How the Media Manufactured Panic Over Bees
About 20 years ago, many American bees did die. Then that steadily diminished—but hysteria in the press continued.

Have you heard about the "bee-pocalypse?" My new video explains.
Honeybees are dying!
It's another environmental crisis we're supposed to worry about.
The media call it "bee-pocalypse" and "bee-mageddon!"
A YouTube video with 15 million views says bee-mageddon "could lead to millions of people starving!"
Even Fox News shrieked, "Do you like to eat? The disappearance of honeybees could have a drastic impact on our nation's food supply!"
It's nonsense.
Now, it's true that, about 20 years ago, many American bees did die. Beekeepers opened hives and found their bees gone. Scientists called it "colony collapse disorder." No one knows what caused it. After the initial dramatic reports, it's steadily diminished.
But media hysteria hasn't.
Beekeepers adjusted to colony collapse. They divided remaining colonies to make new hives. Bee numbers increased by millions.
"We're not in any way facing an apocalypse," says science journalist Jon Entine. "Things have never been better in terms of the numbers of bees."
Entine runs the Genetic Literacy Project, which challenges scientific misinformation.
I remind him that the media continue to run scare stories.
"Bees are dying at an alarming rate," says NBC.
CNN headlines: "Bee Population is Dying" and says "the food we eat is at risk."
It's so stupid.
"They could have just Googled bee population and they would've seen them going up?" I ask.
"Absolutely," responds Entine, "it's farcical."
In 2013, Time magazine's cover predicted "A World Without Bees"!
"I don't remember seeing Time apologize," I tell Entine.
"Time has not even written a new article that puts this in science perspective," he responds. Nor did The New York Times magazine correct its cover story on "The Insect Apocalypse." They just "skipped on to another 'crisis.'"
"There's always a scare," I point out.
"Catastrophe, exaggeration," he says, "That gets the clicks."
Entine complains that the media rarely interview serious scientists for its scare stories.
"They have the Environmental Working Group or Pesticide Action Network framing these issues…Hysteria generates donations. The oxygen for these organizations is money."
Sadly, "Many of these [environment] groups harm people."
How? By convincing gullible politicians to ban fertilizers and new pesticides even though the new chemicals are usually safer.
For example, even with worldwide honeybee populations at record highs, the European Union prohibited the use of noenicitinoids, a common insecticide, out of fear they might kill bees.
That means farmers use older, more dangerous chemicals that actually do kill bees.
But why use these chemicals at all?
I push back at Entine, "'Natural' food advocates say: 'Organic! You don't have to have chemicals! Buy organic and you don't get them!"
Entine laughs and says, "They use chemicals extensively! It's not like organic farmers can sprinkle organic fairy dust to get rid of insects and weeds."
Instead, they use "natural" chemicals "like copper sulfate," he says, "one of the most toxic chemicals in the world!"
Sri Lanka's president listened to activists and banned chemical fertilizers.
Suddenly, farms produced much less food. Prices rose 80 percent.
Sri Lankans invaded the presidential mansion and the president fled his country.
The new government re-legalized chemical fertilizers. Only then could the crisis end.
"This attack on industrial chemicals," says Entine, "is really a way for the environmental industry, industry is what it is, to go after what they call big [agriculture], big corporations. It's an anti-capitalist movement."
The anti-capitalists oppose genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They've persuaded most European countries to basically ban GMO crops.
But genetic modification allows farmers to grow more food on less land. It creates plants resistant to disease and insects. That allows farmers to use fewer pesticides. That's good for everyone, especially poor people.
In Bangladesh, scientists invented a GMO eggplant.
"It decreased use of chemicals by 85 percent," says Entine. "Allowing women and children who do most of the farming to live a much more viable life. We have to be smart about these things!"
"We're not being smart," I note.
"No," he says, "We're following an outdated 40-year-old environmental script that doesn't work in this technologically innovative world.…They hurt the very people they claim to help."
Modern chemicals and GMOs make our food cheaper and safer.
Deceitful money-hungry environmental groups won't acknowledge that.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How the Media Manufactured Panic Over
BeesCovid.There was a lot of buzz about this but really, it is nobody’s bees wax.
