Confidence in Communicating About Pesticides: A Beekeepers Point of View

Author: William W Gartner (References listed below)

Introduction

Pesticides are one of several interacting stressors affecting honey bee (Apis mellifera) health worldwide, alongside parasites, pathogens, nutrition, and habitat loss. While public debate often focuses on large commercial pollination operations and neonicotinoid insecticides, most beekeepers manage small, stationary apiaries in suburban or rural settings and primarily experience chronic, low-level exposure via the surrounding landscape. This review addresses four key questions: (1) how problematic pesticides are for small and mid-scale stationary apiaries; (2) whether banning neonicotinoids alone would lead to rapid pollinator recovery; (3) what governments are currently doing to protect bees; and (4) which practical actions different stakeholder groups can take to reduce pesticide exposure.

1. Pesticide Risks for Small and Stationary Apiaries

Large, migratory operations working in intensive agriculture are clearly exposed to complex pesticide mixtures, but stationary beekeepers are not exempt. A four-year study of six stationary apiaries across the United States found 91 different pesticide compounds in pollen and wax, with an average of 714 detections in pollen and 1,008 in wax samples, indicating that even non-migratory colonies encounter diverse residues over time. Many detections were at sublethal levels, but the study highlighted frequent co-occurrence of multiple modes of action, raising concern about potential synergies.

Focusing specifically on urban and suburban colonies, Démares et al. (2022) analyzed 768 nectar and 862 pollen samples from colonies around eight U.S. cities. About 73% of all samples had no detectable pesticide residues, and only four insecticides (imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos, esfenvalerate, deltamethrin) were judged to pose potential acute risk in limited cases. Overall, the authors concluded that pesticide exposure in these developed landscapes was generally low, though variable by region.

Taken together, these findings suggest that for small and mid-scale beekeepers who keep colonies in one location, pesticides are primarily a chronic, sublethal issue rather than an immediate cause of colony collapse. They may interact with Varroa destructor, viruses, and nutritional stress to impair longevity, brood survival, and queen performance, rather than killing large numbers of foragers overnight. This means stationary beekeepers should still take pesticide exposure seriously, but their risk profile differs from that of migratory pollinators working in intensively sprayed crops.

2. Would a Neonicotinoid Ban Quickly “Fix” the Problem?

Neonicotinoids (NNIs) are systemic insecticides that move into plant tissues, including nectar and pollen, and they have been repeatedly shown to harm bees at both lethal and sublethal doses. In response, the European Union restricted three NNIs in bee-attractive crops in 2013 and expanded this to an almost complete outdoor ban in 2018.

However, evidence from Europe suggests that such bans do not produce rapid, complete ecosystem recovery. Neonicotinoids persist in soil and water for years, so residues can continue to affect non-target insects well after use stops. Recent work in France found that insect-eating birds, which depend on insect prey, showed only a 2–3% population increase several years after the ban—interpreted as a meaningful but modest early recovery, with full recovery likely to take decades.

Moreover, pesticides other than neonicotinoids—such as pyrethroids, organophosphates, fungicides with synergistic effects, and in-hive miticides—continue to pose risks to bees. Habitat loss, climate change, and disease pressure also remain unchanged by an NNI ban alone. It is therefore unrealistic to expect a quick and full recovery of bee populations solely through neonicotinoid bans. Instead, such bans should be viewed as one important component of a broader transition to reduced pesticide dependence and more pollinator-friendly farming systems.

3. Government Actions to Protect Bees from Pesticides

Governments at multiple scales have begun to implement measures aimed at pollinator protection:

1. European Union

   • The EU banned most outdoor uses of three neonicotinoids—clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam—in 2018, citing unacceptable risk to bees.

   • Subsequent court decisions have upheld strict limits and curtailed emergency derogations, reinforcing the precautionary approach.

2. United States (Federal)

   • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has refined its bee risk-assessment guidance, evaluates pollinator risk for new registrations, and issues label restrictions (e.g., “Do not apply while bees are foraging”).

   • EPA promotes Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s), voluntary state-level frameworks that encourage communication between beekeepers, growers, and applicators to reduce acute exposure.

3. State and Provincial Initiatives

   • New York’s Birds and Bees Protection Act phases out many uses of neonicotinoid-treated seeds and certain turf and ornamental uses, representing one of the strictest state-level NNI regulations in the U.S.

   • Several U.S. states and Canadian provinces have state-specific MP3s or pollinator protection strategies that integrate outreach, best management practices, and data collection.

4. United Kingdom and Other Jurisdictions

   • The UK government recently refused emergency authorization of neonicotinoid seed treatments for sugar beet and signaled a move away from reliance on bee-toxic pesticides.

While these measures vary in strength and enforcement, they demonstrate increasing recognition that pesticide regulation must take pollinators into account. At the same time, many experts argue that risk-assessment frameworks still under-represent chronic and sublethal effects and largely focus on honey bees rather than wild pollinators.

