Bee Health:
Background and Issues for Congress
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
November 3, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43191

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
Bees, both commercially managed honey bees and wild bees, play an important role in global
food production. In the United States alone, the value of insect pollination to U.S. agricultural
production is estimated at $16 billion annually, of which about three-fourths is attributable to
honey bees. Worldwide, the contribution of bees and other insects to global crop production for
human food is valued at about $190 billion. Given the importance of honey bees and other bee
species to food production, many have expressed concern about whether a “pollinator crisis” has
been occurring in recent decades.
Over the past few decades there has been heightened concern about the plight of honey bees as
well as other bee and pollinator species. Although honey bee colony losses due to bee pests,
parasites, and disease are not uncommon, there is the perception that bee health has been
declining at a faster rate both in the United States and globally in recent years. This situation
gained increased attention in late 2006 as some commercial beekeepers began reporting sharp
declines in their honey bee colonies. Because of the severity and unusual circumstances of these
colony declines, scientists named this phenomenon colony collapse disorder (CCD). Since then,
honey bee colonies have continued to dwindle each year, for reasons not solely attributable to
CCD. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that CCD may not be the only
or even the major cause of bee colony losses in recent years. In the United States, USDA
estimates of overwinter colony losses from all causes have averaged more than 30% annually
since 2006.
To date, the precise reasons for bee colony losses are not yet known. Reasons cited for bee
declines include a wide range of possible factors thought to be affecting pollinator species. These
include bee pests and disease, diet and nutrition, genetics, habitat loss and other environmental
stressors, agricultural pesticides, and beekeeping management issues, as well as the possibility
that bees are being affected by cumulative, multiple exposures and/or the interactive effects of
several of these factors.
USDA continues to research possible causes of bee colony losses, and has published a series of
reports detailing the agency’s progress in this area. In 2013, USDA and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published a joint report, National Stakeholders Conference on Honey
Bee Health. A 2007 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), Status of Pollinators in North America, also provides a detailed scientific
context concerning bee health. Both USDA and the NAS report conclude that many factors
contribute to pollinator declines in North America.
Following heightened concern over honey bee colony losses in 2006-2007, Congress provided for
increased funding for bee research, among other types of farm program support to protect
pollinators, as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79)
reauthorized and expanded many of these provisions, addressing managed honey bees and native
pollinators as part of the law’s research, conservation, specialty crop, and miscellaneous title
provisions. In addition, outside the farm bill, H.R. 4790 would promote conservation practices on
millions of acres of highway rights-of-way by encouraging states to reduce mowing and plant for
pollinators, providing improved habitat for pollinators and other small wildlife. Also, H.R. 2692
would suspend registrations of neonicotinoids and prohibit new registrations of any pesticide for
use unless EPA determines the insecticide would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on
pollinators, including honey bees and native bees as well as other pollinators.
Congressional Research Service

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Overview of Selected Bee Species .................................................................................................. 3
Managed Honey Bees ................................................................................................................ 3
Wild Bee Species ....................................................................................................................... 4
Importance of Bee Pollination ......................................................................................................... 5
Estimated Economic Value ........................................................................................................ 6
Commercial Migratory Beekeeping .......................................................................................... 6
Changes in Bee Populations ............................................................................................................ 9
Managed Honey Bees ................................................................................................................ 9
U.S. Farms with Bee Colonies .......................................................................................... 10
Honey-Producing Bee Colonies ........................................................................................ 10
Annual “Winter Loss” Survey ........................................................................................... 11
Wild Bee Species ..................................................................................................................... 13
“Citizen Science” Surveys of Status ................................................................................. 14
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Information ..................................................................... 15
Interactions with Physical Environment............................................................................ 15
Factors Affecting Bee Health ......................................................................................................... 16
Identified Future Needs ................................................................................................................. 19
National Pollinator Health Strategy (“Presidential Memorandum”) ....................................... 19
Conclusions of USDA-EPA Joint Report ................................................................................ 21
USDA Actions and Funding .................................................................................................... 22
USDA’s CCD Action Plan ................................................................................................. 22
Available USDA Research Funding .................................................................................. 22
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 23
Farm Bill Provisions ................................................................................................................ 23
Research Provisions .......................................................................................................... 24
Conservation Provisions .................................................................................................... 25
Insurance and Disaster Provisions ..................................................................................... 26
Other Farm Bill Provisions ............................................................................................... 27
Other Legislative Proposals ..................................................................................................... 28

Figures
Figure 1. Map of Commercial Pollination ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Weighted Pollination Fee, by Major Sector, Northwest, 2000-2011 ................................ 9
Figure 3. Managed Honey Bee Colony Losses in the United States ............................................. 12

Tables
Table 1. Estimated Value of Insect Pollination to U.S. Crop Production, 2010 ............................... 7
Table 2. Honey-Producing Bee Colonies, 2002-2013.................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

ees, both commercially managed honey bees and wild unmanaged bees, among many
other types of insect pollinators, play an important role in global food production. In the
B United States, the value of pollination by bees and other insects to U.S. agricultural
production is estimated at $16 billion annually.1 Most of this estimated value (about 75%) is
attributable to honey bees.
Given the importance of bees and other types of pollinators to food production, many have
expressed concern about whether a “pollinator crisis” has been occurring in recent decades.
Worldwide reports indicate that populations of both managed honey bees and native bees have
been declining, with colony losses in some cases described as severe or unusual. In Europe,
managed honey bee colony numbers have been declining since the mid-1960s, and individual
beekeepers have reported “unusual weakening and mortality in colonies,” particularly during the
period spanning winter through spring.2 According to the United Nations, many insect pollinator
species may be becoming rarer, causing some to question whether this is a sign of an overall
global biodiversity decline.3
In the United States, honey bee colony losses due to bee pests, parasites, pathogens, and disease
are not uncommon. However, this situation gained increased attention in late 2006 as some
commercial beekeepers began reporting sharp declines in their honey bee colonies. Because of
the severity and unusual circumstances of these colony declines, scientists named this
phenomenon colony collapse disorder (CCD). This issue was legislatively active in the 110th
Congress and resulted in increased funding for pollinator research, among other types of farm
program support to protect pollinators, as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246).4
Years later, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that U.S. beekeepers continue to
lose honey bee colonies each year. Since 2006, USDA estimates that overwinter colony losses
have averaged more than 30% annually.5 However, USDA reports that bee colonies have
continued to decline each winter for reasons not solely attributable to CCD, which is
characterized by colony populations that are suddenly lost but no dead bees are present. (For
more information on CCD, see text box on next page. Additional discussion is provided in
“Factors Affecting Bee Health”)
In fact, USDA claims that “beekeepers did not report CCD as a major cause of colony loss” for
overwinter losses in most recent surveys.6 To date, the precise reasons for honey bee colony
losses are still unknown.

1 N. W. Calderone, “Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data
for the Period 1992–2009,” PLoS ONE 7(5): e37235, May 2012. Updated values are for 2010.
2 Ibid.
3 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Honey Bee Colony Disorders and Other Threats to Insect
Pollinators, UNEP Emerging Issues, 2010.
4 For more information, see CRS Report RL33938, Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.
5 D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Preliminary Results: Honey Bee Colony Losses in the United States, Winter 2012-2013,”
http://beeinformed.org/2013/05/winter-loss-survey-2012-2013/.
6 K. Kaplan, “Fact Sheet: Survey of Bee Losses during Winter of 2012/2013,” May 2013, http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/
br/beelosses/index.htm.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)
In late 2006, commercial beekeepers along the East Coast began reporting sharp declines in their honey bee colonies.
Because of the severity and unusual circumstances of these colony declines, scientists named this phenomenon colony
col apse disorder (CCD).
According to USDA: “The defining characteristic of CCD is the disappearance of most, if not all, of the adult honey
bees in a colony, leaving behind honey and brood (immature bees confined to cells in the hive, including larvae and
pupae) and the absence or dead bees (i.e., no dead bee bodies are present).” Symptoms include the fol owing:
•
rapid loss of adult worker bees,
•
few or no dead bees found in the hive,
•
presence of immature bees (brood),
•
small cluster of bees with live queen present, and
•
pol en and honey stores in hive.
Another defining characteristic that may be indicative of CCD is low levels of Varroa mite and other pathogens, such
as Nosema, which are generally associated with most winter colony losses.
Since the honey bee is a very social insect and colony-oriented, with a complex and organized nesting colony, failing
to return to the hive is considered highly unusual. Also, there is little evidence that the hive may have been attacked.
In actively collapsing colonies, an insufficient number of adult bees remain to care for the brood. An absence of a large
number of dead bees makes an analysis of the causes of CCD difficult. To date, the precise reasons for honey bee
colony losses attributable to CCD are still unknown.
Reasons cited for bee colony declines include a wide range of possible factors thought to be negatively affecting
pollinator species: bee pests and disease, diet and nutrition, genetics, habitat loss and other environmental stressors,
agricultural pesticides, and beekeeping management issues, as well as the possibility that bees are being negatively
affected by cumulative, multiple exposures and/or the interactive effects of each of these factors.
As reported by USDA: “While many possible causes for CCD have been proposed, reported, and discussed—both in
the scientific literature and popular media—no cause has been proven.”
Scientists at USDA and bee labs across the country continue to look for the cause or causes of CCD within four
broad categories: (1) pathogens (such as Nosema ceranae); (2) parasites (such as Varroa mites); (3) environmental
stressors (such as pesticides or lack of nectar diversity); and (4) management stressors (such as transportation stress
by migratory beekeepers).
Sources: K. Kaplan, “Colony Collapse Disorder: An Incomplete Puzzle,” Agricultural Research (USDA publication), July
2012; K. Kaplan, “Fact Sheet: Survey of Bee Losses during Winter of 2012/2013,” May 2013; D. Evans, Yan Ping Chen,
et al., “Predictive markers of honey bee colony collapse,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 2 (p. e32151), 2012; NRC, Status of
Pollinators in North America, 2007; USDA, Colony Col apse Disorder Progress Report, various years; and comments by
Laurie Adams, North American Pol inator Protection Campaign (NAPPC), in a presentation to congressional staff on
June 18, 2012. For other information, see CRS Report RL33938, Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.

