Breaking the cycle: Reforming pesticide regulation to protect pollinators.

Over decades, pesticide regulations have cycled between approval and implementation, followed by the discovery of negative effects on nontarget organisms that result in new regulations, pesticides, and harmful effects. This relentless pattern undermines the capacity to protect the environment from pesticide hazards and frustrates end users that need pest management tools. Wild pollinating insects are in decline, and managed pollinators such as honey bees are experiencing excessive losses, which threatens sustainable food security and ecosystem function. An increasing number of studies demonstrate the negative effects of field-realistic exposure to pesticides on pollinator health and fitness, which contribute to pollinator declines. Current pesticide approval processes, although they are superior to past practices, clearly continue to fail to protect pollinator health. In the present article, we provide a conceptual framework to reform cyclical pesticide approval processes and better protect pollinators.

A novel insecticide impairs bumblebee memory and sucrose responsiveness across high and low nutrition.

Wild bees are important pollinators of crops and wildflowers but are exposed to a myriad of different anthropogenic stressors, such as pesticides and poor nutrition, as a consequence of intensive agriculture. These stressors do not act in isolation, but interact, and may exacerbate one another. Here, we assessed whether a field-realistic concentration of flupyradifurone, a novel pesticide that has been labelled as 'bee safe' by regulators, influenced bumblebee sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory. In a fully crossed experimental design, we exposed individual bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) to flupyradifurone at high (50% (w/w)) or low (15% (w/w)) sucrose concentrations, replicating diets that are either carbohydrate rich or poor, respectively. We found that flupyradifurone impaired sucrose responsiveness and long-term memory at both sucrose concentrations, indicating that better nutrition did not buffer the negative impact of flupyradifurone. We found no individual impact of sugar deficiency on bee behaviour and no significant interactions between pesticide exposure and poor nutrition. Our results add to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that flupyradifurone has significant negative impacts on pollinators, indicating that this pesticide is not 'bee safe'. This suggests that agrochemical risk assessments are not protecting pollinators from the unintended consequences of pesticide use.