The neonicotinoid Clothianidin has a negative impact on NF-κB signaling and on immune responses controlled by this transcription factor, which can boost the proliferation of honey bee parasites and ...pathogens. This effect has been well documented for the replication of deformed wing virus (DWV) induced by Clothianidin in honey bees bearing an asymptomatic infection. Here, we conduct infestation experiments of treated bees to show that the immune-suppression exerted by Clothianidin is associated with an enhanced fertility of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, as a possible consequence of a higher feeding efficiency. A conceptual model is proposed to describe the synergistic interactions among different stress agents acting on honey bees.
Bees are important pollinators in wild and agricultural ecosystems, and understanding the factors driving their global declines is key to maintaining these pollination services. Learning, which has ...been a focus of previous ecotoxicological studies in bees, may play a key role in driving colony fitness. Here we move beyond the standard single-stressor approach to ask how multiple stressors, an agrochemical (sulfoxaflor, a relatively new insecticide) and a parasite (Crithidia bombi, a prevalent gut parasite of bumblebees), impact learning in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. We developed a modified version of the classic proboscis extension reflex assay to assess the combined effects of acute oral sulfoxaflor exposure and infection by C. bombi on olfactory learning of bumblebee workers. We found no evidence that either sulfoxaflor, C. bombi, or their combination had any significant effect on bumblebee olfactory learning, despite their known negative impacts on other aspects of bumblebee health. This suggests that losses in cognitive ability, as measured here, are unlikely to explain the impacts of sulfoxaflor and its interactions with other stressors on bumblebees. Our novel methodology provides a model system within which to test interactive effects of other key stressors on bee health.
There is growing evidence that pesticides may be among the causes of worldwide bee declines, which has resulted in repeated calls for their increased scrutiny in regulatory assessments. One recurring ...concern is that the current frameworks may be biased towards assessing risks to the honey bee. This paradigm requires extrapolating toxicity information across bee species. Most research effort has therefore focused on quantifying differences in sensitivity across species. However, our understanding of how responses to pesticides may vary within a species is still very poor. Here we take the first steps towards filling this knowledge gap by comparing acute, lethal hazards in sexes and castes of the eusocial bee Bombus terrestris and in sexes of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis after oral and contact exposure to the pesticides sulfoxaflor, Amistar (azoxystrobin) and glyphosate. We show that sensitivity towards pesticides varies significantly both within and across species. Bee weight was a meaningful predictor of pesticide susceptibility. However, weight could not fully explain the observed differences, which suggests the existence of unexplored mechanisms regulating pesticide sensitivity across bee sexes and castes. Our data show that intra-specific responses are an overlooked yet important aspect of the risk assessment of pesticides in bees.
Neonicotinoid insecticides are systemic pesticides authorised in Europe since 1991. From their introduction on the market, they have received significant attention from the scientific community, ...particularly regarding the assessment of lethal and sublethal effects on bees. The availability of scientific evidence alongside some concerns raised on the bee health led to the development of more articulate risk assessment methodologies for pesticides. To support the European Commission in its decision-making process, since 2012 EFSA has been requested to evaluate the risk to bees posed by the exposure to neonicotinoids. The outcome of the EFSA evaluations has been used by risk managers to revise the approval conditions of the substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam and to impose severe restrictions on their use. Meanwhile, a number of new studies have been carried out. EFSA is evaluating these data in order to further support the decision-making process with updated scientific assessments.
Display omitted
•EFSA has been revised the risk assessments to bees of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin.•The revision was triggered by new scientific evidence and new risk assessment methodologies.•EFSA identified risks to bees which led to restrictions on the use of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin.•A new review of the risk assessment is on-going based on more recent data and larger dataset.