Reasons cited for honey bee population losses include a wide range of possible factors. Potential
identified causes include bee pests and disease, diet and nutrition, genetics, habitat loss and other
environmental stressors, agricultural pesticides, and beekeeping management issues, as well as
the possibility that bees are being negatively affected by cumulative, multiple exposures and/or
the interactive effects of several of these factors.
Aside from the range of potential identified causes for bee colony declines, CRS Report R42855,
Bee Health: The Role of Pesticides, addresses what role, if any, pesticides play in influencing the
health and wellness of bees.
Given continued concerns about the health and well-being of honey bees and other pollinators,
this issue has continued to be legislatively active in the U.S. Congress. Various proposals
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

addressing managed bees and native pollinators were enacted in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246)
and reauthorized and expanded as part of the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), in the law’s research,
conservation, specialty crop, and miscellaneous title provisions.7
Overview of Selected Bee Species
More than 200,000 species of insects (bees, butterflies, moths, flies, wasps, beetles, and ants),
bats (and other small mammals), and birds (including hummingbirds) are plant pollinators. This
report focuses on bees—both managed honey bees and wild (mostly unmanaged) bee species.
Managed Honey Bees
Honey bees (Apis mellifera; Family: Apidae) are the most well-known bee species. However,
honey bees are only one of the world’s estimated 17,000 described bee species, and one of the
estimated total of 20,000 to 30,000 bee species worldwide.8 Honey bees are not native to North
America, but were introduced by European settlers in the 1600s.
Honey bees are considered to be “social” bees in that they have single egg-laying queen and
sterile worker bees that tend to work together in a highly structured social order, consisting of
cooperation and division of labor within a colony, as well as the presence of two generations in a
single nest at the same time. Social behavior allows bees to be domesticated and managed.
There are an estimated 115,000-125,000 beekeepers in the United States.9 Most of these (roughly
90,000-100,000) are hobbyists with fewer than 25 hives.10 Commercial beekeepers tend to have
more than 300 hives. They migrate their colonies during the year to provide pollination services
to farmers. In the United States, most pollination services are provided by commercial
beekeepers.11
Some other types of native bees are also managed, such as bumble bees, orchard bees, and alfalfa
leaf-cutting bees. Some of these bees (such as bumble bees and some types of stingless bees)
exhibit some of the social behaviors commonly associated with honey bees. Some bumble bee
species are managed in controlled environments to pollinate greenhouse tomatoes. Others are
valued as primary or supplementary pollinators for members of the squash family such as
cucumbers, watermelons, and cantaloupes. Some species of meliponine bees (commonly called
stingless bees), which are mostly found in the tropics, were widely cultivated by Native

7 For more information, see CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
8 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC), Status of Pollinators in North America, 2007, p.
36; and S. Fecht, “Hive and Seek: Domestic Honeybees Keep Disappearing, but Are Their Wild Cousins in Trouble,
Too?” Scientific American, May 8, 2012.
9 National Honey Board, “Beekeepers and Honeybee Colonies,” http://www.honey.com/nhb/media/press-kit/. Data
from 2012 industry survey, Bee Culture magazine.
10 A colony of bees is composed of between 250 and 50,000 individual bees (D. Sammataro and A. Avitabile, The
Beekeepers Handbook, 4th ed.). Most larger healthy managed hives have between 20,000 and 50,000 bees.
11 These operations are able to supply honey bee colonies during the critical phase of a crop’s bloom cycle, when bees
pollinate a crop as they fly from flower to flower collecting nectar and pollen, which they carry back to the nest.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Americans in Central and South America before the introduction of honey bees from Europe.12
Roughly 500 species of bees native to North America show some degree of social behavior.
Wild Bee Species
An estimated 4,000 species of bees are native to North America.13 With few exceptions, most of
these are wild and not managed. Most types of wild bees are “solitary” bees—estimated at about
3,500 species—and do not have long-lived colonies.14 Data and information on native bees are
more limited than information on managed bees.
The five most common families of native bees in North America are Andrenidae, Apidae,
Colletidae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae. Andrenid bees are all ground nesters, and mostly
comprise a large family of dark, nondescript bees, although some are colorful. Bees in the large
Apidae family include not only honey bees, but also bumble bees (such as Bombus spp.),
carpenter bees, squash or gourd bees, and others. Compared to most native species, bumble bees
(Bombus) are better studied. There are 239 species of bumble bees worldwide; of these, 60
species are found in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.15

Classification of Bees
Kingdom
Animalia—Animal
Phylum
Arthropoda—Arthropods
Class
Insecta—insects, hexapoda
Order
Hymenoptera—ants, bees, wasps
Superfamily Apoidea—bees, sphecoid wasps, apoid wasps
Family
Andrenidae—andrenid bees, andrenids
Family
Apidae—honey bees, bumble bees, carpenter bees, squash bees, stingless bees
Family
Colletidae—colletid bees, plasterer bees, yellow-faced bees
Family
Halictidae—halictid bees, sweat bees
Family
Megachilidae—leafcutting bees, orchard bees, mason bees, resin bees
Family
Melittidae—melittid bees, melittids
Source: Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). ITIS is supported by a consortium of federal and
international agencies and scientific organizations to provide authoritative taxonomic information on known plant
and animal species. Available at http://www.itis.gov/. Condensed and slightly modified by CRS to include more
common names.

Bees in the smaller Colletidae family are broader and wasp-like, and include plasterer bees. Bees
in the Halictidae family include many species of sweat bees, and most have shiny metallic

12 The shift by beekeepers to honey bees for more intensive production has also reduced the number of stingless bees.
13 Iowa State University, “Native Bees of North America,” http://bugguide.net/node/view/475348.
14 NRC, Status of Pollinators in North America, 2007, p. 50; and Xerces Society, “Pollinator Conservation: Native Bee
Biology,” http://www.xerces.org/native-bees/.
15 NRC, Status of Pollinators in North America, 2007, p. 43.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

colored or black bodies. Bees in the Megachilidae family include resin and mason bees, orchard
bees, and leaf-cutter bees that mostly nest in holes. Most families of bees contain some types of
parasitic and cuckoo16 bees. For a summary of the different types of wild bees see the text box
above.
Importance of Bee Pollination
Worldwide, the contribution of bees and other insects to worldwide crop production for human
food is valued at about $190 billion each year.17 In the United States alone, the value of insect
pollination to U.S. agricultural production is estimated at $16 billion annually, of which about
three-fourths of the value is attributable to honey bees.18
Expressed somewhat differently, another widely cited estimate is that bee pollination of
agricultural crops is said to account for about one-third of the U.S. diet, contributing to the
production of a diverse range of high-value fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, forage crops, some field
crops, and other specialty crops.19
Both managed and wild bees are critical to plant pollination and are economically valuable to
U.S. agricultural production. Bee pollination of agricultural crops is said to contribute to the
production of as many as 90 agricultural crops.20 A number of agricultural crops are almost totally
(90%-100%) dependent on animal pollination, including apples, avocados, blueberries,
cranberries, cherries, kiwi fruit, macadamia nuts, asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery,
cucumbers, onions, legume seeds, pumpkins, squash, and sunflowers.21 Other specialty crops also
rely on pollination, but to a lesser degree.22 USDA reports that native bees also provide
pollination services for a number of food crops. In addition to some of the aforementioned crops,
these include alfalfa seeds, almonds, canola, chokecherries, grapefruit, pears, plums, prunes,
soybeans (hybrid seed production), tomatoes, vegetable seeds, and watermelons.23

16 Refers to bees that lay their eggs in another bee’s nest; as their eggs hatch early, the cuckoo larvae eat the other’s
provisions.
17 N. Gallai et al., “Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline,”
Ecological Economics, 2009, 68: 810-821. Converted from the reported estimate of €153 billion (value in 2005).
18 N. W. Calderone, “Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data
for the Period 1992–2009,” PLoS ONE 7(5): e37235, May 2012. Updated values are for 2010.
19 M. R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois, statement before the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, March 29, 2007; and J. Pettis, USDA’s ARS, interview with University of
Pennsylvania staff, January 23, 2007.
20 Staple crops (wheat, corn, and rice) do not rely on insect pollination and are mostly wind-pollinated.
21 R. A. Morse and N. W. Calderone, The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000, March 2000,
Cornell University; and A. M. Klein et al., “Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 274, No. 1608, February 7, 2007.
22 Crops include apricot, citrus, peaches, pears, nectarines, plums, grapes, brambleberries, strawberries, olives, melon
(cantaloupe, watermelon, and honeydew), peanuts, cotton, soybeans, and sugarbeets.
23 USDA, “Agroforestry: Sustaining Native Bee Habitat Crop Pollination,” AF note-32, August 2006.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Estimated Economic Value
The economic value of pollination services provided by managed honey bees and wild bees is
difficult to quantify. Most available estimates focus on crop pollination by managed honey bees.
Data and information on native bees are more limited. Where few bee species are kept
commercially and managed for their pollination services, wild bee species also play an important
role in providing pollinator services to both commercial and small-scale home gardening systems.
Both locally and globally, some are concerned that the availability of honey bee stocks is not
keeping pace with growing agricultural demands for pollination services.24
Researchers at Cornell University estimate the monetary value to U.S. crops of total insect
pollination—both commercial honey bees and other insect pollinators such as non-Apis bees and
other insects—at about $16.4 billion in 2010.25 (Table 1) Of the estimated $16.4 billion
attributable to insect pollination in the United States, the value of pollination from honey bees is
estimated at $12.4 billion, or about three-fourths of the total value. The value of pollination from
other insects, including non-Apis bees and other insects, is estimated at $4.0 billion.26 (Table 1).
Separate estimates of the economic value of only wild bee pollination services are not readily
available. However, a 2011 study by researchers at the University of California estimated that
wild bee species add $0.9 billion to $2.4 billion per year in value to California’s agriculture
through pollination services.27 Additional efforts are underway in an attempt to estimate the value
of pollination services of wild bees.
Commercial Migratory Beekeeping
In the United States, most commercial pollination services are provided by migratory beekeepers
that travel from state to state and provide pollination services to crop producers. These operations
are able to supply a large number of bee colonies during the critical phase of a crop’s bloom
cycle, when honey bees pollinate a crop as they fly from flower to flower collecting nectar and
pollen, which they carry back to the nest.28 Of the roughly 2 million bee colonies rented out each
year to pollinate U.S. agricultural crops, an estimated 1.6 million colonies are needed to pollinate
California’s more than 900,000 acres of almond trees alone.29 Increasingly, bee colony rentals are
also being used to pollinate cultivated blueberries in the East Coast states and in the Midwest.30
Other information indicates that bee colonies are also rented for apple, pear, plum, cherry,
cranberry, avocado, cucumber, kiwi fruit, melon, pepper, and citrus fruit production, as well as for
alfalfa, clover seed, and sunflower production. (See map in Figure 1.)

