Beekeepers stung by pesticide sponsorship
The main UK beekeepers’ association has accepted sponsorship from agrochemical companies in exchange for endorsing products as ‘bee-friendly’, when some of the active ingredients are highly toxic to bees. The myth of the bee-friendly insecticide is being promoted by the organisation which should be protecting honey bees from pesticide poisoning, and demanding notification of spraying. Alison Craig reports.
 |
Bombus humilis. Photo: Sam Ashfield via Buglife |
A controversy has been gathering pace among British beekeepers since 2003. In exchange for endorsing a number of products as
‘bee-friendly’(1), the British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) has received funds from four agrochemical companies worth tens of thousands of pounds. The companies use the endorsements in technical literature, on their websites and in verbal communication with
growers(2,3). The terms of these agreements are confidential(4) and the money is paid to BBKA Enterprises Limited. In the five years from 1999-2003, over 383 bee colonies were devastated by pesticides and of these 14 of were affected by pesticides endorsed as bee-friendly.
The BBKA has been vigorously challenged over this on several occasions by its members and other concerned beekeepers. ‘We don’t think we should be sponsoring pesticides’, says George Eames, secretary of the Durham Beekeepers’ Association. ‘It’s not ethically right that we should be receiving money from these multinationals, because it goes hand in hand with GM
technology.’(5)
The deals are defended by Glyn Davies, BBKA President, who argues that by working closely with the companies the organisation can influence them to produce more benign insecticides. He says that ‘a file is held by BBKA on each product and a signed agreement made which includes instant withdrawal of approval if any proven, harmful incident
occurs’(6).
However the BBKA appears to be ignoring evidence of pesticide-related bee deaths. According to the UK government’s Wildlife Incident Investigation
Scheme(7), twelve colonies of bees were confirmed destroyed by deltamethrin and two by alphacypermethrin, the active ingredients in products endorsed by the BBKA, in the time period of the agreements (see table 2).
Bees play a vital role in both UK and global agriculture pollinating around three quarters of the world’s staple crops. Estimates of the annual economic value of these crops range from $10 billion to $200 billion. Declines in bee numbers have been well-documented in France and led to restrictions in the use of fipronil and
imidacloprid(8). But similar declines have taken place elsewhere with pesticides being one of the major culprits in their
demise(9,10).
As part of a PAN UK investigation of this issue a survey was sent to BBKA contacts in February and March of this year. We received 12 responses to approximately 60 questionnaires sent out. The responses highlighted a number of key issues. Crucially farmers and sprayer-contractors need to give local bee-keepers advance notice of spraying, a measure also advocated by the pesticide companies themselves. In practice it rarely happens. The PAN UK survey asked ‘In your experience, do farmers comply with the best practice [ie. non-statutory]
requirement(11) to ‘inform … the local spray liaison officer 48 hours in advance of their intention to spray?’ Half of the respondents said that they do not, with comments such as ‘I have only ever been contacted by a farmer once in ten years.’ Ian Copinger is an experienced beekeeper who has been actively campaigning against the pesticide endorsements. He points out that spray contractors and farmers can only inform beekeeping association liaison officers or individual beekeepers who are known to them, and that probably less than 50% of beekeepers join an association. Not all English associations are affiliated to BBKA: Ian Copinger is aware of approximately 30 unaffiliated associations.
However, even when notified, action that keepers can take to protect their bees from insecticides is limited. The consensus among respondents is that, to protect bees against spray, hives have to be moved. Because bees have sophisticated homing instincts in reality this means moving hives at least three miles away. Other actions that can be taken are: ‘shut the bees up in the hive, which is not practical if it is a hot day: if the spraying is delayed it can cause stress to the bees. Rotate the hive 90 degrees as this confuses the bees – good for about two hours.’ ‘Block the entrance with grass which takes a while for the bees to remove.’ ‘Farmers should keep spray at least 25 yards from the hives and be persuaded to spray after sun-down.’
The Durham Beekeepers Association proposed to their annual delegates meeting ‘That BBKA and BBKA Enterprises Ltd end their financial relationship of product endorsement with all companies that manufacture and sell products that are toxic to bees as soon as is contractually possible.’ Unfortunately, on that occasion, it was
defeated(12).
Other steps could also be taken:
- no-spray buffer zones next to hives would protect bees
- all UK beekeepers should be made aware of the UK government’s Wildlife Incidents Investigation Scheme to monitor wildlife poisoning and of the evidence required to determine whether bee deaths are due to pesticide poisoning(13). Annual reports produced by this scheme should be scrutinised.
- BBKA and relevant UK government bodies should work closely with farmers and sprayer-contractors to raise awareness that, if bees are in the area, local beekeepers should be notified well in advance, spraying should take place late in the evening, and there should be no spraying of flowering crops.
