Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics, and Honeybee Health

Nature, Society, and Culture

by Sainath Suryanarayanan, Daniel Lee Kleinman

In 2005, beekeepers in the United States began observing a mysterious and disturbing phenomenon: once-healthy colonies of bees were suddenly collapsing, leaving behind empty hives full of honey and pollen. Over the following decade, widespread honeybee deaths—some of which have come to be called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)—have continued to bedevil beekeepers and threaten the agricultural industries that rely on bees for pollination. Scientists continue to debate the causes of CCD, yet there is no clear consensus on how to best solve the problem.  
Vanishing Bees takes us inside the debates over widespread honeybee deaths, introducing the various groups with a stake in solving the mystery of CCD, including beekeepers, entomologists, growers, agrichemical companies, and government regulators. Drawing from extensive interviews and first-hand observations, Sainath Suryanarayanan and Daniel Lee Kleinman examine how members of each group have acquired, disseminated, and evaluated knowledge about CCD. In addition, they explore the often-contentious interactions among different groups, detailing how they assert authority, gain trust, and build alliances. As it explores the contours of the CCD crisis, Vanishing Bees considers an equally urgent question: what happens when farmers, scientists, beekeepers, corporations, and federal agencies approach the problem from different vantage points and cannot see eye-to-eye? The answer may have profound consequences for every person who wants to keep fresh food on the table.  

160 pages, Paperback

Published November 29, 2016

Reviews

[Jordyn Sullivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for my writing class in college and it was a very interesting read, that before this class I had no idea of this problem going on. The book talks about prevalent and important problems that occur in society today on topic that has no real voice. A lot of the writing goes to a deeper level, that does make it a little harder to read and get into, but covers a very prominent issue. The author gets into depth about an ongoing bee phenomenon known as CCD (colony collapse disorder, and the lack of knowledge and information that has been covered on the issue.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is informative, while not getting overly explanatory. It is written at a level where someone who is simply interested in the subject of CCD can follow, but a sufficient level of detail is not lost. It is an enjoyable read and has applications outside of its subject area.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a problem that has threatened both beekeepers and the agricultural industry that relies upon bees for pollination. In Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics, and Honeybee Health, Sainath Suryanarayanan and Daniel Lee Kleinman aim to explain not only the divergent orientations and values of the different stakeholders of the CCD debate, but the knowledge cultures that shape what is considered legitimate knowledge in the eyes of each group. Beyond exploring what different stakeholders know (or think they know), Vanishing Bees examines how the knowledge cultures of these groups developed, and scrutinizes the interactions between the stakeholders and how their disparate levels of political, economic and social power have contributed to the CCD crisis.

The book lays out different groups and shows their differing view and incentives have caused a stalemate, where different stakeholder groups cannot provide definitive, causal evidence to other stakeholders because of their different knowledge cultures. The book transcends the CCD debate and becomes applicable to any problem that lacks a clear, definitive cause. It is not simply a book about the current CCD crisis, it is a guide to evaluating different stakeholders group in any multifaceted, complex issue.