24 See, for example, M. A. Aizen and L. D. Harder, “The Global Stock of Domesticated Honey Bees Is Growing
Slower than Agricultural Demand for Pollination,” Current Biology, May 2009.
25 N. W. Calderone, “Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data
for the Period 1992–2009,” PLoS ONE 7(5): e37235. Other available estimates for the total value of bee and insect
pollination range from $5.7 billion to $19.0 billion annually (as reported by the NRC in 2007).
26 Other known insect pollinators are wasps, hover flies, other flies, beetles, thrips, ants, butterflies, and moths.
27 R. Chaplin-Kramer et al., “Value of Wildland Habitat for Supplying Pollination Services to Californian Agriculture,”
Rangelands, June 2011, Vol. 33(3): 33-41.
28 Some “spillover” pollination occurs, including pollination from colonies owned by part-time beekeepers and
hobbyists, or pollination of adjacent fields from commercial hives.
29 Almond Board of California, http://www.almonds.com/growers/pollination.
30 “Honey Bees and Blueberry Pollination,” Fact Sheet 629, University of Maine Extension, April 2002.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1. Estimated Value of Insect Pollination to U.S. Crop Production, 2010
Value
Portion
Proportion
Attributed to
Attributed
Dependence
of Pollinators
All Insect
to Honey
on Insect
That Are
Pollinators
bees
Crop Category
Pollination
Honey bees
($ millions)
($ millions)
Major Producing States
Grain and seed crops
10%-100%
20%-90%
826.9
744.2
CA, ND, SD, ID, WI
Peanuts
10%
50%
90.1
18.0
GA, FL, AL, TX, NC
Cotton (seed)
20%
80%
200.8
160.6
TX, AR, GA, MS
Apples
100%
90%
2,220.8
1,998.7
WA, NY, MI, PA
Peaches, nectarines
60%
80%
446.4
357.1
CA, SC, GA, PA, WA
Prunes, plums
70%
90%
163.2
146.9
CA, ID, MI, OR, WA
Cherries
90%
90%
685.5
617.0
WA, CA, OR, MI
Other fruit (incl. olives)
10%-90%
10%-90%
656.3
578.3
CA, FL, WA
Almonds
100% 100%
2,838.5
2,838.5 CA
Macadamia nuts
90% 90%
27.0 24.3 HI
Blueberries
100%
90%
644.0
579.6
ME, MI, GA, OR, WA, NJ
Strawberries
20%
10%
449.1
44.9
CA, FL, OR
Other berries
80%-100%
90%
551.7
496.5
WA, CA, OR
Oranges
30%
90%
580.5
522.4
CA, FL, AZ, TX
Grapefruit
80%
90%
228.8
205.9
FL, CA, AZ, TX
Lemons
20% 10%
76.1 7.6 CA,
AZ
Tangerines, tangelos
40%-50% 90%
140.8 126.7 CA,
FL
Soybeans
10%
50%
3,891.5
1,945.8
IA, IL, MN, IN
Cantaloupes
80%
90%
251.5
226.4
CA, AZ, GA, CO, IN, PA
Cucumbers
90%
90%
340.4
306.3
FL, GA, NC, CA, NY, MI
Squash
90%
10%
183.2
18.3
FL, NY, CA, NC
Other melons, pumpkins
70%-90%
10%-90%
489.0
356.2
IL, CA, NY, OH, PA, MI
Grapes
10%
10%
362.7
36.3
CA, OR, WA, VA
TOTAL
— — $16,345 $12,357
—
Source: Compiled by CRS using values reported in N. W. Calderone, “Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect
Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009,” PLoS ONE 7(5):
e37235, May 2012, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0037235. Supporting
documentation provides data for individual crops from 1992 through 2009, with an update for 2010. Updates
previous estimates by R. A. Morse and N. W. Calderone, The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. Crops in
2000, Cornell University, March 2000.
Notes: Value of crop production attributable to insect pollinators, including honey bees, is expressed in terms
of the plant’s dependence on pol ination, and the insect’s contribution to increased yield and quality achieved
from pollination, including the indirect benefits of insect pollination required for seed production of some crops.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 1. Map of Commercial Pollination

Source: Posted at Person County (NC) Beekeepers Association by Inge Kautzmann, October 28, 2011. See also
Penn State University, “A Year in the Life of a Migratory Honey Bee Colony”; M. Burgett, 1999 Pacific Northwest
Honey Bee Pollination Survey, Oregon State University; and Pollination Map for Honey Bees in the United States.
Rental fees collected by commercial beekeepers for pollination services may vary by crop type,
and tend to be lower for some seed crops and higher for berry and tree crops. In recent years,
pollination fees paid by crop producers have increased. For example, fees paid by California’s
almond industry have risen from a reported $35 per colony in the late 1990s to about $75 per
colony in 2005. More recent estimates of fees for pollinating almond trees are even higher, at
$150 per colony or more (Figure 2).31 Fees may also vary by region.
Among the reasons for higher pollination fees are expanding almond acreage and relatively high
honey prices, but also fewer available honey bees for pollination due, in part, to colony declines
and bee mortalities. In 2009, across a range of commodities (excluding almonds), average rental
fees for pollination services ranged from $39 per colony to $70 per colony.32
Precise statistics are not available on the number of commercial migratory beekeepers. In the
United States, it is generally believed that operations with the majority of bee colonies—more
than 2 million of the roughly 3 million bee colonies in the United States—belong to commercial
migratory beekeepers, mostly in the Dakotas and in some midwestern states.

31 D. M. Caron, R. Sagili, and M. Cooper, “Pacific Northwest (PNW) 2011 Beekeeper Pollination.”
32 D. M. Caron, “Bee Colony Pollination Rental Prices, Eastern U.S. with Comparison to West Coast” (Table 1, Crop
Pollination in MAAREC Region (PA, DE, NJ, MD, VA, WV) and CA, 2008-2009), 2011.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 2. Weighted Pollination Fee, by Major Sector, Northwest, 2000-2011
(total rental value divided by number of rental colonies [$/colony])

Source: D. M. Caron, R. Sagili, and M. Cooper, “Pacific Northwest (PNW) 2011 Beekeeper Pollination.”
Notes: “Weighted fee” = total rental value divided by number of rental colonies. Data for Eastern U.S. states
are at D. M. Caron, “Bee Colony Pol ination Rental Prices, Eastern U.S. with Comparison to West Coast,” 2011.
Changes in Bee Populations
Managed Honey Bees
USDA does not compile comprehensive annual survey data on honey bee colonies. Available data
are limited and not ideal for evaluating population changes among honey bees. Annual data on the
number of honey bee colonies are from statistics tracking the number of operations that produce
honey for commercial sale. Additional data on all “colonies of bees” are from USDA’s five-year
Census of Agriculture (the most recent available data are for 2012). In response to concerns about
honey bee declines, USDA and the national bee laboratories have started to survey beekeepers
each year regarding overwinter colony losses as part of the “Bee Informed Partnership.”
Available USDA data on the number of bee colonies in honey production are not strictly
comparable. Data are compiled for different purposes—the Census data track all farms with bee
colonies, the annual honey production data track operations that produce honey for commercial
sale. Data are also compiled using different data collection techniques—one is a periodic census,
the other a statistical estimate. Generally, USDA data are mostly intended to track the number of
honey-producing colonies; however, it is the value of managed bees as crop pollinators that
provides the greatest economic impact in the production of food and feed crops.
A 2007 study by the National Research Council (NRC) voiced concerns about the available
USDA data on honey bees, cautioning against use of these data to determine changes in honey
bee populations.33 Concerns about the data include the following: the data track U.S. honey

33 NRC, Status of Pollinators in North America, 2007, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

production rather than bee populations; the lack of comparability among the available data
compilations; the potential for misidentification of species and miscounting because of data
collection procedures; and other issues.
Notwithstanding these concerns about data availability and quality, the NRC study concluded:
“Long-term population trends for the honey bee, the most important managed pollinator, are
demonstrably downward.”34 Honey bee colony losses are not uncommon. The NRC study cites
USDA data showing honey bee declines in 1947–1972 and 1989–1996, as well as declines
starting in 2005 (despite reports of a sharp rise in 2010).
U.S. Farms with Bee Colonies
Data from the most recent USDA Census of Agriculture indicate that there were 3.3 million bee
colonies on U.S. farms in 2012.35 These data are based on the reported 38,300 farms with honey
production during that year. This compares to previous Census data from 2007, when there were
28,000 operations with 2.9 million bee colonies in the United States, reflecting the recent
increased interest in beekeeping. Available limited historical data indicate that there were an
estimated 6 million honey bee colonies on U.S. farms during the 1950s.36 These overall trends
may reflect ongoing consolidation and structural shifts in the U.S. agricultural sectors, rather than
conclusive trends in species populations, abundance, and distribution.
By state, about one-third of all bee colonies are located in California, with another roughly one-
third located in in North and South Dakota, Florida, Texas, and Montana. Other states include
Washington, Oregon, Michigan, New York, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and
Wyoming. Although these operations also produce honey for commercial sale, their value as crop
pollinators provides the greatest economic impact in the production of food and feed crops.
Honey-Producing Bee Colonies
USDA annual data for honey-producing colonies are similarly inconclusive. These data show
year-to-year fluctuations, but not a clear downward trend over time.
Over the 10-year period shown, the number of honey-producing bee colonies dropped from
2.6 million bee colonies in 2002-2003 to lows of 2.3 million to 2.4 million bee colonies in 2006-
2008. In 2010, the sector reached a 10-year high when honey production increased and the
number of honey bee colonies totaled nearly 2.7 million (Table 2).
This increase in the number of honey-producing hives may reflect efforts among beekeepers to
continually replenish their hives—either in response to a colony die-off or to increase the number
of hives to raise overall honey production or to provide additional pollinator services. This
increase might also reflect the rising popularity of beekeeping as a part-time hobby.
Overall, these data illustrate that despite a greater number of honey-producing colonies, annual
honey production remains lower compared to just a decade ago.

