Jim Frazier, Chris Mullin
& Maryann Frazier
Penn State University
Department of Entomology
Center for Chemical Ecology &
Center for Pollinator Research
American Beekeeping Federation
Anaheim, CA
January 2015

The Penn State Pesticide Team, Spring 2012
Chris
Stephanie
Jim Dan
Sara
Jing Wanyi Tim Maryann
Collaborators: Dave Biddinger, Diana Cox-Foster, Tim Reluga,
Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Jeff Pettis, Peter Teal, Gloria DeGrande-Hoffman

PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR THIS TALK
• REARED IN OHIO DIARY FARMING COUNTRY
• 46 YEARS AS AN AGRICULTURAL SCIENTIST
• ACADEMICS-AGCHEM INDUSTRY- ACADEMICS
• BIRTH OF IPM, CHEMICAL ECOLOGY, GMO’S
• “THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE
BOUND TO REPEAT ITS MISTAKES”
• THREE QUESTIONS TO ASCERTAIN PROBLEMS
IN A SYSTEM/ORGANIZATION
WHAT’S IMPORTANT AROUND HERE?
HOW WELL ARE WE DOING?
HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW WELL WE ARE DOING?

Are Dying Bees Harbingers or Opportunities
?
Pesticides in the Landscape
 Inform
 Agitate
 Empower
Bees, Pesticides and
Our Food System
Opportunities as Agents of Change

What is the Landscape View of Honey Bee foraging?
Evan Leeson

6 Km (3.7 miles)
113 Km 2 = 27,932 Acres !
Stress
10 Km ( 6.2 miles)
314 Km 2 = 77,440 Acres !
(After Seeley, 1995)
Highest Reward Forage
Average of 2 hrs

 United Kingdom - 300 Registered ai ’ s
 France - 500 Registered ai ’ s
 Most European Countries - 400-500
 US > 1200 ai’s - sold as 18,000 products

Adams Co, PA Apple Orchards in Early May

Pre bloom Applcns
Insecticides
Fungicides
Bee Bread
Acetamiprid
Thiacloprid
Ciprodinil
Mancozeb
Chlorpyrifos
Febuconazole
+ 12 more not applied
Osmia Pollen
Acetamiprid
Thiacloprid
Ciprodinil
Febuconazole
+ 12 more not applied
Reduced Risk Block
Assail - Acetamiprid
Dithane - Mancozeb
Vanguard - Cyprodinil
Indar - Febuconazole
C 1 C 2 C3
83 74 83
15 12 16
262 344 62
0 0 0
23 74 27
36 23 31
** ** **
C1
174
0
289
71
( ** Coumaphos )
Conventional Block
Calypso -Thiacloprid
Warhawk - Chrlorpyrifos
Dithane - Mancozeb
Vanguard - Cyprodinil
C1 C2 C3
0 0 0
18
136
19 27
224 195
0 0 0
11 11 40
28 64 119
** ** **
C1
0
48
2150
228

Percent Apple Pollen in Trapped Pollen During
Pollination of 3 PA Grower Orchards
Year
2009
#
Colonies
25
#
Orchards
Mean
% Apple
4 16
Range Potential
Multiple
Factor
6 - 47 6.25
2110
2011
28
10
4
1
8
31
2 - 22
16 - 61
12.5
3.2
5 gm random sampled pollen pellets sorted into 6 colors

Field Study of Pesticide Exposure During Apple Pollination
W H
D S
C

Conclusions from Apple Pollination and
Migratory Studies 2007-2012
 We have developed a good field testing protocol for measuring sub-lethal impacts of pesticides on bee colonies during a single generation reared on contaminated pollen.
 We have a new population dynamics model of colony development that can be used to predict potential consequences of pesticides in diets and help design future experiments.
 Bees collect pesticide residue while pollenating apples that reflects orchard sprays, but also contains added pesticides from outside the orchard- Landscape Rules
 Total pesticide load in pollen varies widely from colony to colony and from one grower orchard to another- Polylectic Nature Rules

Conclusions from Apple Pollination and
Migratory Studies 2007-2012
 Nurse bees from larvae reared on pollen from a single apple pollination event have longevity reduced by ca. 50% and hypertrophied hypopharyngeal glands with unknown colony impacts
 Colonies fed Migratory beekeeper levels of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides show multiple sub-lethal impacts using methods of finer precision than typically used to manage bee colonies
 Simulation modeling of colony population dynamics with pesticide feeding indicates that sub-lethal impacts on social dynamics may be more important than lethality for multiple year impacts

Pyrethroids Widely Used in US Agriculture

Pyrethroid Use Declining Since Mid 90 ’ s

The Most Widely Used Fungicide in the US.

