What's Behind the Honeybee Decline? Perhaps Not What You've Heard

Rachel Carson‘s Silent Spring is widely recognized as the founding document of the environmentalist movement. Less widely recognized, but equally important, is why. For 40 years before the book was published in 1962, scientists concerned about toxic contamination had been trying to draw a solid link between pesticides and public health. The link eluded them. What these scientists were routinely unable to do-either for lack of evidence or literary eloquence-Carson eventually did. Meticulously, and with narrative grace, she connected the dots between pesticides and a host of health problems (bearing on all forms of life), thereby sparking an intense political response that continues to this day.

The environmental movement thus began with a bang: a general environmental problem (toxicity) was shown to have a specific and readily verifiable environmental cause (certain pesticides) that stood head and shoulders above other possible explanations. To be sure, there was controversy-most notably on the issue of DDT and malaria-but the court of public opinion was generally convinced that Carson, who died of cancer in 1964, had made her case against organophosphate and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.

Carson’s accomplishment, for all its impact, bequeathed to the environmentalist movement a daunting legacy. The ecological ills that Carson identified became a poignant cautionary tale for an agricultural system hooked on chemicals. As such, an unintended consequence of Silent Spring was to encourage the emerging environmentalist movement to rely heavily on the power of relatively simple cautionary tales to engage grassroots action.? Ever since Carson, when an environmental problem has been identified, no matter how complex the underlying ecological factors, it’s often packaged as a morality lesson highlighting the impact of a single, human-driven environmental sin.

But this standard approach to environmental problems, while translating seamlessly into short press releases, can backfire in ways that gradually weaken the movement. Ultimately, it ignores the central point that ecology is as messy as it is beautiful, and that establishing bull’s eye causation is often like throwing a dart into a cyclone.

The allure of singular causation is hard to resist. When, in 1987, a barge from New York holding 3,000 tons of trash floated up and down the East Coast without finding a landfill able to take the garbage, environmentalists deemed it a cautionary tale about the nation’s maxed-out landfills.? When, in 2000, the first weeds resistant to genetically engineered (herbicide-resistant) crops appeared, environmentalists turned it into a cautionary tale about the decline in diversity of cultivated plant breeds. And when, most recently, H1N1 swept the globe, environmentalists rushed to tell a cautionary tale about the inherent dangers of factory farms. Such reductions to a single cause are satisfying. They stoke a sense of outrage and inspire a quest for justice. They also make it clear who is at fault.

But in each of the above cases, the cautionary tale never quite captured the deeper causes. Future assessments showed landfill space to be far from a premium; a recent report from the Dutch Center for Genetic Resources has revealed that seed biodiversity has actually increased since the advent of GE seeds; and the H1N1 virus’s origin has yet to be positively linked to factory farming. In fact, the USDA goes so far as to note that free-range swine, by virtue of being outdoors and exposed to wildlife, are more susceptible to certain pathogens than confined pigs.

These misfires matter. Every time a cautionary tale fails to demonstrably confirm the identified cause, the environmental movement comes off as rashly leaping before looking, placing politics ahead of science.

And now it appears another cautionary tale may be veering off its mark. It involves the rapid decline of honeybees in the United States-a depressing phenomenon called “colony collapse disorder.” Since 2006, when American farmers and beekeepers began to lament drastic declines in hive populations, environmentalists have been packaging CCD as a cautionary tale confirming our excessive reliance on-once again-harmful pesticides.

As it became clear that this decline was indeed real (40-50 percent in the US since 2004), environmental interests began to construct the narrative. Democratic Underground explained, “Imidacloprid Pesticide Most Likely Cause of Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder.” Grist helped out: “So there’s this insecticide called clothianidin that seems likely to be implicated in colony collapse disorder,” offering as evidence the claim that “over in Germany the introduction of clothianidin coincided with a sudden bee die-off.” Environment 360 led with the headline “Behind Mass Die-Offs, Pesticides Lurk as Culprit.” And Mother Earth News joined the chorus, adding, “Colony Collapse: Are Potent Pesticides Killing Honeybees?”? As recently as March 2010, media reports have continued to stress the pesticide connection as the leading causative factor behind the nation’s declining bee population.