34 Ibid.
35 USDA, 2012 Census of Agriculture, Table 21 (state-level data).
36 Presentation to Congressional staff by Jeff Pettis, USDA/Agricultural Research Service, June 18, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Measured by overall honey production in 2013, states producing the most honey in the United
States include North Dakota (22%), South Dakota (10%), Montana (10%), Florida (9%),
California (7%), and Minnesota (5%).37 Other major honey-producing states are Idaho, Texas,
Michigan, Oregon, Georgia, Nebraska, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Table 2. Honey-Producing Bee Colonies, 2002-2013
Number of Honey-Producing Colonies
Honey Production
Year
(1,000 colonies)
(1,000 pounds)
2002
2,574 171,718
2003
2,599 181,727
2004
2,556 183,582
2005
2,413 174,818
2006
2,393 154,907
2007
2,443 148,341
2008
2,342 163,789
2009
2,498 146,416
2010
2,692 176,462
2011
2,491 148,357
2012
2,539 142,296
2013
2,640 149,499
Source: USDA, Honey, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1191.
Honey production from producers with five or more colonies. Honey producing colonies are the maximum
number of colonies from which honey was taken during the year, although it is possible to take honey from
colonies that did not survive the entire year.
Annual “Winter Loss” Survey
Heightened attention about CCD has resulted in better tracking of annual honey bee colony losses
by USDA and national bee laboratories. This effort has evolved into the collection of an annual
winter loss survey, conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership38 and the Apiary Inspectors of
America (AIA), along with leading research labs and universities in agriculture and science, and
is supported by USDA and its research agency, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA).39
USDA reports that bee colony losses averaged 17%-20% per year between the 1990s and mid-
2000s, attributable to a variety of factors, such as mites, diseases, and management stress.40 By

37 USDA, Honey, March 2014, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Hone/Hone-03-21-2014.pdf.
38 The Bee Informed Partnership is an extension project that seeks to decrease the number of honey bee colonies that
die over the winter, in part through the creation of the so-called Bee Informed Database of honey bee health. This
database will contain data collected by the Bee Informed Partnership survey efforts, as well as data from other honey
bee health monitoring projects. Funding for the survey is from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of USDA’s
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. For more information, see http://beeinformed.org/about/bip-database/.
39 For more information, see the Bee Informed Partnership website: http://beeinformed.org/.
40 Pollinator Partnership, “Helping the earth by supporting pollinators,” 2009 publication. Estimates attributed to
Jeffrey S. Pettis at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

comparison, bee colony losses between the winters of 2006/2007 and 2013/2014 have averaged
nearly 30% annually (Figure 3). Reported annual loss rates of managed honey bee colonies from
all causes nationwide are as follows:41
• 23% in the winter of 2013/2014;
• 31% in the winter of 2012/2013;
• 22% in the winter of 2011/2012;
• 30% in the winter of 2010/2011;
• 34% in the winter of 2009/2010;
• 29% in the winter of 2008/2009;
• 36% in the winter of 2007/2008;
• 32% in the winter of 2006/2007.
Other information from USDA’s 2012/2013 annual survey indicates that 70% of responding
beekeepers reported losses greater than 14%—the level of loss that beekeepers say allow them to
remain economically viable as a business.42
Figure 3. Managed Honey Bee Colony Losses in the United States

Source: D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Colony Loss 2013-2014,” May 15, 2014.

41 D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Colony Loss 2013-2014,” May 15, 2014, http://beeinformed.org/2014/05/colony-loss-
2013-2014/. Past surveys are all posted on the Bee Informed Partnership website.
42 K. Kaplan, “Fact Sheet: Survey of Bee Losses during Winter of 2012/2013,” May 2013.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

The first survey in this series was conducted by the AIA, covering the winter of 2006/2007.43 Of
the responding beekeepers, about one-fourth reported conditions associated with CCD.44 The
survey indicated that, among the beekeepers surveyed, more than 50% reported “abnormally
heavy losses” with total colony losses of 55%. This compared to those reporting “normal losses”
with total colony losses of 16%. Beekeeping operations experiencing CCD-like conditions
reported losses of 45% of their managed bee colonies. Among the leading causes reported by
most affected commercial beekeeping operations were pest diseases.
Subsequent survey results indicate that the number of managed honey bee colonies again dropped
in each of the following winters. One exception was overwinter 2011/2012, when surveyed total
losses of colonies from all causes were 22% nationwide and represented a substantial
improvement in mortality compared to the previous five years. The following year (2012/2013),
however, total losses of managed honey bee colonies nationwide again reached more than 30%
from all causes. Estimated losses in overwinter 2013/2014 dropped back again to 23%.
Based on the annual winter loss surveys, USDA estimates that overwinter colony losses have
averaged more than 30% annually since 2006/2007. However, bee colonies have continued to
“dwindle away” each year for reasons not solely attributable to CCD, which is characterized by
colony populations that are suddenly lost.45 In fact, USDA claims that “beekeepers did not report
CCD as a major cause of colony loss” of overwinter losses in both the 2012-2013 and the
2011/2012 surveys. Whether colony losses are attributable to CCD may be based, in part, on
reported colony losses “with no dead bees present, which is indicative of CCD.”46
Wild Bee Species
While managed bees are commercially important, wild bee species are important ecologically for
sustainable forests and fields. However, no comprehensive formal statistics are available on
populations of wild bees in the United States.
Of the estimated 3,500 species of solitary bees, none are thoroughly surveyed. Scientific literature
is replete with assertions about the paucity of data on one group or another of native bees. Long-
term data are particularly difficult to obtain for wild bees. As concluded by the researchers in a
2007 National Research Council (NRC) study, Status of Pollinators in North America, among all
wild pollinators:
There is evidence of decline in the abundance of some pollinators, but the strength of this
evidence varies among taxa. Long-term population trends for several wild bee species
(notably bumble bees) ... are notably downward. For most pollinator species, however, the

43 D. vanEngelsdorp, R. Underwood, D. Caron, and J. Hayes Jr., “An Estimate of Managed Colony Losses in the
Winter of 2006-2007: A Report Commissioned by the Apiary Inspectors of America,” American Bee Journal, July
2007. Based on a survey of beekeepers that included 384 respondents representing 153,000 managed bee colonies
located in AR, FL, GA, MD, MI, MS, MT, NM, ND, OH, PA, SD, TN, and WI.
44 These statistics may have been misrepresented in the popular press, which often state that 25% of the nation’s 2.4
million colonies have been lost (citing the AIA survey as its source).
45 K. Kaplan, “Fact Sheet: Survey of Bee Losses during Winter of 2012/2013,” May 2013, http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/
br/beelosses/index.htm.
46 USDA, CCD Progress Report, June 2012, http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2012.pdf, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

paucity of long-term population data and the incomplete knowledge of even basic taxonomy
and ecology make definitive assessment of status exceedingly difficult.47
In the absence of comprehensive data, as some of the studies cited below demonstrate, scientists
seeking to find any data to analyze broad pollinator trends might be forced to rely on
amalgamations of disparate studies, collections by citizen scientists,48 and other unconventional
approaches.
“Citizen Science” Surveys of Status
As various studies demonstrate, there have been numerous attempts to promote the use of various
informal “citizen science” initiatives in California, Florida, other East Coast states, and
elsewhere.49 For example, compared to most native species, bumble bees (Bombus) are better
studied. In part this is attributable to studies which recruit citizens to gather data—for example,
forming Bumble Bee Brigades in one campaign.50 Even so, information about wild bumble bees
is not comprehensive.
In 2010, an international group of scientists reviewed global trends in pollinator species,
including bees.51 They cited a study based on data gathered by citizen-scientists in the United
Kingdom and in the Netherlands (number of years of observation varying by location) showing
that “in both countries, bee diversity has fallen significantly in most landscapes.... Analysis of
pollinator traits demonstrated that in bees ..., specialist (diet and/or habitat) and sedentary species
tended to decline, whereas mobile generalists tended to thrive.” As the study notes, although the
“dynamics between plants and their pollinators suggest a link between the two,” this is correlative
and the mechanism is still not known: “It could be that plant declines are caused, in part, by a
lack of pollination services, or bees could be declining owing to a lack of floral resources” or both
could be declining due to “shared sensitivity to environmental changes.”52
Another North American study examined both museum collection records and intensive
nationwide surveys for records of abundance and distribution of eight bumble bee species.53 The
study showed that four species of bumble bees have declined in relative abundance by up to 96%.
These four species also contracted their ranges by 23% to 87%. These changes were statistically
highly significant; the other four species examined showed no clear pattern in terms of range
reduction. The study hypothesized that the four declining species may be affected by a pathogen