4. Practical Steps to Reduce Pesticide Exposure

Because pesticide risk is a function of both toxicity and exposure, meaningful progress requires changes in on-the-ground practices by multiple stakeholder groups.

4.1 Growers and Applicators

Evidence-based best management practices (BMPs) emphasize:

• Avoiding insecticide applications during bloom or when bees are actively foraging; and preventing drift onto flowering weeds or adjacent forage.

• Selecting less bee-hazardous formulations and active ingredients, for example using granular rather than dust formulations and choosing compounds with shorter residual toxicity to bees.

• Adhering strictly to label directions, including pollinator advisory statements and buffer requirements.

• Integrating non-chemical pest management (crop rotation, resistant varieties, biological control) to reduce overall pesticide load in the landscape.

4.2 Beekeepers

Beekeepers can also meaningfully lower pesticide burdens in their hives by:

• Implementing integrated pest management (IPM) for Varroa, prioritizing cultural and mechanical methods and rotating softer treatments to reduce reliance on persistent miticides such as coumaphos or fluvalinate.

• Regular comb replacement, recognizing that beeswax accumulates lipophilic pesticide residues over time; moving brood onto newer comb reduces colony exposure.

• Establishing formal communication channels or pollination contracts that specify how and when growers may apply pesticides while colonies are present.

• Providing diverse, uncontaminated forage and clean water near apiaries to dilute exposure from treated crops or ornamental plants.

4.3 Landowners and the General Public

Urban and suburban pesticide use is often fragmented but collectively important. Homeowners and municipalities can:

• Reduce or eliminate cosmetic insecticide, miticide, and herbicide use on lawns and ornamentals, relying instead on tolerance of minor damage and non-chemical controls.

• Plant pollinator-friendly, pesticide-free flowering species and avoid purchasing ornamental plants pre-treated with systemic insecticides.

• Participate in community-level pollinator initiatives (e.g., “bee-friendly city” programs) that restrict certain pesticide uses and expand habitat.

5. Synthesis and Implications for Communication

Across studies, several patterns emerge that are useful when speaking with other beekeepers or the public:

1. Exposure is ubiquitous but heterogeneous. Stationary apiaries, including urban colonies, encounter pesticide residues, but levels and risk vary widely by region and land use.

2. Chronic, multi-pesticide exposure is more common than acute poisoning. Most residues are below LD₅₀ but may still interact with other stressors. Communicating this nuance helps avoid oversimplified narratives that blame a single product.

3. Neonicotinoid bans are necessary but not sufficient. They reduce one important hazard but do not automatically restore pollinator health while other pesticides, diseases, and habitat problems remain.

4. Collaborative management works. MP3s and BMPs that foster two-way communication between beekeepers and growers are repeatedly highlighted as among the most effective tools for reducing pesticide exposure in real landscapes.

For a beekeeper speaking to a club or community group, the key message is that pesticides are a manageable, though serious, part of a larger health puzzle. Clear communication, evidence-based management, and shared responsibility among growers, beekeepers, and the public offer the best path forward.

References (APA 7th ed.)

Calatayud-Vernich, P., Calatayud, F., Simó, E., & Picó, Y. (2018). Pesticide residues in honey bees, pollen and beeswax: Assessing beehive exposure. Environmental Pollution, 241, 106–114.

Démares, F. J., Schmehl, D., Bloomquist, J. R., Cabrera, A. R., Huang, Z. Y., Lau, P. W., … Ellis, J. D. (2022). Honey bee (Apis mellifera) exposure to pesticide residues in nectar and pollen in urban and suburban environments from four regions of the United States. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Drummond, F. A., et al. (2018). Exposure of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies to pesticides in pollen in Maine. Environmental Entomology, 47(2), 378–388.

European Commission. (2018). Restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids.

Hester, K. P., et al. (2023). Pesticide residues in honey bee (Apis mellifera) pollen from urban and agricultural landscapes. Environmental Pollution, 326, 121471.

Honey Bee Health Coalition. (2020). Best management practices for pollinator protection in soybean.

Li, Z., et al. (2022). Modeling pesticide residues in nectar and pollen in support of pollinator risk assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 834, 155322.

Ostiguy, N., Drummond, F. A., Aronstein, K., Eitzer, B., Ellis, J. D., Spivak, M., & Sheppard, W. S. (2019). Honey bee exposure to pesticides: A four-year nationwide study. Insects, 10(1), 13.

Perrot, T., et al. (2025). Weak recovery of insectivorous bird populations after a ban on neonicotinoids. Environmental Pollution.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Protecting bees and other pollinators from pesticides.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Policy to mitigate acute risk to bees from pesticide products.

University of California IPM Program. (n.d.). Best management practices to protect bees from pesticides.

New York State Legislature. (2023). Birds and Bees Protection Act (A.3226/S.1856A).

Honey Bee Health Coalition. (2019). Managed Pollinator Protection Plan (MP3) resources.

Xerces Society. (2025). Protecting bees from pesticides: Why EPA regulations need to change.

(Additional sources cited inline above provide broader context on pesticide use, regulation, and pollinator protection.)