‘Wake-up call': A sting in the bee love story for native pollinators
Dr Judy Friedlander, an adjunct fellow in sustainability at the University of Technology Sydney, said hosting native bees in backyards or on balconies was one of the biggest things that urban dwellers could do to boost biodiversity.
'When people read about the supposed decline of European bee here due to things like the varroa mite, they panic, and they think that it's the end of the world and the end of our agriculture, but it's not,' Friedlander said.
'Beekeepers should be supported, and it needs to be taken seriously, but the focus on [varroa mite] has been to the detriment of native bees and native beekeepers. The whole varroa mite thing should be a big wake-up call because when we start relying on one species for our crop pollination, we're in big trouble.'
Dr Katja Hogendoorn, of the University of Adelaide, said there were not enough native bees to pollinate all crops, so European honeybees (Apis mellifera) were also needed – but they did not belong in nature.
Hogendoorn, who recently published a paper that described 71 new species of native bee, said there was 'a lot to discover still'. She previously published a review that found European honeybees compete with wild bees globally, including native species in Australia.
'In my head, there is no shadow of a doubt that honeybees, especially in this country where we've got enormous densities, have a negative impact on our native bee populations,' Hogendoorn said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
Herald Sun
9 hours ago
- Herald Sun
Forever chemicals: NSW Health findings defy public concerns
Don't miss out on the headlines from Illness. Followed categories will be added to My News. There is 'considerable concern' among communities about exposure to so-called 'forever chemicals' found in everyday products and their potential health risks. However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence, experts say the health effects appear to be small and individual blood testing offers no clear medical benefit. The NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) has released its final report, delivering clear guidance on the health effects of these widely found 'forever chemicals', the value of blood testing, and the best ways to communicate risks to communities. PFAS have been used since the 1940s in products resistant to heat, stains, grease, and water, but concerns have grown worldwide about their presence in the environment and potential health impacts. The panel, made up of leading clinical experts across toxicology, oncology, cardiology, public health, and risk communication, evaluated the latest Australian and global research to inform health advice. While acknowledging the body of research for health effects related to PFAS is 'large and still growing', the panel concluded that the health effects of PFAS 'appear to be small'. It noted links between PFAS exposure and conditions including high cholesterol, reduced kidney function, immune system changes, hormone alterations, liver enzyme changes, menstruation issues, lower birthweight, pregnancy high blood pressure, and some cancers. However, the panel stressed the evidence was inconsistent, with 'limited evidence of a dose-response relationship' and difficulty separating PFAS effects from other factors that can affect health, especially in studies with PFAS levels similar to the general population. It also highlighted the influence of bias and confounding factors such as smoking, diet, and age. A $3.5 million mobile PFAS treatment system installed at the Cascade Water Filtration Plant on the outskirts of Sydney. Picture: Supplied Addressing widespread public concern about cancer, the panel said it remained confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low based on the human epidemiological studies and levels of exposure in the Australian population. The panel noted that while the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as 'cancer causing' and PFOS as 'possibly cancer causing', IARC's findings didn't specify safe exposure levels, how much exposure increases risk, or how big that risk might be. PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) are specific types of PFAS. The panel stressed that, despite these hazard classifications, the actual cancer risk from PFAS in Australia was low based on studies and typical exposure levels. One of the panel's strongest messages is that there is 'no clinical benefit' for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS. The report stated that PFAS chemicals appeared in more than 95 per cent of people tested, showing widespread exposure from multiple sources. PFAS contamination in water sources remains a key concern. Picture: NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Because PFAS are so common, the expert panel said blood tests were hard to interpret and didn't predict health outcomes, so it didn't recommend individual testing. Although levels have been declining over the past 20 years, high background exposure makes studying health effects challenging. The panel supports ongoing population monitoring to track changes This stance differs from 2022 guidance by the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which suggested blood testing might guide clinical care. The NSW panel pointed out limitations in NASEM's approach, including reliance on studies with small effects and possible bias, and noted that US agencies like the CDC and ATSDR have not adopted NASEM's recommendations for individual blood testing. PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid) are the three main PFAS types historically used in aqueous firefighting foams. The panel also advised against interventions such as phlebotomy or cholesterol-lowering medications to reduce PFAS in the blood, calling their benefits 'uncertain' and warning they 'may cause harm' like anaemia or medication interactions. Instead, clinicians are urged to focus on 'usual preventative health interventions' to support patients. Recognising 'genuine concern' in parts of the community about exposure to PFAS and the potential health impacts, the panel stressed that risk communication must be 'tailored to the diverse levels of concern' and continued transparency maintained. The panel stated that reliable epidemiological studies required 'well characterised' exposures, measured confounders, and sufficiently large populations; conditions 'not currently met in the Blue Mountains population or in other communities in NSW'. It urged authorities to avoid using currently available human epidemiological studies to derive threshold levels due to the higher risk of bias and confounding. Instead, it supported continuing Australia's conservative approach of setting exposure limits based on animal studies with safety factors, such as those by the National Health and Medical Research Council. NSW chief health officer Kerry Chant said updated NSW Health advice provided consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure. 'There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously,' Dr Chant said. 'NSW Health will continue to support local clinicians with information for GPs who may be managing patients with concerns about PFAS exposure, including evidence about potential adverse health effects, counselling patients, the utility of blood tests for PFAS and the role of further investigations.' Originally published as Widespread PFAS exposure, but cancer risk 'low,' experts confirm
