.hcn.org/.

“What is Causing the Dramatic Decline in Honeybee Populations in the U.S. and Elsewhere in
Recent Years?” Health News Digest. New York, NY. 2 June 2007.
<www.HealthNewsDigest.com>.

Wilson, Dan. "Lost Colonies: Where Have Bees Gone?" Appleton Post-Crescent 18 May 2007.
<www.organicconsumer.org>.