Chlorothalonil Use in Millions of Pounds in U.S.

Clothianidin Use in Millions of Pounds in US

Glyphosate Is Most Widely Used Herbicide in US

Glyphosate Use Doubled Since 2003 in US

Multi- residue Pesticide Analysis on US Beehive Samples
• Up to 39 different pesticides per sample, 6+ average
•
Only 7% of over 1100 samples incl. controls lacked detections
• Found 131 different pesticides and metabolites

18 organophosphates, 16 pyrethroids, 8 carbamates, 7 neonicotinoids,
 7 chlorinated cyclodienes, 5 organochlorines, 4 insect growth regulators,

31 fungicides, 17 herbicides, 3 synergists, 2 formamidines, 13 misc.
• 51 of these are systemic or partially systemic pesticides
•
Only 35% of the total pesticides analyzed for were not found.
Frazier, M. et al. 2008 . Amer. Bee J.
148(6): 521-523.
Mullin et al. 2010. PLoS ONE 5(4) e9754.

US PESTI CI DE ACTI VE RELATI VE TO I NERT I NGREDI ENTS:
Chemical Class
Average Yearly Release and Waste Transfer
(total lbs., 2005-2010)*
NONYLPHENOL ETHOXYLATES
# inert - surfactant
N-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDONE inert - solvent
PROPYLENE OXIDE
ATRAZINE
ETHYLENE OXIDE
2-METHOXYETHANOL inert - polymer herbicide inert - polymer inert - solvent
CHLOROTHALONIL
2-ETHOXYETHANOL
PENDIMETHALIN
PERMETHRIN
CAPTAN
BIFENTHRIN
AMITRAZ fungicide inert - solvent herbicide insecticide - pyrethroid fungicide insecticide - pyrethroid miticide
*Soure: US EPA Toxic Release Inventory database
#US EPA estimated total use, internal report 2007; cf. 857,000,000 lbs conventional pesticides
320,000,000
33,771,031
2,067,769
797,429
556,611
303,830
274,961
224,445
146,656
13,664
11,402
9,288
157

“ Our Stolen Future ” More Important than “ Silent Spring ”
Endocrine Disruption by
Pesticides in Vertebrates
Known since 1990 ” s
Sub-lethal effects of
Pesticides binding to hormone receptors at the wrong time for normal functioning yields abnormal
Consequences at VERY LOW
DOSES
We are just beginning to
Measure these in Bees-
But should not be surprised they occur

• Pesticide residues are largely unknown for most terrestrial environments relative to ag, urban, forestry use (CA ***)
• Pesticide residues in water systems in ag areas where measured have significant frequencies above toxic thresholds and mixtures are the norm
• Many unknowns in quantifying pesticide exposure by bees of all types, thus all studies are relevant until proven otherwise
• Lab Studies measure the intrinsic action of a chemical on the biological system under controlled conditions thus all results are important
• Aquatic studies of pesticide mixtures far exceeds terrestrial level studies and offers model approaches on many levels, thus current EPA pesticide program refusal to deal with mixtures has no factual basis

• 98 samples evaluated : trace elements,PAH, PBC, OC ’ s
• Overall samples 33% toxic to amphipod: 12% to Midge
• Bifenthrin (PYR) exceeded threshold in 14% of samples
• Mean probable effect concentration quotients (PECQs) for groups of compounds improved toxic classification over that of single compounds

• WARP-MP models use Atrazine model + adjustment factor for each pesticide- further refinements needed
• 112 Pesticides modeled nationwide; 25% of these gave greater than 50% probability of exceeding 1 or more species toxic thresholds in 1 or more streams
• Many streams in corn belt had 1 or more pesticides exceeding aquatic life benchmarks indicating vulnerability in this area