47 For more information, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer.
48 A well-known example of citizen-scientist-based data in North America is the annual Christmas bird count, which
has been conducted for nearly a century in some areas. Data may not serve for some quantitative analyses, but may be
much more reliable for the presence or absence of a bird, for example. In other studies, on arrival dates at bird feeders,
or bees on spring flowers, the date on which a species is first observed could be another relatively reliable observation.
49 See, for example, the University of California’s backyard bee count (http://www.greatsunflower.org/), the University
of Florida’s “Native Buzz” project (http://www.ufnativebuzz.com/), and the “Bee Hunt” project organized by multiple
university staff, federal agencies, and private partnerships (http://www.discoverlife.org/bee/index.html).
50 The University of Wyoming, through its Berry Center, sponsors the program. See http://www.uwyo.edu/berrycenter/
citizen-science/bumblebees.html for more information.
51 S. G. Potts, J. C. Biesmeijer, C. Kremen et al., 2010, “Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers,”
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 25, n. 6, pp. 345-353.
52 Ibid.
53 S. A. Cameron, J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange et al., 2011, “Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble
bees,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 108, n. 2, pp. 662-667.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

(Nosemi bombi) as well as reduced genetic diversity.54 The data were adequate only to show an
association, rather than a cause—were the four species declining because of the disease and low
genetic diversity? Or was some other factor causing these species to decline and making them
more susceptible to the disease and also reducing their genetic diversity?
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Information
Another source of information about potential population changes among wild bee species
includes listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C.
§§1531-1544). An ESA determination will include an analysis of the threats to a species, its
current status and range, and other factors essential to its conservation.55 For example, one
bumble bee species (B. franklini) is thought to be extinct in its very limited (former) range in
northeastern California and southeastern Oregon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
this species under review for listing.56 In addition, FWS has proposed seven species of yellow-
faced bees (Genus Hylaeus in the Family Colletidae) for listing under ESA, with high priority for
listing (2 on a scale of 12).57 All members of this genus, including these seven, are found only in
Hawaii.
Interactions with Physical Environment
Studies have showed that phenological changes58 in flowering times are accompanied by changes
in the spring emergence of bee populations.59 Reviewing a number of previous studies on
flowering times and pollination, one study found that 10 species of bees (including both solitary
and social species) had advanced to earlier dates in the spring for their first emergence, and the
flowering times of the plants they visited also advanced. Advances in emergence time over the
period from 1970-2010 were highly significant. Various hypotheses to explain the difference were
examined; the data “[support] the idea that climate change is the main factor explaining the
observed phenological advances.” However, the study concludes that “phenological mismatch
probably has not occurred already, but that it could occur in the future, as rates of temperature
warming increase.” At the same time, the study noted that it analyzed generalist bees and
generalist flowers—bees that visit many plant species, and plants visited by many bee species.60
Where the life cycles of particular bee species are tied to particular plant species, different trends
may occur. While no data were reported on the population sizes of these bees, in this study there
was no clear connection between climate change (as measured by flowering times) and any harm

54 The study notes that some believe Nosema bombi was introduced via commercially imported European bumble bees,
and North American bumble bees may therefore have less resistance to the disease than European species.
55 NRC, Status of Pollinators in North America, 2007, p. 7. See also p. 88 (referring to Bombus, or bumble bees); p. 29
(referring to pollinators generally in North America); and p. 203 (referring to the absence of baseline data on pollinator
status generally as an impediment to estimation of any decline).
56 See FWS, “Species Profile,” http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0IR.
57 See FWS, “Endangered Species,” http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
58 Phenology refers to the scientific study of biological phenomena that are cyclical or periodic. Examples include
migration, hibernation, and nesting, as well as flowering times. Phenology is particularly important in analysis of
climate change.
59 I. Bartomeus, J. S. Ascher, D. Wagner et al., 2011, “Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and
bee-pollinated plants,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 108, n. 51, pp. 20645-20649.
60 The species studied were in four genera: Andrena (three species), Bombus (two species), Colletes (one species), and
Osmia (four species).
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

to the species studied. The bees seemed to be keeping up with the changes in dates of flower
availability.
The phenomenon known as trophic cascade may also play a role in the interaction of pollinator
species. Many plants can be pollinated by more than one species, and many bee species use more
than one pollen or nectar source. As individual pollinator species (bees or other species) decline,
other species may take over the declining species’ role. Where the data are available, evidence
suggests that, where a generalist bee species is able to step in to provide pollination services
(even if less able than a specialist bee), the effects of a reduced bee population may be masked by
the generalist. In more concrete terms, the presence of a highly efficient generalist—like the
honey bee—may mask the loss of native species (regardless of the reason for the decline of the
native species). If honey bees themselves then decline, the effects of the lost population may be
more severe because populations of back-up pollinators have already been reduced or eliminated.
And conversely, reductions in honey bee populations may reduce competition sufficiently to
allow other (reduced) bee populations to rebound to greater numbers.
Another study examined population changes in meliponine (or stingless) bees. Previously
stingless bees were widely cultivated by Native Americans in Central and South America before
the introduction of honey bees from Europe. However, loss of forest cover eliminates nesting
sites; also the shift by beekeepers to honey bees for more intensive production has also reduced
the number of stingless bees. An analysis of the effects of forestry on stingless bees in Brazil
observed that most bee nests were found in hollow trees over 50 cm (~20 inches) in diameter.61
Given the high value of the bees as pollinators for many species of plants, and the low
commercial value of hollow trees, the study recommended that managed forests maintain hollow
trees as both seed sources and as homes for these bees.62 In addition, some studies suggest that
stingless bees are especially susceptible to some pesticides.63
Factors Affecting Bee Health
Among the factors that are thought to be harming bee health are (listed in no particular order):
• parasites, pathogens, and diseases64 (for a detailed listing, see text box);
• bee genetics including lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees, and
increased susceptibility and lowered disease resistance;
• miticide resistance;65

61 G. C. Venturieri, 2009, “The impact of forest exploitation on Amazonian stingless bees (Apidae Meliponini),”
Genetics and Molecular Research, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 684-689.
62 Ibid.
63 H. V. V. Tomé, G. F. Martins et al., 2012, “Imidacloprid-induced impairment of mushroom bodies and behavior of
the native stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata anthidioides,” PLoS ONE, v. 7, n. 6, p. e38406.
64 Among the leading causes of declining bee populations cited in the 2007 NRC study—which was published before
CCD became a well-publicized phenomenon—were pathogens and introduced parasites, particularly Varroa destructor,
the varroa mite. That study, among others, documents the extensive, but still inconclusive literature on honey bee
population losses due to bee pests, parasites, pathogens, and disease, as well as other causes.
65 A miticide is a pesticide intended to kill mites.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

• diet and nutrition including poor nutrition due to apiary overcrowding,
pollination of crops with low nutritional value, and pollen or nectar scarcity
associated with invasive plants;
• bee management issues including transportation stress from migratory
beekeeping, overcrowding, feeding practices, chemicals used by beekeepers to
control mites (antibiotics and miticides), confinement and temperature
fluctuations, susceptibility to disease, potential for cumulative exposure to
diseases and parasites, use of bees for honey production versus pollination,
chemical residue or contamination in the wax, and reliability of the queen source;
• habitat loss, and other environmental or biological stressors including loss of
foraging area, interspecific competition between honey bees and native bees,
pathogen spillover effects, and climate change;
• pesticides including acute or cumulative exposure to new types or combinations
of agricultural pesticides through a variety of media including dust, water
droplets, pollen, and nectar;
• other agricultural practices including the use of genetically incorporated
pesticides in seeds or treated seeds, such as with bioengineered crops; and
• potential cumulative and interactive effects of each of these factors.
Many of these factors were among those initially thought to be contributing to CCD.66 As
outlined in USDA’s 2011 progress report, the available research over the past years has led USDA
and university researchers to conclude that “no single factor or specific combination of factors
has been identified as a ‘cause’ [for CCD].”67 This has led researchers to further examine the
hypothesis that CCD may be “a syndrome caused by many different factors, working in
combination or synergistically”;68 it may also involve “an interaction between pathogens and
other stress factors.”69
According to USDA: “Despite a number of claims in the general and scientific media, a cause or
causes of CCD have not been identified by researchers.”70 However, CCD may not be the single
leading cause of honey bee colony losses in recent years.71 USDA reports that in 2012/2013,
“there were more colonies that dwindled away” rather than suffering from the onset of CCD,
which is characterized by a sudden loss in bee colony populations.72 Whether colony loss is
attributable to CCD may also be based, in part, on reported colony losses “with no dead bees
present, which is indicative of CCD” (i.e., the absence of dead bees).73 USDA also claims that
“beekeepers did not report CCD as a major cause” of overwinter losses in its 2012-2013 and
2011-2012 surveys.74