Chumby’s organic lawn has plants that some landscapers would call weeds. They flower early providing healthy sustenance to pollinators before the food crops are ready for winged creature visitations.
I agree and all but I just wanted to point out one thing: A major gripe of this article is that environmental groups don't back their claims with science and don't get the backing of actual scientists for their claims. But yet, the only source for this article/video is... Jon Entine, a guy with a blog. This man has no actual credentials and so leaning on him this heavily when your entire point is "people aren't listening to the actual scientists" makes your argument extremely weak, even if it is ultimately correct.
The complaint is that they gin up panic by promoting unsupported claims. The burden of proof falls to the person making a claim. Stossel doesn't need to prove that bees aren't dying because the people promoting the theory haven't proved they still are.
Environmentalism is a religion. It doesn't require proof. Only faith. That's why I don't like religion. People shut off their brains and do what the guy in the funny hat says.
But yet, the only source for this article/video is… Jon Entine, a guy with a blog.
It is also worth looking into the digging into his history and how the Genetic Literacy Project that he runs is funded.
Stossel, don't you know all commenters here hate you?
-sarcasmic
Nobody reads the actual information/study. They just follow media propaganda like blind sheep.
Ain’t that the truth. Here’s a fun fact. One’s ethnicity is a bigger factor of getting lung cancer by a 2x ratio than whether a person smokes. The EPA itself admitted they couldn’t find a single secondhand smoke study that meets statistical significance; not even in airplanes (the study that launched the BS).
BS on-top of BS on-top of BS on-top of BS. Psychotic rumor spreaders in the pursuit of self-significance by telling everyone else what to do at the end of a Gov-Gun.
I'd be interested in seeing where this comes from. I'm finding summaries of research from 1981 and forward that report effect sizes larger than the uncertainty. That is, they are statistically significant results. For instance:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/#:~:text=Nyberg%20and%20colleagues%20(1998a)%20found,risk%20among%20lifetime%20nonsmoking%20adults.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15723657/
“Lung cancer mortality of our Japanese sample was lower among current smokers and higher among non-smokers regardless of age and sex.”
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/1/m1_3.pdf
“the lung cancer death rate for black males was more than 36% than for white males”…..”even though the peak prevalence of smoking among black males in that cohort never achieved that of white males”…”The reason for this disparity in lung cancer death rates is not clear. Differences in smoking behavior other than prevalence may play a role, such as the type of cigarette smoked”.(pg 95)
Graphs on pg 99 show increases in lung cancer rates with a large decrease in smoking rates among black & white males. “As smoking rates converged for white & black females in later cohorts, lung cancer deaths rates remained the approximately equivalent”…”despite lower smoking rates among black females, may AGAIN suggest a lung cancer risk that is NOT attributable to smoking.”(pg 108)
The oldest living person ever recorded – smoked from 21 to 117 yrs old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
The Japanese study is not saying what you think it is saying. Read the whole abstract again. Let me add in the context you were missing.
"Lung cancer mortality of our Japanese sample was lower among current smokers [than in the U.S. Cancer Prevention Study] and higher among non-smokers [than in the U.S. Cancer Prevention Study] regardless of age and sex."
The whole point of the article is compare lung cancer mortality between Japanese people and those in western countries. It tells you nothing useful about second hand smoke.
For the one about the black vs. white men the link doesn't work. From what you quote, I don't expect anything about second hand smoke either. I'm not sure what you think that one is showing.
Lastly, if someone lived to 120 drinking paint thinner every day, would you think it was safe to drink paint thinner? Someone that can live past 100 probably had all kinds of genetic advantages. I wouldn't judge the safety of tobacco based on the oldest living person ever recorded. That is a sample size of 1 out of how many billions of people that smoked tobacco?
Besides, my question was about your claim here:
The EPA itself admitted they couldn’t find a single secondhand smoke study that meets statistical significance; not even in airplanes (the study that launched the BS).
I thought I was clear enough about that with my question and link.
If you wanted to fill-in every study with your prejudices/biases why didn't you just say so.
“EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.”