• Bees as Environmental Indicators tell us pesticide mixtures are prevalent in pollen and thus in plants of all types
• No pesticide or formulation or industrial chemical monitoring in terrestrial environment only CA has records
• Areas of intensive ag production have highest environmental loads and highest human health consequences- and highest bee colony impacts
• EPA goal of preventing “undue risks” or societal goals of preventing a degraded environment have not been met
• Disruption of the biological complexities of environment, ag ecosystems systems largely unknown

 We want abundant, uncontaminated, nutritious and affordable food supply of a wide variety
 Production system that is sustainable and in harmony with multiple types of environments
 Production system that preserves biological diversity, soil productivity, water purity
 Producers entrusted with major environmental conservation, so should be recognized and supported
 Producers with rewarding and sustainable lifestyles

 Industrial Revolution Paradigm since early 1900’s
 Economy of scale for production of “widgets” cost focused
 Ag Research focused on increased farm productivity
 Fence row to fence row farming + chemicals to manage risk – Landscape and watersheds ignored
 Real costs to Environment largely Ignored
 Environmental Conservation Roles and Farmer Lifestyles largely Ignored as a Major Societal Value

 Shift of small Family Farms to Larger Farms to Factory Farms
 Economy of scale leads to decreased quality and increased environmental costs both of which are largely ignored
 When environmental impacts of waste disposal extend beyond the borders of the farm, it is a “community safety issue” not a
“right to farm” issue (current policies flawed in PA)
 Corporate farms relegate farmers to surf status
 While grains may be justified as commodities, the majority of our food does not fit the same model of production
 Chemically Free Nutritious Food is not a Specialty Item !

 Organic Ag- Minimize Chemical Usage through IPM
 Major focus on healthy soil = healthy plants
 Locally grown and locally consumed ( vs. 2000 miles)
 High priority of sustainability of environment and of those engaged in food production
 High personal innovation in increasing efficiency of production
 Recent study confirms less than 10% decrease in production vs. conventional ag ( Kremen Group )

 Consumers have been voting approval with their purchases at 20% increase /year for over 20 years
 Fastest Growing Sector of most food markets
 Farmer’s Markets Reappearing across the US
 Organic/Sustainable Farms Growing Rapidly in the
East - PASA
 Preferred quality of food, environmental impacts and lifestyles produced
 High innovation in new approaches: pasture dairy, grass fed beef, high tunnel season extension, pick your own, farm tours
 VT and PA only states with Raw Milk Marketing

 1970- Cotton Production “ Poison Them Bugs”
 Precise sampling- spray only when needed
 Reduced sprays from 25-3- to 15 or less
 Simulation modeling of crop plants and pest dynamics
 Boll Weevil Eradication Program
 Revolutionized cotton production/pesticide reduction
 Resistance Management to Break Treadmill
Approach

• 96 % Seed Treatment goes into environment for potential non-target impacts
• Systemic pesticide single MOA available all season leads to maximal rate of resistance development in target pest
• Glyphosate continual use leads to maximal resistance development in all major weed species
• Switch to another herbicide only fulfills the chemical treadmill approach proven wrong by IPM
• Extent of Environmental costs currently unknown
• Doubled glyphosate sales in last 10 years- who has benefited and who is paying?

 1970 when DDT was banned it was found in fatty tissue and mothers milk throughout US population
 2014 Survey of 1600 publications on glyphosate concludes that “ most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment”
 Failure to monitor environment for chemicals does not mean they are absent and exerting no impacts
 How can anyone claim to have rational chemical regulation and safety if no one knows what is out there?
 Unacceptable Situation

 Public policy that prevents undue risk to people and the environment from chemical usage
 Public policy that monitors and reacts aggressively to infractions of specified use and unintended impacts
 Conflicting values of those making and using pesticides balanced with those impacted by them
 A sustainable system that manages risks according to the best interests of society

The “ functional way ” that things get done yields “ favoritism ”

25 Year employee reveals history of compromised regulatory decisions favoring Chemical Industries
Political influences outweigh scientific realities in many EPA decisions
2014 Boone et al. EPA decisions on
Atrazine counter to 3 sets of science advisors confirms above history
70% Pesticides Registered as “Conditional”
Incident Reporting by States Broken but no action to fix it in last 6 years
Entire Registration Risk Assessment not open to scientific or public scrutiny

