Unit VII Body Revision

Running head: SAVE THE BEES 1

[Unit VI and VII, Body Section: You will find the body paragraphs on pp. 7–9, located in the blue outlined section. The body section should be placed in the paper after the

Introduction and Literature Review.]

Save the Bees: The Negative Effects of Neonicotinoids on Bee Populations

SAM BUCCA

University Name

SAVE THE BEES 2

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 research, neonicotinoids are

used in agriculture to kill pests such as aphids and grubs, but are indirectly impacting bees

(“What are Neonicotinoids?” 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. In addition,

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

SAVE THE BEES 3

expose key pollinators to harmful pesticides should not continue. Therefore, neonicotinoids

should not be used due to their harmful effects on bees. Instead, alternatives such as Integrated

Pest Management (IPM), should be utilized.

Review of Literature

In order to better understand the controversy concerning neonicotinoid use and its effects

on bee populations, it is necessary to review the origins of pesticide usage. In addition, this

review will closely examine pollination and the role of the bee in that process. The review 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 neonicotinoid use, beginning with arguments in

favor of banning its use and favoring 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 the article “Pesticides” (2007), 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 (Zoltan, 2011). Within a few decades, scientists began to observe a decline

in many species of carnivorous birds. Research lead them to the presence of concentrated DDT

in the food chain, which indirectly impacted the reproductive cycles of birds of prey

(“Pesticides,” 2007). 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

SAVE THE BEES 4

Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides,” 2013). In spite of 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 (“Pollination,” 2017). Specifically, 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 (“Pollination,” 2017). 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, large demand for food, and its ability to remember specific plants (“Pollination,”

2017). 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 hive while leaving their brood, or larvae, behind (“What’s

New with Honeybees?” 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 EPA (n.d.-a), there are too many significant health problems

that are caused by pests to completely discontinue use of pesticides. Some examples of these

SAVE THE BEES 5

public health concerns include asthma and allergies, Avian Flu, and vector-borne illnesses such

as West Nile Virus (EPA, n.d.-a). A paper published by Whitford et al. (2006)from Purdue also

presents strong 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, and are also

incorporated into many household products such as paints and caulks to prevent the growth of

mold 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 have 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 of 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. In addition,

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 target 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 have the ability to alter their behavior, ultimately making it

difficult for them to find food (Hopwood et al., 2016). In place of pesticides, parties including

SAVE THE BEES 6

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 (“Integrated Pest

Management,” 2011). 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 believe (a)

that they are the most effective way to kill pests that damage crops and cause disease, and (b) 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 higher concern. In an effort 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 decreases. 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

Continuing to allow the use of neonicotinoids will have sublethal effects on non-target

species. While some pesticides are applied to the surface of a plant, neonics work systemically

by effecting all parts of the plant, including the pollen and nectar, with most seeds treated with

the pesticide prior to planting (Goulson, 2013). With neonicotinoids being present in the pollen

and nectar of treated plants, bees and other pollinators such as moths and butterflies 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 compounds the

SAVE THE BEES 7

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 a colony

collapse, or CCD. As a key 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 equally negative

effects on the ecosystem.

Not only are neonics detrimental to beneficial species such as the bee, but they also have

negative effects on the entire ecosystem due to their tendency to accumulate in soils and

contaminate water sources. Neonicotinoid use by seed treatment first became popular because it

was thought that it would have less of an environmental impact than use by spray contact

(Hopwood et al., 2016). However, research by Dave Goulson (2013) has shown 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, and can even accumulate if used repeatedly. This persistence in the soil concentrates

the amount of toxin, making it more harmful to the environment. 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 expose non-target species and the environment to toxic neonics, it would

be more beneficial to utilize alternative pest management systems.

Alternative methods to pesticide use, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), provide

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

SAVE THE BEES 8

environment (“Integrated Pest Management,” 2011). An issue with neonicotinoids is that the

seeds are often dressed with the pesticide as a prophylactic when the targeted pest may not be

present in the area where the seed is being planted (Hopwood et al., 2016). This type of

preventative usage causes needless exposure of non-target plants and animals to the pesticide.

IPM incorporates several methods in an effort 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 attract the pest (EPA, n.d.-b). Managing pests by accurate

identification and prevention methods negate the need for chemicals which reduces the exposure

to the environment.

SAVE THE BEES 9

References

Bonmatin, J. M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C., …

Tapparo, A. (2015). Environmental fate and exposure: Neonicotinoids and fipronil.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 22(1), 35–67. Retrieved

from http://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7

Ellis, J. (2016). Colony collapse disorder (CCD) in honey bees. Retrieved from

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in720

Goulson, D. (2016). Review: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid

insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), 977–987. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12111/full

Hopwood, J., Code, A., Vaughn, M., Biddinger, D., Shepherd, M., Black, S. H., . . . Mazzacano,

C. (2016). How neonicotinoids can kill bees: The science behind the role these

insecticides play in harming bees (2nd ed.). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for

Invertebrate Conservation.

Integrated pest management. (2011). In D. S. Blanchfield (Ed.), Environmental encyclopedia.

Detroit, MI: Gale.

Kaplan, J. K. (2012). Colony collapse disorder: An incomplete puzzle. Agricultural Research,

60(6), 4.

National Research Council. (2013). Assessing risks to endangered and threatened species from

pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Pesticides. (2007). In World of biology. Retrieved from Gale Group.

Pollination. (2011). In D. S. Blanchfield (Ed.), Environmental encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: Gale.

SAVE THE BEES 10

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/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-a). Introduction to integrated pest management.

Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-

pest-management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-b). Why we use pesticides. Retrieved from

https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/why-we-use-pesticides

What are neonicotinoids? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pan-uk.org/about_neonicotinoids/

What's new with honeybees? (2009). BioScience, 59(11), 1010.

Whitford, F., Pike, D., Hanger, G., Burroughs, F., Johnson, B., & Blessing, A. (2006). The

benefits of pesticides: A story worth telling. Purdue Extension, 70.

Zoltan, M. B. (2011). Pesticides and pesticide residue. In B. W. Lerner & K. L. Lerner (Eds.), In

context series. Food: In context (Vol. 2, pp. 630–633). Detroit, MI: Gale.