[Lexi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vanishing Bee: Science, Politics, and Honeybee Health, was written by Sainath Suryanarayana, Assistant Scientist in the Population Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Daniel Lee Kleinman, Associate Provost for Graduate Affairs and Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. They wrote this book both to those who are not experts in the bee community as well as scholars working in social and environmental studies. I read this book as a student of an environmental college, leading me to side with the bees and in line with those doing the most to protect them. Also simply as a student, I take what’s been put before me and question it before accepting it as truth. Through this review I, will not only analyze the knowledge cultures of the beekeeping world that are introduced in this book, but also explore the biases of the authors providing information as well as my biases in reading it.
The book opens briefly by discussing colony collapse disorder (CCD), a decimation of bee hives “threatening the very sustainability of agricultural and ecological systems” across the globe (1). The authors follow by outlining how they will talk about the knowledge cultures that are shaping the debate over CCD and how the power between knowledge and ignorance plays a role in it’s solution; ignorance in this case being a lack of knowledge. Each chapter is dedicated to one of the stakeholders in this crisis and explores the impact each has on the bees.
The first chapter dives into the heart of the bees- the beekeepers themselves. Even within the beekeeping community there are distinct differences in opinion about CCD. The commercial beekeepers undoubtedly proclaim that “a newer generation of systemic insecticides is primarily responsible for CCD” (16). These beekeepers obtain their knowledge from years of careful field observation, giving them the ability to detect even the slightest changes in a hive. They create and obtain this knowledge in a way that no others can, but at the same time produce an ignorance to what the second group, the scientific beekeepers, specialize in. These scientific beekeepers look down on the imprecise methods of these commercial beekeepers, valuing instead precision and control in scientific studies. They’ve determined that “CCD is the result of parasite-pathogen interactions” (17). The third group of beekeepers, however, denies that CCD is real at all. They blame the collapse of hives on ‘piss poor beekeeping’ and say that beekeepers are refusing to “change and adapt their bee work to a chemical environment”. They deny any evidence or suggestion that these systemic insecticides are compromising honeybee health (28). These three distinct centers of opinion in the beekeeping community all produce both knowledge and ignorance about the issue of CCD, which makes it difficult for me as a reader to know what to believe. Everybody knows something but nobody knows everything.
The stakeholders outside of the beekeeping community also have their own distinct cultures of knowledge and ignorance. From the entomologists and scientist that study individual factors and false negatives to the big-name pesticide corporations like Bayer whose very product may be killing the bees yet is still on the market, and the politicians and law makers who toss the precautionary principle to the curb, there are dozens of different ideas on what CCD is and how it should be handled. The authors define by stating “by looking in certain ways, one leaves unexamined other ways of understanding it” (5) I feel that this quote not only applies to the knowledge cultures presented by the book, but also by the book itself and how it informs the reader. Where scientist and corporations use observations and data in a biased way, the book presents them in a biased way as well. Through the tone and language of the book, especially towards the end, it feels that the authors are more for the bees and less for the corporations. I, as an environmental science student, already have the predisposed bias with nature and the book easily sways me. While in my opinion, I’m swayed to the right side, I do have less of a desire and motivation to step into the shoes of the corporate scientists or law makers and see their perspective, which is necessary to really make a decision on the issue. If I do not examine all sides and pieces of this issue then I cannot make an argument that my ideas or solutions are correct.
This plethora of opposing opinions and evaluations is extremely problematic in the search to find both a reason and a cure for CCD. If there does not develop at least a small agreement or alignment of ideas then the debate over CCD will simply always remain that and no solutions will ever be found. Whether it’s beekeepers admitting there may be other factors besides pesticides, or Bayer admitting that their pesticides may be causing harm, some of the argument needs to stop for positive change to be made. Scientists especially must align their methods and efforts to find a solution; the laundry list of different experiments and treatments has obviously not done the bees much good.
Overall, the authors do a thorough job of presenting all sides of the CCD crisis in a way that both I or someone outside of the bee world can understand. Also, the book provided an interesting study on the social and political hive that I feel would be enjoyed by scholars in social and environmental studies. The book is a useful platform for spreading information about CCD to those who may know little about it. That being said, I think the book would be a good tool to use in brining together the conflicting views about CCD and provide a direction for finding a solution, as well as a tool that can be applied simply for it’s recognition that with the production of knowledge comes the production of ignorance. I hope this book inspires others to save the bees and strive to always keep learning as it has for me.

[Gabe DeBarros · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good read! The book talks about a prevalent and important problem within modern day society and I believe is a topic that should be voiced. Also, a lot of the writing can be focused on at a deeper level and be applicable to one's life. The author gets into depth about an ongoing bee phenomenon known as CCD (colony collapse disorder). He goes to write that with all the science today we still can not find a specific reason.

He starts to talk about challenging our modern way of research as that is what could be holding us back. When I read that I found it to be very eye-opening and was automatically acclaimed to the book. All in all, it is a very good read and one that can be applied to life and a topic that should be implemented within the scope of the general public. You don't see the news talking about this!

[Linsday · Rating 5 out of 5]