Pollinator Risk Assessment Improvements through 2011 International Conference
Separate Tier Testing for Systematic
Pesticides vs. Sprayed
Added Adult Bee Chronic Toxicity
Added larval Bee Feeding Toxicity
Add Selected Native Pollinators
Sub-Lethal Impacts, Formulations,
Pesticide Mixtures not considered
Dynamics of Making Changes Are
Too Slow To be Meaningful, but Allow
Profits to Keep Flowing to Registrants

• Kellogg Fellow at National Center for Food & Ag
Policy- D.C. for 6 weeks
• How does the food system policy system work?
• Overwhelming lack of science in most of the discussion and thinking- its all about the $$
• Most people involved are not trained in science

 The larger the voter base, the louder the voice
 Make an economically justified case
 Coalitions around common goals have become the norm for
Ag & Environmental issues
 Effectively lobby the process or sue individual entities to force decisions
 Partnering with organizations that have experience and connections in D C makes good sense
 Garnering public support for one’s agenda is a huge undertaking ( but doable e.g. MADD!!)

• Bees the 3rd most important animal in US Ag
• Pollination an essential component of US Ag $20 B
• 5.6 M colonies lost since 2006 = $1.12 Billion cost to beekeepers – UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION
• Loss of 200 colonies - 5 crops not pollinated = $4.8 M loss of food production to growers
• Resources to replace 30% annual losses depleted
• Will pollination needs exceed supply in 2015?

 Pesticide regulatory actions in critical need of revision
 Political influences currently favoring those with the most money and thus the loudest “voices”
 NHBAB has made very significant advancements in getting seats at the right tables to be heard
 Coalitions with others who support Conservation and clean Environments are a necessity
 Regardless of the Iron Triangle in D C
Public Outcry can CHANGE EVERYTHING

6-5-14 “Moms to EPA: Recall Monsanto’s Roundup”
(Huff Post Blog)
• Mothers Across America + Thinking Moms Revolution
• 10,000 phone calls to EPA in 3 days – Face to Face Meeting
• Unsafe levels of Glyphosate in drinking water, breast milk, children’s urine
• Multiple testimonies of organic diets eliminating symptoms of gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune conditions, anxiety and depression
• Stack of scientific studies

R. Mason 2013. Glyphosate: Destructor of Human Health and
Biodiversity (Submitted to Scottish Government)
High significant correlations with glyphosate use on corn/soybeans is US and incidence and prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, autism,
Altzheime’rs , thyroid and liver cancers and more
EFSA has agreed to 2 year feeding studies instead of 90 days
Samsel & Seneff, 2013. Glyphosate Suppression of Cytochrome P450 and
Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy 15: 1416-63.
Exhaustive literature review yields “Glyphosate is likely pervasive in our food supply, and contrary to being essentially nontoxic,
It mAy in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment”
Thongprakaisang et al. 2013. Glyphosate induces human breast
cancer cell growth via estrogen receptors Food and Chem. Tox 59:129

You vote for change or for no change every time you buy Food
The collective Impacts cannot be ignored!

• Both
• Environmental Loads of Chemicals Far Beyond our Current Realizations
• Health Consequences for Bees and for US are
Critical
• Our Food System Paradigm Needs a Shift
• Our Regulatory System Needs Improvements
• Opportunities are Many to Change Things for our Grandchildren

COLLABORATORS
David J. Biddinger PSU Fruit and Extension Labs, Biglerville, PA
Diana L. Cox-Foster PSU Department of Entomology, University Park,PA
Jeff Pettis
Roger Simonds
USDA Bee Research Lab, Beltsville, MD
USDA-AMS National Science Lab., Gastonia, NC
Dennis vanEngelsdorp Pa Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA
Tim Reluga PSU Department of Mathematics, University Park
FUNDING SOURCES
•
National Honey Board and California Almond Board
• College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State
• USDA Critical Issues, NRI-CAP, NIFA
• NC508 Sustainable Solutions to Problems Affecting Honey Bee Health
• Haagen-Daz, Jasper Wyman & Sons, and other Private Donors
• Project Apis mellifera
• Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees
•
Beekeeping Associations (Florida State and Tampa Bay)