66 For more information, see CRS Report RL33938, Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.
67 USDA, CCD Progress Report, June 2011, http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2011.pdf.
68 USDA, CCD Progress Report, June 2009, http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport.pdf.
69 D. vanEngelsdorp et al., 2009, “Colony collapse disorder: A descriptive study,” PLOS One, v. 4, n. 8, (August).
70 USDA, “Honey Bees and Colony Collapse Disorder,” http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572.
71 K. Kaplan, “Fact Sheet: Survey of Bee Losses During Winter of 2012/2013.”
72 Ibid.
73 USDA, CCD Progress Report, June 2012, http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2012.pdf, p. 9.
74 K. Kaplan, “Fact Sheet: Survey of Bee Losses During Winter of 2012/2013.”
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Pests and Diseases Affecting Honey Bees
As noted in the 2007 NRC study, among the leading causes of managed honey bee losses are diseases, parasites, and
recently introduced competitors. Most notable are declines due to two parasitic mites, the so-called vampire mite
(Varroa destructor) and the tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi). Also of concern is the emergence of new or newly virulent
fungal and viral diseases. New invasive pests are also harming bees.
Below is a listing of some identified pests and diseases. For more information, see the 2007 NRC study, Status of
Pollinators in North America. The following is excerpted mainly from The Beekeepers Handbook.
Honey bee diseases may be caused by a protozoan (e.g., bacteria or amoeba), fungus, or virus.
•
Nosema disease is the most common adult bee disease, and is caused by a microscopic fungus
(formerly considered to be a protozoan). Two Nosema species are found in honey bees: (1) Nosema
apis; and (2) Nosema ceranae (the more virulent of the two).
•
American foulbrood disease (AFD) is the most destructive of brood diseases. (Brood refers to the
egg, larval, and pupal stages in bee development.) AFD is caused by a bacterium (Paenibacillus larvae) that
occurs in a spore or a vegetative stage; the disease is transmitted by the spore and the infected brood is
killed by the vegetative stage.
•
European foulbrood disease (EFD) is also caused by a bacterium (Melissococcus plutonius) and is
commonly found in colonies already weakened by lack of food or by other stressors.
•
Chalkbrood disease is caused by a fungus (Ascophaera apis); adult bees can detect and remove
diseased larvae; honey production may be reduced but the disease usually will not destroy a colony.
•
Amoeba disease is caused by the amoeba Malpighamoeba mellificae Prell; it infests the gut of honey
bees. Resistant spores (cysts) form in honey bees and can transmit the disease to other bees.
•
Other less common adult diseases include septicemia and spiroplasma. Both are caused by bacteria.
The former cause destruction of connective tissues; the latter infects the bees’ blood. They tend to
cause dysentery, and arise primarily from poor food and long periods of confinement.
•
Some common viral diseases affecting honey bees include deformed wing virus (DWV); black queen
cell virus (BQCV); Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV); acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV); sacbrood virus
(SBV); Kashmir bee virus; and chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV).
Other pests are mostly invertebrates, but some vertebrates are problematic locally. Among these pests are parasitic
mites, insects, and some larger animals.
•
Tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi) are parasitic mites that live inside the breathing organs of adult bees,
and eventually a newly mated female mite emerges from the old host bee.
•
Varroa mites, now known mostly for the vampire mite (Varroa destructor), are large mites that feed on
infested bees, resulting in disfigured, stunted adult bees and deformed larvae and pupae (varroosis).
•
Emerging threats such as the parasitic phorid fly (Apocephalus borealis), known to parasitize bumble
bees, have been found to also parasitize honey bees and can eventual y cause bees to abandon their
hives.
•
Major insect enemies include the wax moth and the small hive beetle.
•
Minor insect enemies include assassin and ambush bugs, robber flies, mantids, wasps, and dragonflies.
•
Various vertebrate pests include skunks, raccoons, bears, and mice.
One competitor deserves mention—the introduced Africanized honey bee. This bee is also a honey bee (Apis
mellifera) but of a different strain from those imported from Europe. They are good foragers, but the colonies are
more difficult to manage than the domestic European bee; they are sometimes called “killer bees,” although an
individual bee’s sting is no more severe than that of a European bee. They were accidentally released in Brazil decades
ago and have spread into the southern United States.
Sources: D. Sammataro and A. Avitabile, The Beekeepers Handbook, 4th ed., pp. 189-232; Beekeepers Association of
Northern Virginia, “Diseases, Parasites, Pests, and Predators,” presentation materials; and, for phorid flies, A. Core et
al., “A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis,” PLoS ONE 7(1), January 3, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Honey bee colony losses are not uncommon. The NRC study documents the extensive literature
on honey bee population losses due to bee pests, parasites, pathogens, and disease.75 Most notable
are declines due to two parasitic mites, the so-called vampire mite (Varroa destructor) and the
tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi), and also colony declines due to the pathogen Paenibacillus
larvae. Other reasons for bee colony declines reported by the NRC include interspecific
competition between native and introduced bees, pathogen spillover effects, habitat loss, invasive
plant species that reduce nectar- and pollen-producing vegetation, bee genetics, and pesticides,
among other factors.
Mite infestations are a relatively new occurrence. The 1980s saw two periods of large die-offs due
to Varroa and tracheal mites: The first Varroa mite infestation was reported in 1987; tracheal
mites were first detected in 1984.76 Varroa mites are also said to have eliminated most feral bee
colonies in the mid-1990s. Varroa parasitism affects both worker bees and male larvae and can
affect the ability of the queen to reproduce. It is associated with viral pathogens and if left
untreated can cause colony mortalities usually within six months to two years after the initial
infestation. Less is known about the effects of the tracheal mite. The pathogen Paenibacillus
larvae is the most serious honey bee pathogen and causes American foulbrood (AFB), which is a
disease of larval honey bees. AFB resulted in large colony losses in the 1940s, but its incidence
has been reduced by the use of antibiotics and increased apiary inspection programs.
Nevertheless, mite and pathogen infestations have likely raised beekeeper operating costs to pay
for miticides and/or antibiotics, labor and expenses for treatment, improved management and
inspection, and colony replacement of dead bees.
Symptoms similar to those observed for CCD have been described in the past, and heavy losses
have been documented. It is still not clear whether the current colony losses are being caused by
the same factors or if new contributing factors are involved. Previously, similar conditions have
been termed autumn collapse, May disease, spring dwindle, disappearing disease, and fall
dwindle disease.
Identified Future Needs
National Pollinator Health Strategy (“Presidential Memorandum”)
In June 2014, the Obama Administration issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Creating a Federal
Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,” directing federal agencies
to take steps to protect and restore domestic populations of pollinators.77 It established a
Pollinator Health Task Force, co-chaired by USDA and EPA, with representatives from the
Departments of State, Defense, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation,
Energy, and Education; Council on Environmental Quality; Domestic Policy Council; General
Services Administration; National Science Foundation; the National Security Council Staff;
Office of Management and Budget; and Office of Science and Technology Policy.

75 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Status of Pollinators in North America, 2006.
76 Interview with Maryann Frazier, Senior Extension Agent, Pennsylvania State University, January 28, 2007.
77 The White House, “Presidential Memorandum—Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees
and Other Pollinators,” June 20, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-
memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

The task force is directed to develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy, which will include a
Pollinator Research Action Plan to “focus federal efforts on understanding, preventing, and
recovering from pollinator losses.” The action plan will be informed by studies of the health of
managed honey bees and native bees; expanded collection and sharing of data related to
pollinator losses; assessments of the status of native pollinators; strategies for developing
affordable seed mixes; identification of existing and new methods and best practices to reduce
pollinator exposure to pesticides; and strategies for targeting resources toward areas of high risk
and habitat restoration potential. The strategy will also include public education plans for
individuals and businesses to help address the loss of pollinators as well as recommendations for
developing public-private partnerships to build on federal efforts to encourage pollinator
protection and increase the quality and amount of habitat and forage for pollinators.
The memorandum further outlines steps each task force member agency shall take to develop
plans to increase and improve pollinator habitat. These plans may include “facility landscaping,
including easements; land management; policies with respect to road and other rights-of-way;
educational gardens; use of integrated vegetation and pest management; increased native
vegetation; and application of pollinator-friendly best management practices and seed mixes.”
Member agencies will also “evaluate permit and management practices on power line, pipeline,
utility, and other rights-of-way and easements” and “make any necessary and appropriate changes
to enhance pollinator habitat on federal lands through the use of integrated vegetation and pest
management and pollinator-friendly best management practices” by “supplementing existing
agreements and memoranda of understanding with rights-of-way holders” to establish and
improve pollinator habitat.
The National Pollinator Health Strategy was scheduled to have been released in December 2014,
but the report’s release date has been delayed to spring 2015.78
In October 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the General Services
Administration (GSA) issued an addendum to its sustainable landscape guidance, Supporting the
Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, to help federal agencies “incorporate pollinator
friendly practices in new construction, building renovations, landscaping improvements, and in
facility leasing agreements at federal facilities and on federal lands.”79 This amends previous
guidance from CEQ in October 2011 (Guidance for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices
for Designed Landscapes), describing strategies to achieve sustainable federal landscape practices
on more than 41 million acres of land and 429,000 building assets, comprising 3.34 billion square
feet of space in the United States, that are controlled or owned by the federal government.

78 Announcement by Michael Stebbins, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, at the 14th annual
conference of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC), October 22, 2014.
79 CEQ, “Guidance for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed Landscapes and Supporting Pollinators
on Federal Landscapes,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/landscaping-guidance and
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/supporting_the_health_of_honey_bees_and_other_pollinators.pdf.
Involvement from other federal agencies included representatives from USDA and the U.S. Forest Service, the
Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the
Departments of Transportation, Defense, Education, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Interior’s Office of
Planning and Management, with support from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Conclusions of USDA-EPA Joint Report
In 2013, USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a USDA-EPA
Joint report, National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health.80 Among the goals of the
conference were to “synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding CCD, bee pests,
pathogens, and nutrition, potential pesticide effects on bees, and bee biology, genetics and
breeding.” A summary of the key findings of the 2013 USDA-EPA Joint report, as reported by
EPA, is as follows:81
• Address Risks to Honey bees from Parasites and Disease. According to the
report, the parasitic Varroa mite is recognized as “the major factor underlying
colony loss” in the United States and in other countries. Moreover, there is
“widespread resistance to the chemicals beekeepers use to control mites within
the hive,” and new virus species have been found in the U.S. and several of these
have been associated with CCD.
• Need for Increased Genetic Diversity in Bee Colonies. Genetic variation
improves bees’ thermoregulation,82 disease resistance, and worker productivity in
colonies, and bee breeding should emphasize traits (such as hygienic behavior)
that confer improved resistance to Varroa mites and diseases.
• Need for Improved Nutrition for Honey Bees. Nutrition has a major impact on
individual bee and colony longevity, and a poor diet can make bees more
susceptible to harm from disease and parasites. Bees need better forage and a
variety of plants to support colony health, and federal and state programs should
consider land management strategies that maximize available nutritional forage
and to protect bees by keeping them away from pesticide-treated fields.
• Need for Collaboration and Information Sharing. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) associated with pesticide use and bees are known but are not widely or
systematically followed by U.S. crop producers. “Informed and coordinated
communication between growers and beekeepers” is needed, along with
“effective collaboration between stakeholders on practices to protect bees from
pesticides.” Beekeepers have identified the need for “accurate and timely bee kill
incident reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.”
• Additional Pesticide Research Needed. According to EPA: “The most pressing
pesticide research questions relate to determining actual pesticide exposures and
effects of pesticides on bees in the field and the potential for impacts on bee
health and productivity of whole honey bee colonies.”
The National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee is made up of
representatives from USDA Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP), Pennsylvania State
University, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA

