Dead bees on the ground.
Jennifer Bryan-Goforth
For commercial beekeepers, pesticide damage to bees is hugely impactful, with losses in the hundreds or even thousands of colonies. But for hobbyist beekeepers like Charles and Lisa Jacks, the loss of a few colonies can also feel like a major disaster.
In a typical year, the Jacks keep three to four hives. In the early Spring of 2021, their bee compound had increased to ten colonies after splitting and capturing additional swarms. Residents of a community outside of Snellville, GA known as the “Promised Land,” the Jacks have about a half-acre of property around their home and were busily caring for the bees during the active Spring season. Their hives are placed facing the house in the backyard, and the loud buzzing sound as they walk out of their backdoor has been a source of pleasure for years. “It’s a nice feeling, hearing the bees at their work,” Lisa recalled.
In May 2021, a pest control company representative campaigned door to door in the neighborhood with the hopes of drumming up some business, promoting services with their company sales pitch of “We can kill anything!” The rep approached Charles and Lisa, who firmly declined the services, explaining that their property was maintained as a wildlife habitat and included multiple beehives. They asked that no pesticides be applied near their home as they were concerned about damage to pollinators and other wildlife. The company rep assured them that all of their products were “environmentally friendly pesticides,” and the Jacks took a bit of time to explain that this was a misnomer, that applying a pesticide always has an impact on the environment and that bees were particularly susceptible to damage from pesticides. Charles requested that he receive notification from the company if any product was applied to the surrounding properties. He did not receive notification, but the pest control company truck was visible in the neighborhood over the next several days, seen applying their “environmentally friendly” pesticide to other homes on their street.
A couple of days after first seeing the truck, Lisa walked outside into the warm sunshine to complete silence. No hum of bees. She walked around the corner to the hive compound to find the ground completely littered with dead bees. Charles joined her and as they were viewing the damage, there were bees literally dropping from the air in front of them. They immediately identified the possibility that the bees had been exposed to toxic chemicals sprayed by the pest control company. Reaching out to local bee groups to share their experience and ask for advice, they were provided contacts for the University of Georgia and the state agriculture department to address their concern and losses.
Dead bees in the hive.
The references proved to be invaluable. The department of agriculture sent out an agent who took samples of bees, wax and honey. Testing revealed the presence of the broad-spectrum insecticide fipronil in the bee samples. Fipronil is a widely used pesticide, applied around homes to kill fleas, ants, ticks and cockroaches. It is highly toxic to many creatures including rabbits, many types of fish and birds, lizards and bees. Fipronil is a systemic pesticide, prone to drift and runoff, and often found in residential settings (Gan, 2012). It is also extremely toxic in much lower doses than many other systemic pesticides. Studies show that fipronil is present in groundwater samples even in countries where agricultural or outdoor residential use is banned, likely from the use of pet flea treatment products such as Frontline. Agricultural use of fipronil in the EU was banned in 2017, but applications of this toxic pesticide continue in the U.S. primarily for use in granular turf products, seed treatments, topical pet care products, termiticides and agricultural uses. For the past several years, there has been increasing concern over groundwater contamination, one study states “In the Southeast, where fipronil was detected more frequently than in the other four regions, 52% of streams sampled had fipronil compound concentrations that exceeded the benign level.” (Miller, 2020).
When Charles and Lisa’s bees were killed, they were most likely impacted by drift or direct exposure during the application process. Although fipronil was found in the bodies of the dead bees, it was not found in the wax or honey which would indicate acute rather than chronic exposure. After analyzing testing results, the state agency requested documentation and records from the pest control company and found multiple violations including a lack of proper training for pesticide applicators and inaccuracies in legally required record keeping. The state agriculture department cited the infraction and levied a penalty fee against the pest control company. The Jacks lost seven of their ten hives from exposure to fipronil. One neighbor reported the loss of chickens, and others found dead songbirds in their yards.
Two months after the bee kill, the pesticide company trucks returned to the neighborhood. This time, Charles and Lisa Jacks began the process of reporting and testing yet another bee kill. This time, the state agency revoked the pest control company’s permit.
