A large-scale study confirmed: neonotinoid pesticides are the causes of the disappearance of the bees

Ironically, the research was funded by two of the largest pesticide manufacturers, who are also now trying to downplay and challenge the research methods, the researchers: We were given complete independence

The largest study to date on the fraught question of whether neonicotinoid pesticides harm bees is giving new ammunition to opponents of the controversial chemical's use.

A large-scale field study found that exposure to neonatinoids is particularly damaging to bee populations. Pesticides reduce the honey's production capacity and they fail to survive their hibernation, the researchers say.

"We show that neonatinoids have significant negative effects on critical life cycle stages, which is a cause for concern," says Richard Pywell, a sustainable land management researcher at the Center for Ecology and Hydrology near Wallingford, UK, and lead author of a paper describing the experiment and which Published in the journal Science on June 29, 2017.
However, the work was primarily funded by the two main neonicotinoid manufacturers, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta. They question the scientists' conclusions and defend the pesticides, which have already been banned or restricted in several countries. The researchers who did the work said they were completely independent.
In recent years, there has been increased concern among scientists and policy makers that neonatinoids are harming bees. The farmers dip the seeds in the pesticides before they sow them, and later they can be found in the plant powder - the food of the bees.
The subject has of course been tested in the laboratory in the past, but the criticism of these studies was that the bees were given larger doses of chemicals than they experience outside. Previous field trials have produced inconsistent results, for example they found that the substance causes damage to wild bees, but not to honey bees.

To try to settle some of the outstanding questions, members of the research team led by the British Center for Ecology and Hydrology received funding totaling $3 million from Bayer CropScience and Syngenta, and another £400,000 (520,000) from the institution itself. They tested three species of bees. The honey bee (Apis mellifera) and two wild species: bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) and solitary bees (Osmia bicornis) - 33 agricultural fields in Great Britain, Germany and Hungary. Some of them were located near crops protected by neonatinoids, and others in fields where neonatinoids were not used.

Although the study found neonatinoids to have an overall negative effect on bees, the results are not entirely clear: the pesticides appeared to harm bees at sites in the UK and Hungary, but appeared to have a positive effect on honeybees in Germany. Feivel points out that the German influences were "short", and the reason for them is not clear. They may be partly related to the fact that hives in Germany are healthier. "He speculates.

The industry answer
The funders of the study criticized the data analysis process and the authors' conclusions. Peter Campbell, a senior environmental expert at Syngenta, says that the data shows that there are circumstances where these substances can be used safely and according to him a very negative conclusion is unfair.

Christian Maus, Bayer's lead bee care scientist, also contradicts the authors' conclusions and some of their statistical analysis. Syngenta, based in Basel, Switzerland, also called the data "variable" and Bayer CropScience, based in Monheim am Rhein, Germany, said the study results were inconsistent.
The finding comes at a crucial time for the industry, because the European Union is reviewing the ban it imposed in 2013 on the use of neonitoids for seed dipping. The European Union is expected to reach a conclusion later this year whether to remove or extend the restrictions.

Fiwell says he defends the peer-reviewed paper. He also notes that the entire experiment was conducted under the scrutiny of an independent advisory board that included a statistician. The differences between the countries are intriguing, he adds, and should be explored further.

"You have to give 10 out of XNUMX effort," says Dave Golson, a bee researcher at the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK. The research "is well designed, well replicated, well funded - ironically by industry which will not be most pleased. But the results show what is happening on the ground. It has reached a point where it is simply not reasonable to continue to deny the harm to bees through field studies.” he adds. "I would say this is the last nail in the coffin."

for scientific research