To date, no scientific evidence directly supporting this conclusion has emerged. Of course, this could change. The problem here is not that pesticides are a suggested cause of CCD-this seems perfectly reasonable to assume. Rather, it’s that they have been routinely favored-and sometimes politicized-as the singular or most likely cause when, as it turns out, there are a number of supplementary explanations that bear on the phenomenon. These explanations are neither as simple nor as damning of our behavior as the pesticide explanation. A January 2010 congressional report on CCD shows why.

Particularly compelling is the impact of the Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV), which scientists have known about since the 1970s. This virus, which is transmitted by a Varooa mite, was identified by the USDA in 2007 as “a marker of CCD.” Although the USDA did not go so far as to call IAPV the cause of CCD, the congressional report did note that “research indicates there is a strong correlation of the appearance of IAPV and CCD together.” The report also stresses the likelihood of a pathogen-perhaps the fungus Nosema ceranae-being a contributing factor, “given that some bee colonies have recovered once their bee boxes were irradiated.” It briefly mentions a range of other factors, including the impact of feed supplements made with GE crops, changes in nectar flow as a result of climate change, and the growing gossamer of phone transmission lines, but adds, “these possible factors have not been substantiated by evidence examined by the key researchers of this issue.”

The report had something to say about pesticides as well. As environmentalists rightly-if too exclusively-pointed out, the new class of insecticide known as neonicotinoids was indeed being taken up by bees, along with a variety of fungicides and herbicides. Although not absorbed in lethal doses, these agents did raise concerns about “possible chronic problems caused by long-term exposure.” The report also recognized that the Organic Consumers Association claimed that collapses were not happening on organic bee operations. But it went on to mention that “there is conflicting information about the effect of these pesticides on honey bees,” adding that these chemicals had been discontinued in Europe while colony losses continued unabated. In the end, the congressional report placed the pesticide possibility in a broader and more complicated context, one rarely provided by anti-pesticide advocates, and one that makes the standard cautionary tale about pesticides leading to CCD that much harder to accept.

Media reports are beginning to catch on. In The Economist, a British apiary professor, speaking on the cause of CCD, was recently quoted as saying, “People want it to be genetically modified crops, pollution, mobile phone masts and pesticides.” But, he added, it’s “almost certainly none of these.” The BBC reported that CCD is actually a cyclical event rather than an anomalous tragedy. An Australian entomologist quoted in the article explained, “Researchers around the world are running around trying to find a cause of the disorder-and there’s absolutely no proof that there’s a disorder there.”

Perhaps most compellingly, an article in the recent issue of Conservation reports that, while indeed bee populations have declined in the U.S. since 2004, the global population of managed bees has, since the 1960s, risen by 50 percent while honey production has gone up 100 percent.? “U.S. bee losses,” writes Nathanael Johnson, “have been dwarfed by increases in places such as China, Argentina, and Turkey-countries which now dominate the honey supply.” Additionally, “the production of pollinator-dependent crops has quadrupled.”

None of this additional information has kept the keepers of the cautionary tale from capitalizing on the possible pesticide connection. For example, several environmental groups are bringing charges against Bayer CropScience to prevent the sale of two pesticides-popularly known as Movento and Ultor-on the grounds that they harm honeybees. Perhaps these agents should be kept off the market. I honestly don’t know. But I do know that if the means and ends are not consistent-that is, if dubious pretenses are deployed to promote positive environmental outcomes-a short-term victory will come at the expense of the environmental movement’s long-term viability. Carson, for her part, would have surely persevered to find the truth, ensuring that the changes she initiated derived from science more than suggestion.

Putting bees on trucks is the problem.

I attribute CCD to bees with ADD.

