Doesn’t kill you: makes you weaker

As things stand a scientific assessment would suggest that Britain is Bangladesh for bees.

Here’s a fun experiment. Give your child – or a neighbour’s child, if you don’t have one of your own – a couple of large glasses of Malbec and then send them off to school. The wine probably won’t kill them, just as the neonicotinoid-based pesticides in routine use on our agricultural land aren’t directly killing bees. The child may well make it across the roads safely and get to school, just as most of the bees are still leaving the hive and finding pollen-bearing flowers. The chances are that the child will perform as badly at school that morning as the pesticideridden bees do at bringing back pollen. But you could still choose to label two glasses of wine a safe dose.

Last month, when the UK government told the EU that neonicotinoids aren’t a proven problem for bees, it brandished scientific evidence. Yet the tests it referred to showed little more than whether the likely doses were lethal. They did not look at whether neonicotinoids hamper a bee’s ability to go about its business effectively – to gather pollen, to navigate between flower sources and hives, or to communicate with other members of the colony.

Better tests show that all these activities are hampered by everyday exposure to neonicotinoids, which may have contributed to the ongoing collapse of bee colonies. For instance, studies carried out by researchers at the University of Stirling found that bumblebees will produce 85 per cent fewer queens. And scientists at Royal Holloway, London, discovered that bumblebees exposed to real-world neonicotinoid levels are 55 per cent more likely to get lost while foraging. That makes sense in the light of studies carried out by researchers at the universities of Newcastle and Dundee, which showed a disruptive effect on the honeybee brain, “observed at concentrations . . . encountered by foraging honeybees and within the hive”.

None of this is surprising. These pesticides are toxins that cause disorder in the brain. Just because they don’t cause immediate observable harm to a single bee when the chemicals are assessed individually doesn’t mean they are not a problem when all the various neurotoxins in the bee’s environment accumulate. As the Dundee and Newcastle researchers reported, “exposure to multiple pesticides . . . will cause enhanced toxicity”. There are probably safe doses of gin, vodka and whisky for a toddler. Give those measures all at once, however, and harm will ensue.

Anyone can avoid accepting inconvenient evidence in science, where findings are rarely black and white. A paper published last autumn in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, for instance, demonstrates how epidemiologists and toxicologists work out the effects of interacting exposures to chemicals in different ways, which can lead to completely different conclusions about whether there is any effect at all.

But arguing over definitions is no good to bees. The collapse of the jerry-built garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh, last month offers a salutary lesson applicable to bee-colony collapse: you can rationalise the greedy pursuit of short-term gain all you like, but if catastrophe strikes, you are still responsible for the loss.

Economists put the annual value of insect pollinators to the UK economy at roughly £440m. Moral considerations aside, ensuring that their working conditions are as safe and sustainable as possible seems to make economic good sense. As things stand, however – and soon they might fall – a scientific assessment would suggest that Britain is Bangladesh for bees.

Bees. Photograph: Getty Images

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At The Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science By Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 13 May 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Eton Mess

Getty.
Show Hide image

Anita Sarkeesian: “I don’t like the words ‘troll’ and ‘bully’”

The media critic and GamerGate target tells the Guardian that online harassers need a rebrand.

Anita Sarkeesian has been under attack for an entire year. She has received bomb threats, rape threats, gun threats, and threats that events she was due to speak at would be attacked. Her home address was circulated in online gaming communities. Her crime? She started a Kickstarter campaign for her YouTube channel, Feminist Frequency, to fund a series called “Tropes vs Women in Video Games”, which catalogues the sexist stereotypes and attitudes in gaming. 

So overall, it's pretty unsurprising that Sarkeesian doesn't call her attackers "trolls" or "bullies", with their comfy associations of schoolyards and fairytale bridges. 

Speaking in an interview with Jessica Valenti, published in the Guardian this weekend, Sarkeesian explains her reasoning:

“I don’t like the words ‘troll’ and ‘bully’ – it feels too childish. This is harassment and abuse."

She also implies that these words tie into a delusion entertained by some of the men themselves – that the abuse is just a bit of fun. Yet whatever the intent, Sarkeesian argues, “it still perpetuates all of the harmful myths attached to that language and those words”.

The interview also covers GamerGate controversy as a whole and Sarkeesian’s rise to prominence as someone willing to speak publicly about the abuse she has receved. As she points out, however,

“There are a lot of people who are being targeted who don’t get the attention I do. Women of colour and trans women, in particular, are not getting media attention and not getting the support they need.”

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.