logo
Scientists make concerning discovery about memory of bees: 'We really might be in a tricky position'

Scientists make concerning discovery about memory of bees: 'We really might be in a tricky position'

Yahoo19-05-2025
Scientists have found that microplastic pollution may impair the memory of bees, interfering with their ability to remember floral scents and locate flowers, which could lead to lower pollination rates.
As The Washington Post reported, researchers have discovered that microplastics are impacting the brains of honeybees and other pollinators, including bumblebees, according to a study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.
Microplastics can also physically block plant structures, preventing pollen from being deposited and the plant from being pollinated.
Since microplastics are virtually everywhere in the environment — air, waterways, soil, and even remote locations such as the Pyrenees — it's easy for bees to ingest or inhale the particles while foraging for nectar and pollen.
Microplastics are deposited in nature from the incorrect disposal of trash, such as water bottles and food wrappers that contain plastic, as well as stormwater runoff and direct discharge from wastewater or industrial plants, among other sources.
As the particles break down into smaller pieces, they travel through the air and land on flowers. When bees unknowingly consume microplastics, it can have a devastating impact on their health, disrupting their gut bacteria and immune systems, according to another study in Science of the Total Environment.
"If plastic is adding to all the stressors that pollinators are facing already, I think we really might be in a tricky position," Thomas Cherico Wanger-Guerrero, an agroecologist at Agroscope, an agriculture research center in Switzerland, told the Post.
Since bees are so vulnerable to microplastic exposure, the particles are likely to end up in honey. The Post reported that Turkish scientists found microplastics in most honey samples taken. In Germany, commercial honey was found to contain about five microplastic particles per teaspoon.
Plastics have been linked to a wide range of human health problems, including hormone disruption, kidney and heart disease, birth defects, and an increased risk of cancer. Since people are already frequently exposed to plastics, the detection of plastics in honey is bad news, as it could lead to further health issues.
If bees aren't pollinating as many flowers and crops, our food supply could be at risk. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, pollinators play a crucial role in feeding the world, with scientists estimating that around 35% of the world's food crops rely on pollinators for growth. Bees also pollinate native plants and contribute to the overall health of ecosystems.
Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home?
Yes — always
Yes — often
Yes — sometimes
No — never
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
With bees facing numerous environmental stressors, including habitat loss, rising global temperatures, and pesticide exposure — all of which have been linked to declining bee populations — microplastics are a dire threat to the species.
Researchers have found that biochar — a popular soil amendment used on farms — removed nearly 93% of plastic particles from study samples, showing promise for global food supplies.
Additionally, scientists have developed an ultra-thin film that can reduce crop losses and prevent microplastics from polluting the soil.
Wanger-Guerrero told the Post that "the urgency to mitigate exposure of nature to plastic" can't be overstated, as plastic affects humans, wildlife, and the environment.
We can help bees by reducing our plastic use in daily life and opting for eco-friendly alternatives, such as switching from single-use water bottles to reusable ones. Recycling plastic is also essential to reduce waste and keep microplastics out of the environment.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump never actually cared about making IVF affordable. He just wanted your vote.
Trump never actually cared about making IVF affordable. He just wanted your vote.

USA Today

time2 days ago

  • USA Today

Trump never actually cared about making IVF affordable. He just wanted your vote.