The bees need therapy or drugs, or a combination.


Isn't the issue with the decline of American honeybee populations the loss of their valuable POLLINATION, not so much the production of honey?

While I'm encouraged that other countries have taken up the slack for honey, I'd be much more interested in finding out if China, Argentina and Turkey are able to supply American with enough colonies to keep our plants pollinated...

Kathryn E. Allen

More about honey bees.


The answer is obvious:
China, Turkey, and Argentina have obviously sabotaged the U.S. bees to control the honey market - together, the form the Waxes of Evil.

One serious note on the bees: you say earlier in the article that there is a recognized real problem, in Europe as well as the U.S., but then later quote an Australian scientist as saying there is no proof of this - that seems contradictory.

On the swine: while free range pigs etc. may be exposed to a wider variety of pathogens, they may be less susceptible to all of them as they are less congested and likely more healthy overall from exercise, feed. And as you know, overuse of antibiotics in livestock, more likely and necessary with non-free range animals, promotes drug-resistant strains.


Another issue to look at is size of bees and honeycomb cell size. Apparently there are different size cells for drones and workers, the larger size cells are easier to extract honey from. And, being America, bees like everything else are being bred larger. Nothing about the bee industry remains as it had evolved in nature, so bees are stressed. There's a technical article about this, difficult to summarize, on a beekeeper website, see: http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/honeybee-comb-size-and-ramifications-part-3/


I've followed the CCD story off and on for a few years, and I have to admit I haven't heard a specific pesticide as the proximate cause. In fact I hear more about CCD from HFCS partisans (whooo, you want to meet a real "singular causation" nut? High fructose corn syrup is destroying this great land of ours through diabetes, obesity, multinational agribusiness, GM corn, diversion of cropland to ethanol, and now the honeybees!) who have jumped on the proposed lack of nutrients and in the HFCS syrup used to feed the bees on their trucks.

Eric M. Jones

Good article. I think you are right on. The November 1918 Popular Mechanics Magazine has this article:

Wholesale Death of Bees Due to Poisoned Flowers

"Poisoned flowers in the Santa Monica Mountains of southern California have caused serious injury to the bee industry in that district. Thousands upon thousands of bees are reported to have been killed. The work is believed to be that of German agents or sympathizers. When the bees began dying in wholesale numbers, laboratory tests were made, which determined that they had been killed by poison. Further investigation disclosed that the flowers in the vicinity bore the same poison. Its character and the methods used in spreading it have for obvious reasons been concealed. Armed guards have been stationed in many of the bee districts, and a reward of $5,000 has been offered by the California Association of Bee Raisers for the capture of the miscreant who maliciously spread the poison."



My concerns about genetically modified foods -

1) If the bugs won't eat them, should people?

2) Biodiversity is up... of course it is... your GM genes are moving into the non-GM populations. Witness - Adrian, MO. Test bed for GM cotton - grown in red and blue instead of white. Neighboring fields producing pink and baby blue cotton thanks to the spread of the pollen.

3) We had damn well better figure out what's going with the bees if we want to keep eating...... They're critical to food production. If you don't want to have to pay people to hand pollinate every ear of corn, every apple, grape, tomato, etc., and frankly, I don't think we can afford it, we'd best be finding out what's going on with our bees.

Jim Bedford

The picture accompanying this article appears to be of a bumble bee and not a honey bee.


as long as governments and politcal groups are funding scientific research, the findings are susceptible to this kind of bias.
just try preventing evidence that shows there's something wrong with the underlying assumptions of evolution or global warming, and watch the fireworks from dispassionate scientists. They know who pays the bills.


You leave out an unindicted co-conspirator in this discussion of distorting facts for political purposes, in this case by environmental purposes: Journalists.

Reporters have proven time and again that they don't care about facts -- they want something with a beginning, a middle and an end, a hero and a villain, a conflict and a cause, all in a thousand words or less. That's why they call them "stories."