Although reporting did not help Charles and Lisa recover their losses, their experience highlights the importance of reporting bee kills and pesticide incidents to state agencies. Hobbyist beekeepers often refrain from reporting pesticide incidents as they compare their losses with those at the commercial level. But a 70% loss in colonies due to pesticide exposure feels catastrophic to any beekeeper. Reporting suspected pesticide damage to bees is a critical step in data collection and can play a major role in the permitting and regulatory process. Without this data, regulatory agencies rely on studies funded by pesticide manufacturers, who have been accused of downplaying risk factors and including biased information. Dr. Delena Norris-Tull from the University of Montana Western writes, “The U.S. EPA is responsible for approving herbicides and pesticides for use in the United States. In order for a product to be approved, and thus registered for use, the EPA has to conclude that the product, when used according to the label instructions, is not likely to cause unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. The chemical company is required to provide data on the product related to potential toxicity to mammals, soil residues, potential exposure in food and drinking water, any cumulative effects of the product, its safety for infants, children and adults and its potential impacts on immune and endocrine systems. In my 2017 interview with Slade Franklin, Wyoming Department of Agriculture Weed and Pest Coordinator, he told me, ‘The EPA requires the agrochemical companies to conduct their own research to prove the safety of their chemicals. The companies give grants to university scientists to conduct the research.’” (Norris-Tull, 2020)
Using incident reports, regulatory agencies can have a better understanding of the consequences and adverse effects of pesticide use. With this information, regulations including application directions and use restrictions can change and may result in the removal of a pesticide from the marketplace. Unfortunately, states are not legally obligated to share reports of bee kills/pesticide incidents with federal regulatory agencies. While some states do take the important step of sharing their pesticide incident data with the EPA, many do not. The Pollinator Stewardship Council provides a free service to submit state-level reports with the EPA for members residing in states who do not report at the federal level.
References
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, January). Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and Fipronil. Environmental science and pollution research international. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284396/
Costello, & Odenkirchen. (2005, August 1). US EPA-pesticides; fipronil. Fipronil Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Assessment and Characterization. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-129121_20-Jun-11_a.pdf
Holder, P. J., Jones, A., Tyler, C. R., & Cresswell, J. E. (2018, December 18). Fipronil pesticide as a suspect in historical mass mortalities of Honey Bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304995/
Fipronil. National Pesticide Information Center. (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2022, from http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/fiptech.html#:~:text=Fipronil%20is%20used%20in%20granular,liquid%20termiticides%2C%20and%20in%20agriculture.
Norris-Tull, D. (2020, October). Funding for research on pesticides. MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE WESTERN USA. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.invasiveplantswesternusa.org/funding-for-research-on-pesticides.html
Gan, Jinhua & Bondarenko, S & Oki, Lorence & Haver, Darren & Li, J. (2012). Occurrence of Fipronil and Its Biologically Active Derivatives in Urban Residential Runoff. Environmental science & technology. 46. 1489-95. 10.1021/es202904x.
Shabana Wazir, Sarfraz Ali Shad, (2022, January)Development of fipronil resistance, fitness cost, cross-resistance to other insecticides, stability, and risk assessment in Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa),Science of The Total Environment, Volume 803, 2022, 150026, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150026.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721051019
Bonmatin, JM., Giorio, C., Girolami, V. et al. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 35–67 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7
Gan, Jinhua & Bondarenko, S & Oki, Lorence & Haver, Darren & Li, J. (2012). Occurrence of Fipronil and Its Biologically Active Derivatives in Urban Residential Runoff. Environmental science & technology. 46. 1489-95. 10.1021/es202904x.
J. L. Miller, T. S. Schmidt, P. C. Van Metre, B. J. Mahler, M. W. Sandstrom, L. H. Nowell, D. M. Carlisle, P. W. Moran, Common insecticide disrupts aquatic communities: A mesocosm to field ecological risk assessment of fipronil and its degradates in U.S. streams. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc1299 (2020). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abc1299