President Donald Trump continues to make it clear that actually helping women isn't a priority with this administration. Turns out the 'father of IVF' isn't going to live up to the promise he made on the reelection campaign trail. Who could have seen that coming? After campaigning on the promise that the government would pay for in vitro fertilization or require insurers to cover it, The Washington Post reports that President Donald Trump has no actual plan to make the procedure more affordable. There are no talks of federal subsidies or Affordable Care Act coverage, and administration officials say that there is no plan to get insurance companies on board. When asked about this by The Post, the White House issued a statement saying, "The Administration is committed like none before it to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge" to make IVF more accessible in the United States. Of course, there's a difference between saying you're committed to doing something and actually doing it. I'm not shocked that Trump made a promise he has failed to keep – after all, this is the same man who said he was going to make the cost of living go down and stop the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Unfortunately, this is just another instance of his administration failing to prioritize reproductive rights. Let's look at what Trump said about IVF during the campaign On the campaign trail, Trump was all-in on IVF, making the claim in August 2024 that the government or insurance companies would pay for the treatment. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' Trump said at the time. In February, the president signed an executive order giving domestic policy advisers 90 days to brainstorm ways to lower the cost of IVF and other fertilization treatments. The deadline came and went without any public progress, and the administration recently declined to comment on it. Opinion: Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too. IVF is an incredibly cost-prohibitive procedure that accounts for about 2% of births annually. The nonprofit organization KFF reports that the cost of a single round of IVF can range between $9,000 and $14,000. In the executive order, Trump claimed the costs could get up to $25,000. It's no surprise that an administration determined to pinch pennies is backing away from a plan that would cost them a lot of money, nor is it surprising that Trump would come to realize that forcing the insurance industry to do anything would hurt his chances at future donations. More than anything, it's unsurprising that Trump would go back on a promise that, while controversial in right-wing circles, would benefit families who want to have children. IVF isn't the only reproductive rights challenge we face The fight for IVF is closely linked to the fight for reproductive freedom and abortion access. It comes down to whether women can make decisions about their bodies and their ability to start a family, regardless of the beliefs of others. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were considered human beings, leading IVF clinics in the state to pause services out of fear. The legislature quickly introduced a bill that protected patients from potential legal issues, but it didn't address embryonic personhood. The entire situation revealed how complex the legal landscape could become after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, to the point that it could even harm people who are actively trying to conceive. Not financially supporting IVF comes at a time when women have lost the right to choose when and how they are going to start a family: The government is making it clear that women are subject to the whims of politicians, rather than being able to make decisions about their own bodies. Trump officials never actually cared about making IVF affordable, just like they don't actually care about improving the conditions for people who want to start families but can't afford to. It was all so that Trump could get reelected. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Sorry, but your fan isn't keeping you cool
Sorry, but your fan isn't keeping you cool

Washington Post

time3 days ago

  • Washington Post

Sorry, but your fan isn't keeping you cool

Well+Being Sorry, but your fan isn't keeping you cool August 8, 2025 | 7:03 PM GMT Ask A Doctor columnist Trisha Pasricha has news for fans of fans: Using a fan without air conditioning can actually make you hotter and more dehydrated, even if if makes you feel cooler. This content was created independently by The Washington Post and is not influenced by the advertiser and their affiliates. The advertiser had no involvement in the reporting, writing, or editing of this article or video. Presented by Amazon One Medical.

How RFK Jr.'s mRNA crackdown affects vaccine making and future pandemics
How RFK Jr.'s mRNA crackdown affects vaccine making and future pandemics