Many pollinators, including bumble bees, are in decline. Such declines are known to be driven by a number of interacting factors. Decreases in bee populations may also negatively impact the key ...ecosystem service, pollination, that they provide. Pesticides and parasites are often cited as two of the drivers of bee declines, particularly as they have previously been found to interact with one another to the detriment of bee health. Here we test the effects of an insecticide, sulfoxaflor, and a highly prevalent bumble bee parasite, Crithidia bombi, on the bumble bee Bombus terrestris. After exposing colonies to realistic doses of either sulfoxaflor and/or Crithidia bombi in a fully crossed experiment, colonies were allowed to forage on field beans in outdoor exclusion cages. Foraging performance was monitored, and the impacts on fruit set were recorded. We found no effect of either stressor, or their interaction, on the pollination services they provide to field beans, either at an individual level or a whole colony level. Further, there was no impact of any treatment, in any metric, on colony development. Our results contrast with prior findings that similar insecticides (neonicotinoids) impact pollination services, and that sulfoxaflor impacts colony development, potentially suggesting that sulfoxaflor is a less harmful compound to bee health than neonicotinoids insecticides.
Risk assessment for Birds and Mammals Aagaard, Alf; Berny, Philippe; Chaton, Pierre‐François ...
EFSA journal,
February 2023, 2023-02-00, 20230201, 2023-02, 2023-02-01, Letnik:
21, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the Guidance on the risk assessment for birds and mammals. That guidance described how to perform risk assessment for birds and mammals from plant ...protection products, containing pesticide active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. The current guidance document is an update of EFSA's existing guidance document titled ‘Risk assessment for Birds and Mammals’ which was published in 2009. It outlines a tiered risk assessment scheme covering dietary exposure, exposure via secondary poisoning and exposure via intake of contaminated water.
Flupyradifurone is a novel butenolide insecticide, first approved as an active substance for use in plant protection products by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2084. Following concerns ...that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities, in November 2020, asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. In addition, in June 2020, the Dutch Authorities notified the Commission, under Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, of new information on flupyradifurone on the wild bee species Megachile rotundata. This notification is also referred to in the French notification on flupyradifurone. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to quantify the likelihood of this body of evidence constituting proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments. A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For the human health, only one study was considered relevant for the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone in vitro. These data did not provide sufficient information to overrule the EU assessment, as in vivo studies already addressed the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone. Environment: All available data investigated hazards in bee species. For honey bees, the likelihood of the new data indicating higher hazards than the previous EU assessment was considered low or moderate, with some uncertainties. However, among solitary bee species – which were not addressed in the previous EU assessment – there was evidence that Megachile rotundata may be disproportionately sensitive to flupyradifurone. This sensitivity, which may partially be explained by the low bodyweight of this species, was mechanistically linked to inadequate bodily metabolisation processes.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7031/full
Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action currently under the third renewal (AIR3) of the Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 844/2012. Following concerns that this ...substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to advise on the likelihood that body of evidence would constitute proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments.A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) the data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) the weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) the uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For human health, no conclusive evidence of higher hazards compared to previous assessment was found for genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity including developmental neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity. However, due to the lack of adequate assessment of the current data set, the PPR Panel recommends conducting an assessment of endocrine disrupting properties for acetamiprid in line with EFSA/ECHA guidance document for the identification of endocrine disruptors. For environment, no conclusive, robust evidence of higher hazards compared to the previous assessment was found for birds, aquatic organisms, bees and soil organisms. However, the potential of high inter‐species sensitivity of birds and bees towards acetamiprid requires further consideration.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7030/full
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State The ...Netherlands for the pesticide active substance 1‐methylcyclopropene are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council for an amendment in approval conditions. The current approval of 1‐methylcyclopropene includes the specific provision ‘Only uses as plant growth regulator for post‐harvest storage in sealable warehouse may be authorised’. The applicant AgroFresh Holding France SAS submitted, in accordance with Article 7 of Reg. (EC) 1107/2009, an application to remove this specific provision in order to allow member states to authorise the use of products containing 1‐methylcyclopropene on outdoor crops pre‐harvest. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use(s) of 1‐methylcyclopropene as a plant growth regulator via spray application on pome fruit. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.
PDF
