the conclusion

1

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

Tamika Diggs

Columbia Southern University

EH 1020 English Composition II

Dr. Renee Reynolds

January 5, 2021

2

Abstract

This paper examines several dangers of neonicotinoids, the most widely used pesticide in the

world. Though cost effective and efficient in controlling pests and disease, the use of neonics

should be banned due to the many sublethal effects attributed to the toxic pesticide. The

correlation between neonicotinoids and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a threat to bee

populations and the process of pollination. In addition, neonics have a tendency to concentrate in

soil for years after use and to contaminate surrounding groundwater. Applying alternative

methods such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in place of neonicotinoids decreases the

risks of exposing the ecosystem and beneficial species to harmful chemicals. Therefore, the use

of neonics should be banned and alternative pest management systems should be implemented.

3

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 (Kluser et al., 2010). 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 (Pesticide Action Network UK, 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

4

methods, continuing to 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” (Edwards, 2018), 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 (McGrath, 1999). 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 (National

5

Research Council, 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 (Blanchfield, 2011). 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 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 (Blanchfield, 2011). 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 (Kluser et al., 2010). 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 (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 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

6

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 that 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 honeybees. 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

7

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, 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 honeybee 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., 2015). While an initial

exposure may not be directly threatening, small doses over an entire lifespan compounds the

8

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

(Kluser et al., 2010). 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

9

environment (Blanchfield, 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.

Conclusion

Neonicotinoids pose a threat to the environment and should be banned in favor of

alternative, non-toxic methods. Neonics pose the greatest threat to bees, which are essential to

the process of pollination and must be protected. Imagine a world where plants must be

pollinated by hand because there are no bees left to do the job. Without bees, grocery stores and

farmer’s markets would be bare of most produce including apples, avocados, pumpkins, and

peaches (Sarich, 2013). Integrated Pest Management is an alternative method that provides us

with significant pest control without harming a species that is integral to the food chain. The

EPA is beginning to re-evaluate the use of neonics due to these harmful effects, but

implementing government policies is a notoriously slow process. Applying the concepts of IPM

now, in larger agricultural settings as well as home gardens, eliminates the need for pesticides

like neonicotinoids and will preserve the environment for future generations.

10

References

Blanchfield, D. S. (Ed.) (2011). Environmental encyclopedia. Gale.

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

M., Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E. A. D., Noome, D. A., Simon-Delso, N., &

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

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

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

Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin.

Edwards, C. A. (2018, May 23). Pesticides. In Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved January 5, 2021,

from https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/educational-magazines/pesticides

Goulson, D. (2013). Review: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid

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

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

Hopwood, J., Code, A., Vaughn, M., Biddinger, D., Shepherd, M., Black, S. H., Lee-Mader, E.,

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

these insecticides play in harming bees (2nd ed.). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate

Conservation.

Kaplan, J. K. (2012, July 1). Colony collapse disorder: An incomplete puzzle. Agricultural

Research, 60(6), 4.

Kluser, S., Neumann, P., Chauzat, M.-P., & Pettis, J. S. (2010). UNEP emerging issues: Global

honey bee colony disorders and other threats. United Nations Environment Programme.

McGrath, K. A. (1999). World of biology. Gale Group.

11

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

pesticides. The National Academies Press.

Pesticide Action Network UK. (2017). What are neonicotinoids? http://www.pan-

uk.org/about_neonicotinoids/

Sarich, C. (2013, August 15). List of foods we will lose if we don’t save the bees. Honey Love

Urban Beekeepers. https://honeylove.org/list-of-food/

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

https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management

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

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

Watanabe, M. E. (2009, December). What’s new with honeybees? BioScience, 59(11), 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. 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). Gale.