80 USDA, Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, National Honey Bee Health
Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee, May 2013, http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf.
81 EPA news release, “USDA and EPA Release New Report on Honey Bee Health,” May 2, 2013.
82 Refers to the ability to keep body temperature steady even if the surrounding environment is different.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), and EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP).
Much of the current research on bee health is being conducted by scientists at USDA and its
Beltsville bee laboratory, the USDA-supported Bee Informed Partnership, and scientists at many
of the land-grant universities nationwide.
USDA Actions and Funding
USDA’s CCD Action Plan
USDA released its initial action plan for addressing CCD in July 2007. USDA’s action plan
focuses on improving coordination and redirecting existing resources and research for mitigation
and prevention, including education and outreach, as well as expanding research and diagnostic
resources to prevent future losses, working with the land grant universities. It also coordinates
activities across three USDA agencies: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
Under the plan, USDA would (1) conduct surveys and collect data on bee health; (2) analyze bee
samples for pests, disease-causing pathogens, pesticide exposure, and other factors; (3) conduct
controlled experiments to identify factors affecting bee health, including potential causes of
colony collapses; and (4) develop best management practices and guidelines to improve general
bee health and reduce susceptibility to colony collapses and other disorders among both honey
bees and non-Apis bees.83 Since 2009, USDA has published a series of annual progress reports on
its CCD research.84 The progress reports provide detailed information on the status of ongoing
research under each of the four elements of USDA’s action plan, including survey and (sample)
data collection, analysis of existing samples, research to identify factors affecting honey bee
health, and mitigative and preventive measures.
Available USDA Research Funding
Funding for honey bee and pollinator research at USDA’s ARS has increased since the enactment
of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) and in subsequent appropriations, which, among other things,
provide additional funding for research and conservation programs addressing honey bees and
pollinators. Total ARS funding for honey bee research has been as follows:85
• FY2007 - $7,675,000
• FY2008 - $7,798,000
• FY2009 - $8,290,000
• FY2010 - $10,000,000

83 USDA, CCD Steering Committee, “Colony Collapse Disorder Action Plan,” June 20, 2007, http://www.ars.usda.gov/
is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf.
84 USDA, Colony Collapse Disorder Progress Report, various years, available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/
docs.htm?docid=15572.
85 CRS communication with USDA personnel, December 18, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

• FY2011 - $9,980,000 (reduction in funding was due to the FY2011 rescission)
• FY2012 - $10,128,000
• FY2013 - $9,353,000 (reduction in funding was due to sequestration and
rescission); and
• FY2014 - $10,309,000.
ARS also has an “Area-wide Project on Bee Health,” which consists of temporary funding of
$670,000 provided in FY2008, which was scheduled to continue through FY2012 at
approximately $1 million per year.86 Additional funding is available to USDA’s NIFA, and
includes combined research on honey bees, funding specific to CCD and bee health, and funding
for various research labs and grants. Recently, emerging issues grants were awarded to Penn State
University and the University of Georgia to study the effects of pesticides, pathogens, and
miticides on pollinator populations.87
Issues for Congress
Following concerns over honey bee colony losses in 2006-2007, Congress provided for increased
funding for bee research, among other types of farm program support to protect pollinators, as
part of the 2008 farm bill. Given continued concerns about the health and well-being of honey
bees and other pollinators, this issue has continued to be legislatively active in the U.S. Congress,
and various proposals were again considered as part of farm bill debates in both the House and
Senate in 2013. In addition, various other legislative proposals have been considered outside the
farm bill debate that could broadly support other types of bee and pollinator protections and
habitat areas.
Farm Bill Provisions
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, H.Rept. 113-333), referred to here as the “2014 farm
bill,” is the most recent omnibus farm bill. It was enacted in February 2014 and succeeded the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, “2008 farm bill”).88 The 2014 farm
bill reauthorized and expanded many of the 2008 farm bill provisions that address honey bees and
pollinators as part of the law’s research, conservation, specialty crop, and miscellaneous title
provisions. Overall, regarding managed honey bees and native pollinators, the 2014 farm bill:
• extends through 2018 various USDA research and conservation provisions
directed at protecting pollinators, enacted in the 2008 farm bill (see “Research
Provisions” and “Conservation Provisions,” below, for more information);
• expands annual reporting requirements on CCD along with other health
disorders;

86 CRS communication with USDA personnel, December 4, 2008; Jeff Pettis, “Colony Collapse Disorder Affecting
Honeybee (Apis mellifera) Colonies,” October 2008 presentation
87 Statements by Jeff Pettis, USDA, to Senate Environment and Public Works committee staff, April 9, 2008.
88 For more information, see CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
Many of these provisions were broadly extended through FY2013, as part of the one-year extension of the farm bill
extension in the in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-240).
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

• requires USDA to publish guidance on enhancing long-term pollinator health and
long term viability of pollinators, including addressing habitat and forage needs
for native pollinators and managed honey bees; and
• requires USDA to assess federal efforts to mitigate pollinator losses and threats to
the U.S. commercial beekeeping industry, and to recommend how to better
coordinate federal agency efforts to address the decline of managed honey bees
and native pollinators.
Some proposed provisions were not included in the 2014 farm bill. In particular, a House-passed
provision, Protection of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,89 would have required USDA, in
consultations with the Department of Interior and EPA, to take measures to improve federal
coordination in addressing the documented decline of managed and native pollinators and
promote the long-term viability of honey bee, wild bees and other beneficial insects in
agriculture. The provision also would have required USDA to establish a federal task force on bee
health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate and assess efforts to mitigate pollinator losses,
and the task force is to submit a report to Congress within 180 days of enactment of the farm bill,
as well as conduct a study to consider relocating and modernizing pollinator research labs.
Research Provisions
The research title of the 2008 farm bill identified pollinator protection among its so-called high-
priority research and extension areas (P.L. 110-246, §7204). It provided for research and
extension grants (1) to survey and collect data on bee colony production and health; (2) to
investigate pollinator biology, immunology, ecology, genomics, and bioinformatics; (3) to
conduct research on various factors that may be contributing to or associated with colony collapse
disorder and other serious threats to the health of honey bees and other pollinators, including
parasites and pathogens of pollinators, and the sublethal effects of insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides on honey bees and native and managed pollinators; (4) to develop mitigative and
preventative measures to improve native and managed pollinator health; and (5) to promote the
health of honey bees and native pollinators through habitat conservation and best management
practices.90 The 2008 farm bill authorized appropriations for grants at $10 million annually for
FY2008-FY2013.
The research provisions also directed USDA to increase its capacity and infrastructure to address
colony collapse disorder and other long-term threats to pollinator health (including hiring
additional personnel) and to conduct research on colony collapse disorder and other pollinator
issues at USDA’s facilities. As amended, annual appropriations were authorized at $7.25 million
(FY2008-FY2013), with another $2.75 million annually (FY2008-FY2013) for honey bee pest
and pathogen surveillance. This authorized funding has supported honey bee and pollinator
research efforts at USDA’s ARS in recent years (see “Available USDA Research Funding”).
The 2008 farm bill also directed USDA to submit an annual report to Congress on its response to
CCD, indicating that the report should investigate the cause(s) of honey bee colony collapse and
recommend appropriate strategies to reduce colony loss (see “USDA’s CCD Action Plan”).

89 House-Passed 2013 farm bill, H.R. 2642, including text of H.R. 3102 (§12315).
90 7 U.S.C. §5925.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

The 2014 farm bill reiterated that USDA should continue to focus its research efforts on honey
bees and native pollinators (P.L. 113-79, §7209). First, the farm bill reauthorized and expanded
the “high-priority research and extension initiatives” at USDA regarding honey bees, including
the requirement that USDA conduct a nationwide “honey bee pest, pathogen, health, and
population status surveillance” program, among other efforts intended to counteract the declining
honey bee health and declining populations of honey bees and native pollinators. Second, the
farm bill reauthorized and expanded on the requirement that USDA submit an annual report
describing honey bee colony collapse and honey bee health disorders, and find appropriate
strategies, including best management practices (BMPs) to reduce colony losses, and address the
decline of managed honey bees and native pollinators. USDA’s report must also assess federal
efforts to mitigate pollinator losses and threats to the United States commercial beekeeping
industry and recommend to Congress how to better coordinate federal agency efforts.
The 2014 farm bill provision in the Research title extended each of the authorized appropriations
in the 2008 farm bill.91 Total authorized appropriations are $20 million annually through FY2018,
and include
• research and extension activities ($10 million annually);
• USDA capacity and infrastructure ($7.25 million annually); and
• honey bee surveillance ($2.75 million annually).
Third, the farm bill directed USDA to consult with the Department of the Interior and EPA, and
publish “guidance on enhancing pollinator health and the long-term viability of populations of
pollinators,” including recommendations related to allowing for managed honey bees to forage on
National Forest System (NFS) lands. Under current law, honey bees can be allowed on NFS lands
under a “special use authorization permit.”92
The need for habitat and forage areas for native pollinators and managed honey bees—to supply
pollen and nectar to address the nutritional needs of bees and other pollinators—continues to be
an important policy issue. Some advocacy groups have asked USDA to convene a “Honey Bee
Nutrition and Forage Summit” to examine the importance of nutrition and forage to the health of
honey bees and sustainable agricultural pollination services.93 Forage efforts are also being
considered in some state legislatures including in California to help address pollination service
needs. USDA is also focusing on forage areas as part of its conservation programs (see
“Conservation Provisions”).
Conservation Provisions
The conservation title of the 2008 farm bill included language that broadly encourages habitat
development and protection among the administrative requirements for native and managed
pollinators under USDA’s conservation programs (P.L. 110-246, §2708), and ensures that USDA’s