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Yahoo

How RFK Jr.'s mRNA crackdown affects vaccine making and future pandemics

The Trump administration's decision to terminate hundreds of millions of dollars to develop mRNA vaccines and treatments imperils the country's ability to fight future pandemics and is built on false or misleading claims about the technology, public health experts said. Vaccine development is typically a years-long process, but mRNA technology paired with massive injections of federal funding during the coronavirus pandemic drastically slashed the timeline. The first covid shots, based on mRNA, were in people's arms less than a year after the United States recorded its first coronavirus case - a signature achievement of the first Trump administration. The flexible technology provided a road map for how to quickly respond to pathogens that are constantly evolving, including H5N1 avian bird flu, a candidate to spark the next pandemic. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. But research into H5N1 mRNA vaccines were among nearly two dozen mRNA projects supported by the government's biodefense agency that were terminated or altered, according to a Department of Health and Human Services statement released Tuesday. The moves affect $500 million in projects, according to HHS, including covid and flu therapeutics and vaccines. 'This represents a significant setback for our preparedness efforts in responding to infectious-disease outbreaks,' said Dawn O'Connell, the former assistant secretary of preparedness and response at HHS during the Biden administration. If viruses change, mRNA can be quickly rebooted and manufactured. But HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized mRNA vaccines, arguing that they are ineffective at fighting upper respiratory infections and keeping up with the mutations of a virus. Kennedy has a history of disparaging the mRNA coronavirus vaccines, in 2021 falsely calling them the 'deadliest vaccine ever made.' He has also said there was a 'poison' in it - claims refuted by medical experts. He has also been under pressure from anti-vaccine activists who say he has not done enough to remove mRNA vaccines from the market. The full scope of mRNA projects terminated was not immediately clear. Multiple companies mentioned by HHS did not immediately respond to questions. A spokesman for Moderna, which previously lost funding to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine, said the company was not aware of new contract cancellations. The AstraZeneca program that HHS is restructuring is an RNA-based pandemic influenza vaccine that is in early stages of development. The company is exploring options for next steps, a spokeswoman said. An inhaled mRNA treatment for flu and covid being developed at Emory University was terminated. Some late-stage projects are proceeding, such as early human testing of an mRNA-based H5N1 candidate being developed by Arcturus Therapeutics 'to preserve prior taxpayer investment,' according to HHS. Gritstone Bio, which HHS said had a project proposal rejected, already ceased operating earlier this year after declaring bankruptcy. A terminated contract to Tiba Biotech was for a H1N1 flu treatment that was not based on mRNA, but a different RNA technology. The company received a stop work order late Tuesday afternoon. 'This comes as a surprise given the Department's stated goal of winding down mRNA vaccine development,' Jasdave Chahal, Tiba's chief scientific officer, said in an email. 'Our project does not involve the development of an mRNA product and is a therapeutic rather than a vaccine.' 'It's going to deter innovations,' said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California College of the Law at San Francisco, whose research focuses on vaccine law and policy. 'Why invest in new technologies if the government can not only refuse to fund them, but if it's going to cancel already promised contracts?' HHS said in its statement that 'other uses of mRNA technology,' such as cancer treatments, are not affected by the announcement. But researchers worried that the Trump administration's criticism of the mRNA technology would have a chilling effect on one of the most promising fields in medicine. In 2023, Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for fundamental work on mRNA that enabled the development of coronavirus vaccines. 'It's absolutely perplexing why this is happening,' said Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University who has studied mRNA for more than three decades. 'You have to sort of scratch your head to wonder why the secretary is directing these sort of actions against probably one of the most powerful platforms in medicine that has come along in the last 20 years.' Six scientific and medical experts said Kennedy and HHS offered misleading assessments of mRNA technology as they announced the termination of research. Here are the issues they flagged with some of the statements: - - - 'The data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu,' Kennedy said in a statement. It's true that mRNA vaccines can be ineffective at preventing coronavirus infections, although data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows they still offer some protection. But several scientific experts noted the primary purpose of vaccination is to prevent hospitalizations and death, which the mRNA vaccines have effectively done, according to CDC data. The FDA has not approved an mRNA flu vaccine, so experts said it was premature to make sweeping claims about its potential efficacy. - - - 'One mutation and the vaccine becomes ineffective,' Kennedy said in a video. The coronavirus keeps evolving in a way that makes it easier to infect people who have some immunity from vaccination or prior infection. But medical experts said the mRNA vaccines have been resilient in maintaining protection against severe outcomes. Manufacturers have also been able to update formulas annually to better target new variants. 'That is actually one of the most powerful aspects of mRNA vaccines: that you can, in real time, develop new mRNAs against the virus as the virus changes,' Coller said. 'I'm not sure why that would be considered a bad thing.' - - - 'We've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis,' Kennedy said at a news conference. Coronavirus vaccines designed using mRNA carry a very small risk of myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart, from the coronavirus vaccine, particularly in young men. However, medical experts said the data shows there is not an 'epidemic' of the condition; in fact, the rates of myocarditis and other heart illness are much higher from the virus instead of the vaccine. Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious-disease epidemiologist, said this rhetoric was part of the pandemic revisionist 'revenge tour.' 'Calling it an epidemic is absolutely misleading,' she said. - - - 'Technologies that were funded during the emergency phase but failed to meet current scientific standards will be phased out in favor of evidence-based, ethically grounded solutions – like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms' - HHS statement Scientific experts said a variety of vaccine types are often required to fight emerging infectious diseases. In some cases, whole-virus vaccines have been known to have serious side effects. Peter Hotez, a physician and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, said he was surprised to hear HHS tout whole-virus vaccines because China had used a whole-virus vaccine for coronavirus that was 'pretty mediocre,' Hotez said. Kennedy is 'pushing a technology that is actually probably the most problematic of all vaccines we could pick,' Hotez said. - - - Rachel Roubein, Sabrina Malhi and Daniel Gilbert contributed to this report Related Content Trump is threatening to take over D.C. Here's what he can and can't do. They once shared recipes. Now her family is going hungry in Gaza. Pets are being abandoned, surrendered amid Trump's immigration crackdown Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store