Have you ever heard of the phrase “Save the Bees?” Maybe you have seen it on pins attached to hipster’s backpacks or it has come up in conversation between you and your fellow environmentalist. Or maybe you haven't, and this is not to worry. The book Vanishing Bees, written by Sainath Suryananarayanan and Daniel Lee Kleinman, both coming from backgrounds of sociology, technology studies, and science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Boston University, unravel the story of the disappearing honey-bees, providing insight through the eyes and cultures of stakeholders involved in the controversy of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). CCD, a term coined by a working group of researchers at Pennsylvania State University is the most common name used when referring to the disappearance of the world’s honey bees. The variables that are up for debate in regards to contributing to CCD include: systemic neonicotinoids, parasitic mites, poor nutrition, and other diseases (1). Essentially, the controversy as to what may be causing this disappearance of honeybees is deepening as more variables, knowledge, and power are considered. According to Ellen Page in the documentary titled Vanishing of the bees, “Commercial honeybee operations pollinate crops that make up one out of every three bites of food on our tables” (“Vanishing of the Bees”). It is clear that honey bees are critical pollinators and a driving force in the agriculture industry of America, or in other words, human beings feel extremely threatened by this crisis. One of the aims of this book is to expose historically established social organizations of knowledge production and define what counts as warranted knowledge. After reading just a few pages from this book you will soon discover how many stakeholders are involved in this dissension, from family owned beekeeping businesses all the way to larger corporations such as Bayer and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In return, an understanding is created for the reader as to why there is such a mirage of mystery surrounding CCD.
A quote to be considered whilst reading this book is from the website “Sociological Insect” where it was claimed that, “‘Facts are not simply ‘discovered’ by science as absolute truths but are constructed in social contexts riddled with power relations, such that power and knowledge are always intertwined. What becomes a fact and what does not is a social and political issue, concerning what kind of knowledge – and importantly whose knowledge – acquires legitimacy and authority” (“Sociological Insect,” n.d) This theory resonates deeply throughout the entirety of the book, as it quickly becomes known that the corporations with the most power and net worth, also withhold the most credibility when it comes to facts and knowledge surrounding CCD. This is exemplified in the book as the authors claim that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not an insecticide remains on the market. The agency claims to have found itself in the middle of regulating national economic prosperity as well as, the job of protecting the environment from human impact (109). Due to the large amount of uncertainty surrounding CCD, the EPA claims they cannot know whether or not the newer systemic insecticides that they have approved for use are contributing to the disappearance of honey bees. In this debate of why the honey-bees are disappearing, ‘uncertainty’ is upheld and the precautionary principle, which is in fact a philosophy of the EPA is simply neglected. To put it another way, due to the variation of research methods, data, and stakeholders involved, a clear reason for CCD is shadowed, allowing for systemic neonicotinoids to remain on the market.
One would argue that a beekeepers acquired knowledge surrounding CCD should be most valued as it is their “reality” but it is quickly proven in this book, that is just not the case of CCD. Accordingly, the authors go above and beyond to explain the concepts of ignorance and knowledge as they are the basis for this debate and claim that there is no such thing as a set of norms regarding knowledge acquisition and practices that are better than others. This is to say, all of these different ideals and beliefs stands of what is right and wrong stand in front of a long history of institutionalization. As human beings our certainty of knowledge that we come to know and believe is epistemic, clinging to our sense of identity. Consequently, the division of knowledge and beliefs creates a large barrier between CCD and policy change for the protection of honey-bees.
The study at hand, sits at the intersection of sociology of ignorance and the social studies of expertise. This is shown throughout the format of the book as it begins in the first few chapters by unraveling the variables as contributing factors to CCD; confusion and ignorance remains for the reader, whereas, towards the end of the book the picture is clear. An explicit illustration of the truth behind Colony Collapse Disorder is painted and the reader is able to make a sound opinion regarding who and what is responsible for the “crisis.” In addition to relevant sequencing the authors create an even and fair playing field by sustaining a formal means of relaying factual information. Since there are so many stakeholders involved, this is an important aspect for a person searching for unbiased information. They use clear, concise, and descriptive language, all whilst allowing room for interpretation for the reader to form their own ideas about the truth. The authors of this book do an excellent job on informing the readers about the politics of knowledge and ignorance and go even further to describe how they are produced.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics, and Honeybee Health University of Wisconsin - Madison faculty members Sainath Suryanarayanan and Daniel Lee Klienman thoroughly defined colony collapse disorder (CCD) , different perspectives on CCD, how those perspectives were formed and are maintained, and the best way to move forward on handling CCD (ix). Suryanarayanan and Klienman managed to write a book that both clarifies scholarly debates around topics like CCD for people not very knowledgeable about them, and pertains to the “interest to scholars who work at the intersection of the social studies of science and environmental studies” (4). Coming from the perspective of a freshman majoring in Entrepreneurship at Syracuse University who dreads the thought of bees, I built my knowledge foundation of CCD from the ground up. Despite my apiphobia, this book showed me the vital role bees play in U.S. agriculture – especially how their pollination yields billions of dollars’ worth of agriculture (1).
Suryanarayanan and Klienman notes U.S. beekeepers, bee scientists, growers, Bayer, and the EPA as major stakeholders in the CCD crisis - each with their own historic knowledge foundation. U.S. beekeepers lack a unified position on CCD or how to best go about solving CCD. Any given beekeeper is likely to choose one of the three following culprits of CCD: newer systemic pesticides, parasites and pathogens, and “piss-poor beekeeping.” Bee scientists surprisingly create a lot of ignorance in their attempt to gather knowledge regarding honeybee vitality by not effectively mimicking natural realities facing bees, leading them to claim a lack of evidence against pesticides. Bayer has consistently benefited from pointing out historically established norms of knowledge in justifying their production of systemic pesticides, and most growers agree with their justification of pesticides (69-70). As a result of the limitations the EPA places on what counts as knowledge, a lot of measures go unnoticed, “...such as shifts in foraging pattern, queen failure, decreased production of male offspring, and increased susceptibility to fungal infections” (109). The EPA chooses to not take pesticides off the market because they are unable to gather enough quantifiable, definitive evidence on the matter.
The book proposes that the only way to move forward with solving this issue is to bring the different parties together under a “complexity-oriented approach” in which one prefers a false positive approach (120). Suryanarayanan and Klienman discuss how there should be “a better balance between experimental control and environmental complexity” by means of including “nonscientist stakeholders such as commercial beekeepers and growers and their varieties of expertise in formulating research designs and goals” (119-120). “A complexity-oriented approach could ensure that the different stakeholders’ voices are heard, leading to a potentially clearer picture of all the different factors harming honeybees. (121).
The major takeaway from this book is the point it makes about direct cause and effect versus more subtle causes that, over time, lead to an effect (such as systemic pesticides interacting with many complicated factors going on to cause CCD). The constraint of complex variables and their inner-workings with each other in scientific studies has served as a major barrier to stopping CCD because no matter how many studies are conducted, none of them have any significance given that they are all conducted with the intent to prove direct, short-term cause and effect. Power dynamics are at play in this too; in fact, they keep many beekeepers from speaking out since they do not have faith that their voices will be heard in a proper light (106). Many beekeepers argue that it is not systemic pesticides alone that are responsible for CCD, but rather a multitude of factors that interact with systemic pesticides over time and result in CCD. I think the authors did a wonderful job showing how mainstream scientists and the EPA ironically create a great deal of ignorance in their search for knowledge. Because of this, I agree with the authors that incorporating a complexity-oriented approach on knowledge acquisition is the best way to handle CCD moving forward. Again, this is a huge problem (worth billions of dollars), and it begs the attention of ordinary, non-scientific citizens to get involved and push for solutions!

[Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is organized by the perspectives being covered. Each one is analyzed individually and is also shown to overlap with certain others. The authors cover the perspectives of various commercial beekeepers, academic disciplines, growers, the agrochemical industry, and the Environmental Protection Agency. They are thorough in evaluating the history and shortcomings of these groups while providing a context for the knowledge they hold. Additionally, the authors map out the differing ways in which scientific knowledge is defined. In this book there is a clear consensus with certain groups of beekeepers and a sharp criticism of the agrochemical industry and the EPA. The authors claim that many beekeepers base their approach on “observation-rooted knowledge and a risk-based calculation in the face of uncertainty” (p. 22). This approach is favored by both the authors and myself, and is contrasted by that of the agrochemical industry and the EPA, which the authors see as much less precautionary in the face of incomplete knowledge. These inferences about the role of knowledge in the controversy are indeed very well supported and relevant to the discussion, but may come off as too opinionated depending on the standards of the reader. Chapter four is where some might be put off by this, in which the objective was to “examine Bayer’s research and the associated strategies through which the company has sought to enhance uncertainty during the course of particular controversies” (p. 73). In the following chapter, the authors “explore the role of the EPA in the production of ignorance about the contribution of newer systemic insecticides to the phenomena of accelerated honeybee deaths” (p. 91). This changing of objectives based on the subject is not so useful to a student or researcher who wants to avoid preconceptions about the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ nature of the stakeholders in this debate. However, amid the consensus that change needs to be made in order for honeybees to make a comeback, the usefulness of this book lies in its bias toward the ideal of long term health and sustainability. It is above all the damaging political nature of the issue itself that the authors are critical of.

Although the direction taken in this scholarly work seems to stray slightly from the claims in its introduction, it is put together in a way that leaves the reader well informed about the numerous causes and perspectives of honeybee decline, and in turn serves as a step toward resolving the issue of uncertainty that perpetuates the use of poorly understood pesticides. This purpose is best supported by the authors’ embrace of a complexity-oriented approach which “could identify the set of relations… which reveals blind spots and contingencies in each observer’s point of view and, at the same time, builds upon what these different views might tell us about the multifactorial problem of honeybee decline” (p. 121). The complexity-oriented approach is one where the multitude of factors and stakeholders are acknowledged and accounted for. Vanishing Bees embodies this holistic approach in the way the authors see best fit for our honeybee populations.

