Nerve Agents Found in Honey!

[Mystic Wanderer]

Thanks to the Powers That Be, the honey bees and bumble bees show neonicotinoids at levels known to be neuroactive.
What does this mean for mankind?  We're screwed! 

There is widespread concern over the global loss of biodiversity. The decline in bee abundances is particularly alarming given their role in pollination; bee losses are a major threat to human food security and ecosystem stability. These losses are associated with intensive land use, which exposes bees to pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids. The latter may harm bees directly and/or exacerbate threats from other chemicals, imported parasites and diseases (1), or habitat loss. On page 109 of this issue, Mitchell et al. (2) show that most honeys sampled from around the world between 2012 and 2016 contain neonicotinoids at levels known to be neuroactive in bees. The work highlights the global nature of this threat to bees.

Neonicotinoids are found in the nectar and pollen of treated crops that are harvested by bees and other insect pollinators. Current pesticide safety testing focuses on the acute exposure risk to individual bees. However, recent field studies (3, 4) have identified widespread contamination of agricultural land by neonicotinoids, suggesting that chronic exposure may be more relevant to bee colonies. This conclusion is supported by Mitchell et al.'s detection of neonicotinoids (at neuroactive amounts) in 75% of 198 honeys collected directly from local producers, although the actual regions of bee foraging are unknown.

The frequency of contamination was highest in North America (86%), Asia (80%), and Europe (79%) and lowest in South America (57%). The samples from within the European Union (EU) were contaminated at similar levels to those of other countries and were collected largely before neonicotinoid use on bee-visited crops was banned.

An analysis of neonicotinoids in EU honey since 2014 will be an important indicator of the effectiveness of a partial ban (in which its use is still permitted for non-bee-visited crops). This is important because secondary exposure routes may exist—for example, when neonicotinoid residues in the soil translocate to adjacent wildflowers (5) or bee-visited crops are planted into previously contaminated sites.

The reason why chronic exposure is a greater risk to bees becomes clear when we consider how the pesticide acts. Neonicotinoids target the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (6) in the insect brain, which are responsible for learning and memory. Acute hyperactivation of these receptors by neonicotinoids leads to seizure-like activity, followed by a block in action potential firing (7) that makes bee brain cells (neurons) nonresponsive. Widespread contamination of our landscape by neonicotinoids, as indicated by Mitchell et al., would provide a chronic exposure that may induce neuronal inactivation pathways (7, 8). Neonicotinoids accumulate in the bee brain during prolonged (days) exposure (8, 9) and may also drive long-term adaptation such as receptor up-regulation (6). Upon neuronal recovery, increased receptor expression may raise neuronal sensitivity (8) and vulnerability to further exposure (9). This process may be promoted further by the development of preference-seeking behavior (10) that drives further exposures, such as nicotine-induced cigarette seeking in man.

Therefore, neonicotinoid exposure causes neuronal dysfunction that will limit a bee's capacity to learn and remember (see the figure). This has been demonstrated for the ability of individual honey bees and bumblebees to associate a floral scent with sugar reward (11). If this deficit is prolonged by chronic exposure, impacts on colony function will accumulate. As expected for these brain deficits, exposed bumblebees demonstrate reduced foraging ability (12) and poor colony growth if exposure continues for weeks (3, 8, 9, 12).

Neonicotinoids are not identical in their effects. Each compound activates different, but overlapping, neuronal populations (9) and differentially affects learning (11), preference-seeking for a particular compound type (10), and cross-sensitization, in which heightened responses and toxicity resulting from exposure to one compound extend to related compounds (9). Therefore, the effects of the multiple neonicotinoids found to coexist in honey by Mitchell et al. may be additive (if they operate on the same receptor types) or different (if they act on different receptor types). Within an intensive agricultural system that is already depleted of natural forage opportunities, chronic bee brain dysfunction due to neonicotinoid exposure would be expected to decrease bee foraging performance further. The resulting lack of incoming forage may then limit bee fecundity.

Mitchell et al.'s study highlights two key knowledge gaps: the risks from chronic exposure to individual neonicotinoids, and possible cocktail effects when multiple neonicotinoids coexist. A major scientific challenge is that hundreds of agrochemicals are available to mix on site or use independently on adjacent farms. Although this potential complexity appears to create a scientific impasse, Mitchell et al.'s study draws attention to two important untapped opportunities (4), namely to monitor honey contamination as an indicator of local habitat contamination and to gather data on actual local pesticide application rates.

Nerve agents in honey
Bees provide services through crop and wildflower pollination and honey production. Neonicotinoids applied to crops are transported in pollen and nectar back to the bee hives, where their consumption disrupts bee brain function.

GRAPHIC: C. BICKEL/SCIENCE
Although recording pesticide use is required in the EU (EC no. 1107/2009) and the United States (1990 Farm Bill), it is not collated into a searchable database that might allow correlation of pesticide use with human disease (such as incidence of chronic idiopathic diseases) or ecosystem damage (insect abundance and diversity) (13). Systematic collection of these data could provide the statistical power lacking from existing field studies, allowing identification of possible cocktail effects that may then be confirmed in laboratory studies to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships.

Source

The frequency of contamination was highest in North America (86%).  Well, Imagine That!  

Are these idiots just air heads who don't think about the consequences of their actions, or are they looking under every stone for a way to kill off the human population?  

List of references:

PerspectivePesticides
Nerve agents in honey

1. Christopher N. Connolly
   

See all authors and affiliations
Science  06 Oct 2017:
Vol. 358, Issue 6359, pp. 38-39
DOI: 10.1126/science.aao6000

1. ↵
   
   1. D. Goulson,
      
   2. E. Nicholls
      
2. , Sci. Prog. 99, 312 (2016).
   OpenUrl
   
3. ↵
   
   1. E. A. D. Mitchell et al
      
4. ., Science 358, 109 (2017).
   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
   
5. ↵
   
   1. B. A. Woodcock et al
      
6. ., Science 356, 1393 (2017).
   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
   
7. ↵
   
   1. N. Tsvetkov et al
      
8. ., Science 356, 1395 (2017).
   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
   
9. ↵
   
   1. C. Botias et al
      
10. ., Sci. Total Environ. 566-577, 269 (2016).
    OpenUrl
    
11. ↵
    
    1. M. Tomizawa,
       
    2. J. E. Casida
       
12. , Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 169, 114 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    
13. ↵
    
    1. M. J. Palmer et al
       
14. ., Nat. Commun. 4, 1634 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    
15. ↵
    
    1. C. Moffat et al
       
16. ., FASEB J. 29, 2112 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    
17. ↵
    
    1. C. Moffat et al
       
18. ., Sci. Rep. 6, 24764 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    
19. ↵
    
    1. S. Kessler et al
       
20. ., Nature 521, 74 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    
21. ↵
    
    1. S. Piiroinen,
       
    2. D. Goulson
       
22. , Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20160246 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    
23. ↵
    
    1. R. J. Gill et al
       
24. ., Nature 491, 105 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    
25. ↵
    
    1. A. Milner,
       
    2. E. A. Boyd
       
26. , Science 357, 1232 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    

[Wallfire]

I dont think there is any food left that is safe.

[Mystic Wanderer]

I dont think there is any food left that is safe.

I agree!