91 7 U.S.C. 5925(G) (High-Priority Research and Extension Initiatives; Pollinator Protection).
92 For more information, see USDA, Forest Service, “Obtaining a Special-Use Authorization with the Forest Service:
The Application Process,” http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/broch.htm.
93 Letter to Tom Vilsack, USDA Secretary, by numerous groups including the Pollinator Partnership, the American
Beekeeping Federation, and the American Honey Producers Association, January 15, 2014. A “Varroa Mite Summit” is
currently being organized by USDA.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

conservation technical assistance includes standards that account for native and managed
pollinators (P.L. 110-246, §2706). These provisions could broaden the focus of USDA’s farm
conservation programs to include pollinator habitats and habitat improvement among their goals,
as well as require USDA to review its conservation practice standards with respect to managed
and native pollinators.
The 2014 farm bill generally continued these types of protections. In February 2014, USDA’s
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) announced that it would provide nearly
$3 million in technical and financial assistance for farmers and ranchers through the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to help promote the health of honey bees by
implementing conservation practices that provide bees with forage areas while providing other
environmental benefits. This funding is targeted in five midwestern states: Michigan, Minnesota,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.94 In October 2014, USDA will be providing more
than $4 million in technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers in these states to
improve honey bee health. USDA notes that this effort contributes to the efforts of the
Presidential Memorandum to create a federal strategy to promote the health of honey bees and
other pollinators.95
Also in October 2014, USDA and other federal agencies participated in a “Honey Bee Forage and
Nutrition Summit” to highlight existing policies and programs and discuss ways to improve
federal programmatic efforts in establishing forage plantings for honey bees and other
pollinators.96 Representatives from USDA discussed ongoing agency efforts to improve nutrition
and forage for pollinators through EQIP and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), among
other USDA conservation programs. Other agencies described similar ongoing efforts on federal
lands, including representatives from the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service.
Insurance and Disaster Provisions
Other provisions in the 2008 farm bill supported pollinators through the bill’s crop insurance and
other disaster assistance provisions. One such provision identifies honey farms as possible
beneficiaries of the bill’s supplemental agricultural disaster assistance (P.L. 110-246, §12033);
another provision provides contracts for additional policies and studies to carry out research and
development regarding insurance policies that cover loss of bees (P.L. 110-246, §12023).
As authorized by the 2008 farm bill, USDA established the Emergency Assistance for Livestock,
Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP).97 This program, administered by USDA’s
Farm Service Agency (FSA), provides emergency relief to producers of livestock, honey bees,
and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses caused by disease, adverse weather, or other
natural disaster conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires. Eligible honey bee producers—those
who incur physical losses of honey bees and honey bee hives because of colony collapse
disorder—must provide documentation, and/or a certification that the loss of honey bees was due

94 USDA press release, “Agriculture Secretary Announces $3 Million for a New Program to Improve Pollinator
Health,” February 25, 2014, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2014/02/0028.xml.
95 USDA, NRCS, “USDA to provide $4 million for honey bee habitat,” October 29, 2014.
96 Comments by USDA representatives, “Honey Bee Forage and Nutrition Summit,” October 20, Alexandria VA.
97 USDA, “Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP),” October 2011.
For more information, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

to CCD, from one or more of the following: registered entomologist; cooperative extension
specialist; and/or land grant university. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance under ELAP
initially covered certain losses that occurred on or after January 1, 2008, and before October 1,
2011. ELAP expired in 2011.
The 2014 farm bill reinstated ELAP retroactively to a period covering October 2011 through
September 2018, providing up to $20 million annually in mandatory funding to compensate
producers for disaster losses not covered under other disaster programs (P.L. 113-79, §1501).
Beekeepers with dead bees may be eligible for payments under ELAP. Among eligible causes of
bee loss are those that are a “direct result of an eligible adverse weather or loss condition,
including but not limited to, colony collapse disorder (CCD) (colony loss only), earthquake,
eligible winter storm (colony loss only), excessive wind, flood, hurricane, lightning, tornado,
volcanic eruption or wildfire natural disasters as well as colony collapse disorder.”98 Eligible
honeybees under ELAP include “bees housed in a managed hive and used for honey production,
pollination or honeybee breeding” and do not include “wild, feral honeybees, leaf cutter bees or
other bee species that are not used for producing honey, pollinating or breeding honeybees.”
Under ELAP, FSA provides payments for honey bee colony or hive losses:
• ELAP payments for honey bee colony losses are based on a minimum of 75% of
the number of honeybee colonies lost in excess of normal mortality (17.5%)99
due to an eligible adverse weather or loss condition, multiplied by the average
fair market value per honeybee colony for the applicable program year.
• ELAP payments for honey bee hive losses are based on a minimum of 75% of the
number of honeybee hives lost due to an eligible adverse weather or loss
condition, multiplied by the average fair market value per honeybee hive for the
applicable program year.
For the 2012-2014 program years, the FSA-established average fair market values ranged from
$75 to $85 per colony, and ranged from $210 to $230 per hive. ELAP also compensates eligible
beekeepers based on a minimum of 60% of the actual cost of purchased or harvested feed that
was intended for honey bees but damaged due to an eligible adverse weather or loss condition.
Certain payment eligibility and limits may apply.
Other Farm Bill Provisions
The 2014 farm bill also requires that USDA submit to the Food and Drug Administration a report
that describes an appropriate federal standard for the identity of honey, including consideration of
the March 2006 Standard of Identity citizens petition filed with FDA (P.L. 113-79, §10012). The
agency published a notice to solicit public comments on “how a federal standard of identity for
honey would be in the interest of consumers, the honey industry, and U.S. agriculture.”100
(“Standard of Identity” broadly refers to establishing definitions and standards for commodities
such as honey.)

98 USDA factsheet, “Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP),
Honeybee Assistance,” April 2014, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/elap_honeybee_fact_sht.pdf.
Beekeepers can contact their local USDA/FSA office to apply (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=fsa).
99 FSA has established a normal mortality rate for honeybee colony losses of 17.5%.
100 79 Federal Register 161: 49279-49280, August 20, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress

The 2008 farm bill also contained provisions that generally support honey production. These
include, for example, provisions pertaining to the National Honey Board (P.L. 110-246, §§10401-
10402); provisions covering rates for marketing assistance loans for certain commodities,
including honey (P.L. 110-246, §1202); and provisions covering certain nutrition title provisions
(such as P.L. 110-246, §4231).
Other Legislative Proposals
Additional legislative proposals regarding honey bees and other pollinators have been offered
outside of the farm bill debate.
In the 112th Congress, Representative Alcee Hastings introduced H.R. 2381, Highways Bettering
the Economy and Environment Act (or Highways BEE Act). The bill would promote conservation
practices on 17 million acres of highway “rights-of-ways” (managed by state Departments of
Transportation or state DOTs), and would promote native plantings that provide improved habitat,
forage, and migratory corridors for pollinators, ground nesting birds, and other small wildlife, as
well as encourage reduced mowing and overall maintenance costs to state DOTs. Roadsides are
also recognized as a potential habitat for native wildlife, including pollinating insects.101 The
proposed bill language was not included as part of broader transportation legislation considered
during the 112th Congress. The bill was reintroduced in the 113th Congress as H.R. 4790, and is
being actively promoted by Pollinator Partnership/North American Pollinator Protection
Campaign (NAPPC).102
In the 113th Congress, Representatives Earl Blumenauer and John Conyers, Jr. introduced H.R.
2692, Saving America’s Pollinators Act of 2013. The bill would suspend registrations of
neonicotinoids and ban new registrations of any pesticide for use on “bee attractive plants, trees,
and cereals” until the EPA determines that the insecticide will not cause “unreasonable adverse
effects” on pollinators, including native bees, honey bees, and other beneficial insects, as well as
birds and bats. The bill also would require the Department of the Interior to coordinate with EPA
in monitoring the health and populations of native bees, and annually report to Congress on their
health and population status. This bill is in part a response to reports that 50,000 bees were found
dead in a suburban shopping-center parking lot in Oregon in June 2013, reportedly due to
exposure to pesticides used on trees near the parking lot to control aphids.103
Also in the 113th Congress, Representative Austin Scott introduced H.R. 5447, which would
amend U.S. pesticide laws to provide for expedited registration of pesticides that “improve
managed pollinator bee health, including managing resistance to parasitic pests,” and for
expedited application for a pesticide registration that is “reasonably expected to improve the
health of managed pollinator bees, including managing resistance to parasitic pests of managed
pollinator bees.” The bill would also require USDA and EPA to submit reports to Congress on the
“extent and scope of the threat to the health of managed pollinator bees” and the availability of
pesticides to manage bee pests, particularly the Varroa mite.

101 R. Conniff, Green Highways: New Strategies to Manage Roadsides as Habitat,” environment360, Yale University,
June 10, 2013, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/green_highways_new_strategies_to_manage_roadsides_as_habitat/2661/.
102 For information, see Pollinator Partnership/North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC), “Support
Highways Bettering the Economy and Environment Act (Highways BEE Act),” http://pollinator.org/BEEAct.htm.
103 See, for example, press release on the bill by Representative Earl Blumenauer’s office. For other related
information, see CRS Report R42855, Bee Health: The Role of Pesticides.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress


Author Contact Information

Renée Johnson
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267


Congressional Research Service
29

---