“The lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking”
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
The EPA report was also presented in front of district Judge William Osteen who ruled against the EPA report and states that the [2]EPA had "cherry-picked" it's data on the subject. 26 showed an increase in lung cancer to those married to smokers, and 6 of them showed a decrease. None of them met standards of statistical significance.
Where are you getting all of these links that don't work? Do you check them before you post them?
If you wanted to fill-in every study with your prejudices/biases why didn’t you just say so.
Like usual, you aren't actually rebutting anything I say.
"It's an anti-capitalist movement." Yeah, it is.
anti-capitalist, or anti-corporate?
Giant corporations like Monsanto (bought/merged with Bayer in 2018 for $66 billion) have long worked what amount to stealth PR campaigns to fight journalists and scientists that question the safety of their products. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Ag are terms you see for these corporate behemoths that have all had their hands in astroturf efforts to clean up their images and the images of their products. (There is also Big Tech, but their issues are different.)
It isn't as fashionable these days in dystopian fiction as it was in the 80s and 90s, but giant corporations that have even more power than governments is a standard trope, especially in cyberpunk. The lack of skepticism from the right toward large corporations* makes wonder if the efforts of industry to rebrand being "pro-big business" into being "pro-free market" means that those PR strategies were largely successful.
*The right has occasionally been directed against big corporations, but usually over specific issues rather than a general skepticism.
How does giant corporations who aren't packing a national monopoly of gun-force have even more power than the national monopoly of gun-forces (i.e. governments)?
Oh I know; It's the BS propaganda the left uses to STEAL the big human resource providers blind out of their own filthy greed. Can't just STEAL without dehumanizing (sinning) the providers first it might look way too much like a criminal at work.
How does giant corporations who aren’t packing a national monopoly of gun-force have even more power than the national monopoly of gun-forces (i.e. governments)?
Uh, by corrupting and basically owning the politicians in government? But hey, money is speech, right? There's no danger in that.
They pulled the same thing with frogs a few years back. I have a pond out back that's been home to generations of the little green guys for 30 years. Also a river across the road loaded with bulls. Never saw any drop in population. Sing me to sleep every night in the summer.
Even the gay little frogs end up occasionally reproducing by humping each other over another frogs clutch of eggs.
I've seen some pretty crazy frog orgies.
I've had the beepocalypse lecture. When I pointed out all the honey bees buzzing around I got, "Those are wasps!" and the lecture turned to my affiliation with EXXON.
This reminds me of the example of American Fanta vs European Fanta, with the Europe version not having the orange dye.
"This attack on industrial chemicals," says Entine, "is really a way for the environmental industry, industry is what it is, to go after what they call big [agriculture], big corporations. It's an anti-capitalist movement."
Oh, huh. You don't say!
Scientists called it "colony collapse disorder." No one knows what caused it. After the initial dramatic reports, it's steadily diminished.
I haven't found any evidence that colony collapse disorder is actually less. The article at Reason that he linked to points out that commercial beekeepers adjusted their practices to make up for it. And that is an important point that Stossel and the one person he talks to don't deal with (Jon Entine is a former journalist, not any kind of scientist). Honey bee colonies kept by people for pollination and honey are essentially livestock. Wild pollinators outnumber them by several times in and around farmland. The commercial beehives supplement the natural pollinators to increase crop yields, from what I can find.
So, sure, journalists don't often have any scientific knowledge past high school and will sensationalize just about anything to get more readers or clicks. That is something that both Stossel and Jon Entine understand well. But they don't counter what they are criticizing with better science journalism. It is instead a polemic against environmentalists.
"They have the Environmental Working Group or Pesticide Action Network framing these issues…Hysteria generates donations. The oxygen for these organizations is money."
Stossel is quoting Jon Entine here. That took some serious gall for Entine to say that. He's been shilling for industry for years.
Paraphrased, "If you're not for Gov-Gun central-planned industry you're 'Shilling for industry'".
Frankly; I'm *ALL* for shilling for free-market industry. It's the very process that supplies everything I need for survival. 'Guns' don't seem to have the ability to make that stuff no matter how much you sell that underlying message.