And they've also proven time and again they don't mind getting rolled by someone with an agenda -- particularly if they're sympathetic -- as long as the story is juicy enough.

Witness how quickly and frequently they allow themselves to get shamelessly pimped by the likes of Greenpeace and PETA.

don coxe

A very fine article. I have been writing about CCD for two years in an investment journal and have been the beneficiary of a large flow of letters from beekeepers--both hobby farmers and full-time apiarists.

The apiarists who produce their own honey tend to be of the view that a major contributor to the problem is the large-scale practice of taking bees to different regions of the US to pollinate different crops under differenct climate conditions. They travel great distances: the almond crop in California is said to employ 50% of the nation's available honeybees. Stress could be the big factor--leaving them open to infection or disease or chemicals that healthy bees could resist.

Nathanael Johnson

Sure, it's all too easy to jump to the conclusion that provides a cautionary parable.
But don't misunderstand the point of my bee story to be "there's no problem here." Every scientist who points out that honeybee populations are actually up, is also extremely concerned that developing countries are beginning to push production (and push pollinators) so hard as to repeat the mistakes of Europe and the U.S.
PS - it's Nathanael (I know, thanks a lot mom)


Don't forget the decline in frog populations. That was tauted as a cautionary tale against pesticides and other chemicals. It turns out the problem was actually a pest; a fungus on grain that ended up in wetlands through bird droppings.


The increase in honey bee colonies in China, Argentina, and Turkey can just as easily be linked to their booming economies and not the health of their bees. It's like saying that there have been significant reductions in GHG emissions since '07 due to conservation efforts, when it can clearly be attributed to reduction in production and consumption due to a global recession.

If this is a post about how researchers will find any link that validates their work - then good job in finding isolated cases of scientific abuses that support your view point! The same system is employed by the research groups of oil, pharma, fast food, tobacco, etc... to a much more devastating effect.

Tom, Morristown, NJ

Coastal elites will take umbrage that you have not concluded global warming is the cause of CCD.


The author of this blog posting is being disingenuous. The point the author completely overlooks is that the precautionary principle is precisely intended to guide policy actions in the face of scientific uncertainties about the root causes, and contributing factors, of any given phenomenon.

In cases where the potential for environmental harm is potentially extensive, or possibly irreversible, the precautionary principle says policymakers should take action to ensure that current environmental harm is contained, and any prospective harm is prevented, while the scientific uncertainties are investigated and reduced.

So given that no one knows precisely what causes CCD, the default policy response should NOT be to do nothing. Rather, because of the enormous implications if bees do start disappearing, it behooves policy makers to take action now to prevent further declines in bee populations.

At the same time, funding should be provided to scientists to investigate and reduce the uncertainties, and once that research has been completed and the root and contributing causes of CCD become more clear, then the policy response can be adjusted as appropriate.

Hippocrates got it right: First, do no harm. That is true for doctors entrusted to heal the human body, and it is equally true for policy makers entrusted to preserve the environment.



What the author of this otherewise sophisticated article did not point out isthe tipping point theory, in which a combation of several, even many factors, can influence a system (and honeybee culture is in fact a system), can influence the outcome of the system till it reaches a tipping point. Reaching that tipping point can change the whole nature and character of that system, in some cases, irretrievably. What I am suggesting is that CCD research should be approached as a study in whether a large number of contributing factors (including stress from being trucked around), contribute to the species arriving a tipping point, otherwise known as a "singularity" in chaos theory.


save the beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssss


@ #8
"If you don't want to have to pay people to hand pollinate every ear of corn, every apple, grape, tomato, etc., and frankly, I don't think we can afford it, we'd best be finding out what's going on with our bees."

Most of our grains are not pollinated by bees. In fact, half of your above examples are wind polinated (corn and tomatoes).

I agree that we will have a lot less variety, but the idea that we would starve without bees is not correct.

For all of you worried about it, I would recommend you get a hive, if possible. We have 2 hives in our backyard, and it's an amazing hobby.