[John Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2003 Bayer dismissed any field studies and interviews of the beekeepers as showing contradicting their desired data as finding ‘no definitive evidence of a causal relationship between Gaucho seed dressing in sunflowers and the French bee malady.’ (p.76) This false narrative or logical fallacy (see Burden of Proof ) is a convenient tool of the corporate elite to discredit research that may hurt their profits. In 2008, Bayer Corps was required by the EPA to address ‘uncertainties and data gaps’ in its environmental effects, including undertaking a field study on honey bees. (p.85) Looking back on the last book we read Indigenous Research Methods by Shawn Wilson, Wilson describes a bliss point of research by balancing an academic (quantitative) method and an Indigenous analogical (qualitative) method. This equilibrium of analysis establishes a well-rounded and far more accurate process of finding the truth through investigation.
This book often had me reflecting on the natural relationship between corporation and government. Watching the timeline of the regulations in response to the corporate-sponsored research, I lamented over an image I saw on a street wall in Oakland when I was younger. The picture was a businessman holding a pants-less politician on his hand like a sock puppet while the camera recorded the politician speaking through the television for the loyal masses to digest. This illustration paints a clear image of how the corporate interests are translated to the public; however, it begets the question of how to combat disinformation in this modern machiavellian age.
The bottom line is that we are putting less-than regulated ‘drugs’ on our crops, which then ends up on our plates. At some point, we have to decide whether we should engineer around the mishaps, or address the fact that (due to the lack of prior committed research) these drugs are being tested on us. I propose that if we are going to allow synthetic or genetically engineered products to be distributed at our supermarkets, it is paramount that all substances go through the same trial period as a new drug would. If we are to allow mass distribution to be human trials of these drugs, only to re-engineer when they can be proven to be dangerous; we are destined to (if we have not already) create new diseases and chronic illnesses. While the progressive capitalists will not agree with this proposal due to the burdensome cost and time to produce, for the sake of health and humanity we need to take notes from the French by “erring on the side of caution” before we open a metaphoric ‘Pandora’s Box.’ (p. 76)

[Sarah]

Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics, and Honey Bee Health by Sainath Suryanarayanan, and Daniel Lee Kleinmateam discuss the social, political, and scientific issues that surround Colony Collapse Disorder. Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, is the phenomenon that happens when honey bees in a colony simply vanish, leaving behind a queen bee and plenty of food (EPA, 2018). No one exactly knows what happens to the bees, or where they might go. This research text describes the political and social ignorance surrounding CCD and research agendas of different stakeholders that may influence what information we have about the disappearing bees.
Before reading Vanishing Bees, my knowledge on honeybees and the crisis of the vanishing bees was limited. The complexity surrounding commercial bee health was something I had never investigated or had heard about. However, I found the text very informative and easy to read as a college student with a focus in environmental studies; policy, planning and law. After obtaining the general background of what the book was about through the “Introduction” I presumed to know enough about the issue. I assumed, with my limited background knowledge, the issue could be fixed simply by removing chemicals; what seemed to be the cause of the problem. After reading this book I learned the concept of knowledge and ignorance and how it applied to social and scientific insight with this major environmental issue. As Suryanarayanan and Kleinman would describe it “this is a story about the relationship between their knowledge and their positions on the kinds of government policy necessary to stem heightened levels of honeybee deaths” (p. 17).

[kurt stavenhagen]

An excellent overview of how scientists, beekeepers and policy experts bring different methods and biases into the discussion of colony collapse disorder. Lucid, compelling and well sourced. By the end of the work, one realizes how differing values of epistemology and often rigid scientific protocols prevent our ability to solve the crisis.

[Alyssa Viggiano]

This book brought to light how CCD is a crisis, in my opinion. The uncertainty principle impacts this crisis heavily, because you can essentially apply it to anything that could take the blame as to why this is happening. Anything that can be the speculated cause of bee deaths can be refuted by using the uncertainty principle to take the blame off of it, which we see in the chapter “The Bottom Line for Bayer”; “Because so many factors may be involved in honeybee losses, Bayer can legitimately turn attention to influences other than neonicotinouds…” (Suryanararyan & Kleinman, 2017, p. 82). I found this point of view useful to my audience, as I can relate to the difficulty of eliminating outside factors while conducting research. Vanishing Bees brings to light the issue of when farmers, scientists, corporations, federal agencies, and beekeepers can’t see eye-to-eye due to approaching this problem from different vantage points. These conflicting viewpoints that prevent us from forming a conclusion about CCD affect all of us who want to keep fresh food on our tables. This issue can be solved when people focus on the betterment of society instead of keeping their eye on profit.