| Table 1 – Pesticides endorsed by BBKA Enterprises Ltd as ‘bee-friendly’ | ||||
| Company | Product | Active ingredient | Toxicity status | Comments from company |
| BASF | Fastac/ ontest | alpha-cypermethrin | ‘Dangerous to bees' | Spraying in oilseed rape should be carried out in the late evening or early morning or in dull a weather ... and local beekeepers should be advised of the intention to spray and the chemical being used(14). |
| Bayer CropScience | Decis and Pearl Micro | deltamethrin | ‘High risk | Bee-friendly if guidance is followed: local bee-keepers should be notified; spray only in early to bees’a morning or late evening. Many research studies have been carried out on Decis compared with other pyrethroids, and the results have enabled us to publish guidelines for ‘Best Use’ for bee friendly application(15). |
| Belchim Crop Protection Ltd (FMC) | Fury 10EW and Minuet | zeta cypermethrin | ‘High risk to non-target insects’ | Bee-friendly if bee-safety guidelines followed: local beekeepers should be notified a few days before spraying; spray only in late evening – we used to say early morning as well but you have a to be up very early to beat a bee. When applied to the crop there is a repellency effect similar to all pyrethroids, ie bees tend not to go back in for a couple of days. Fury is solvent-free and sometimes solvents can be more aggressive than the active. We don’t support the product if mixed with triazole fungicides when crops are flowering. We don’t use the BBKA endorsement on the labels because we don’t want agronomists to become blasé and do nothing(16). |
| Syngenta only | Hallmark with Zeon Technology | lambda cyhalothrin | ‘Highly toxic to bees’ | In terms of bee safety we don’t recommend use of product when bees are actively foraging. Use in the evening when bee activity has declined. Local beekeepers should be notified in advance of spraying. Hallmark has water-based unique microcapsule formulation, not solvent based. We don’t support use in a mixture with triazole fungicides when bees may be foraging in the crop. Very low environmental loading: the dosage range is 30-75 millilitres per hectare (compared with 250 millilitres per hectare of the old pyrethroids)(17). |
| Source, columns 1-3 Durham Beekeepers Association, Proposition to the BBKA Annual Delegates’ Meeting, January 2005, www.moraybeekeepers.co.uk/Durham.htm. a. The UK Pesticide Guide, BCPC CABI, 2005; b. EXTOXNET datasheet, reviewed 1995. | ||||
| Table 2 – Confirmed pesticide-related bee deaths | |||||
| Year | Incidents investigated | Attributed to pesticides | Pesticide detected | Incidents caused | Colonies affected |
| 2003 | 24 | 8 (33%) | Bendiocarb | 6 | 22 |
| Lindane gamma HCH | 1 | 1 | |||
| Alpha-cypermethrin | 1 | 2 | |||
| 2002 | 25 | 5 (20%) | Triazophos | 1 | 14 |
| Bendiocarb | 2 | 3 | |||
| Deltamethrin | 1 | 12 | |||
| Permethrin | 1 | 200 (queens) | |||
| 2001 | 23 | 5 (22%) | Dichlorvos | 2 | 5 |
| Dimethoate | 1 | 2 | |||
| Bendiocarb | 1 | 1 | |||
| Permethrin | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2000 | 48 | 13 (27%) | Demeton-s-methyl | 1 | 5 |
| Pirimiphos-methyl | 1 | 14 | |||
| Bendiocarb | 3 | 19 | |||
| Cypermethrin | 1 | 1 | |||
| Paraquat | 8 | 26 | |||
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1999 | 28 | 9 (32%) | Bendiocarb | 6 | 8 |
| Dimethoate | 2 | 54 | |||
| Fenitrothion | 1 | 7 | |||
| Source: Pesticides poisonings of animals reports, Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, Environmental Panel of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, Defra, www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=58 | |||||
1. BBKA news 139, February 2003, cited in Durham Beekeepers’ Association Proposition to the BBKA Annual Delegates’ Meeting, January 2005, www.moraybeekeepers.co.uk/Durham.htm
2. Decis Product Information, www.bayercropscience.co.uk/output.aspx?sec=272&con=781
3. Durham Beekeepers’ Association Proposition to the BBKA Annual Delegates’ Meeting, January 2005, www.moraybeekeepers.co.uk/Durham.htm
4. Personal communication: telephone conversation between Glyn Davies, President, BBKA and Alison Craig, PAN UK, 29 April 2005.
5. The Independent on Sunday, ‘A sting in the tale: ‘secret deal’ splits country’s top beekeepers’, 8 May 2005, page 17.
6. BBKA News 144, December 2003.
7. Pesticides Safety Directorate website www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=58
8. Report links Bayer pesticide to bee deaths, Pesticides News 62, December 2003, p17.
9. Watanabe ME, Pollination worries rise as honey bees decline, Science, 1994, 265:1170.
10. Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner V, Giordano S, Horowitz A and D’Amore M, Environmental and economic cost of pesticide use, BioScience, 1992, 42(10): 750-760.
11. Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings (the Green Code), 1998, p45, paragraph 121.
12. BBKA, Op cit 1.
13. Suspected incidents should be reported immediately to WIIS on 0800 321600 (calls are free). Two samples of the dead bees should be collected; one frozen in case the first is lost.
14. Personal communication: telephone conversation between Lance Middleton, Technical Department, BASF and Alison Craig, PAN UK, 12 May 2005.
15. Personal communication: telephone conversation between Ian Cockram, Bayer Cropscience and Alison Craig, PAN UK, 12 May 2005.
16. Personal communication: telephone conversation between Simon Leak, Deputy Marketing Manager, Belchim (FMC), and Alison Craig, PAN UK, 13 May 2005.
17. Personal communication: telephone conversation between Bruce McKenzie, Product Manager, Syngenta, and Alison Craig, PAN UK, 13 May 2005.
Acknowledgement: with thanks to beekeeper and PAN UK member Peter Smith.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 68, June 2005, pages 6-7]