OPINION | Who speaks the truth: FAO statistics, farmers…or the bees?

By Richard Matthias

Has Saint Lucia become one of the world’s most pesticide-intensive agricultural nations? According to the FAO’s latest pesticide indicators, the answer appears to be yes. Yet that conclusion has sparked vigorous debate among farmers, policymakers and the wider public. However, both positions share the same weakness: neither is supported by direct scientific evidence of what is actually happening in our agricultural environment. 

In its methodology, the FAO report states that, for countries that do not regularly report pesticide-use data, estimates may be derived from alternative sources such as import statistics, sales data, or statistical imputation. These methods are appropriate for producing global datasets, but they introduce uncertainty for small island developing states (SIDS) with limited agricultural land and irregular reporting. It is therefore important to ensure that there are proper records to establish a true situational analysis and support policy makers in making well-informed decisions. 

The real repository of data is the farmers, who have a responsibility towards providing the data required for relevant decision making. However, farmers require training in data collection, for example, they usually purchase pesticides but do not keep data on frequency, quantities, usage and container disposal. These types of data require strong extension support for increased accuracy. Lack of trust, as well as poor extension support, has resulted in poor data collection from farmers; however, this can be addressed through stronger partnerships. Farmers deserve policies based on evidence rather than assumptions, and as such, they should support data collection exercises. 

Evaluation of pesticides in the environment can be done via analysis of the presence of these in environmental samples, such as plants or soils, as well as evaluating their presence in the organisms of the environment. While farm records and import statistics remain important, they tell us what may have been used, not necessarily what entered the environment. To understand actual environmental exposure, scientists increasingly turn to biological indicators. Among the most effective of these are honey bees 

Statistics estimate pesticide use; farmers report pesticide use; bees reflect pesticide exposure. Honey Bees: Nature’s Environmental Samplers 

Honey bees forage across landscapes extending several kilometres from their colonies, visiting thousands of flowers every day. In so doing, they collect nectar, pollen, water, plant resins, and airborne particulates from virtually every component of the agricultural ecosystem. Unlike

individual crop samples, a honey bee colony integrates environmental exposure across an entire landscape. In effect, honey bees function as living environmental samplers. 

Every returning forager carries chemical and biological markers of the environment it has visited. These characteristics, such as pesticides, become incorporated into pollen stores, honey, propolis, and beeswax. While nectar and pollen often reflect recent exposure, beeswax provides a historical record of contaminants entering the colony over months or even years. 

Therefore, bees can tell us what they have experienced. 

A Scientific Path Forward 

Since bees accumulate compounds from across large land spaces, it would be imperative for Saint Lucia to establish and implement a National Pollinator Residue Monitoring Programme. Simply, a residue monitoring programme will collect samples of hive products and have them analytically tested for general characteristics, biological contaminants such as pests and diseases, as well as chemical contaminants such as pesticides. 

A National Pollinator Residue Monitoring Programme is an expensive endeavour; however, much of the cost can be reduced through partnerships. Currently, the Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA), in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency Limited (IAEA) and The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine (UWI STA), has embarked on a food authenticity project across the Caribbean. In Saint Lucia, they have partnered with the Iyanola Apiculture Collective (IAC), the Association of Caribbean Beekeepers Organisations (ACBO), and the Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards to implement this project. The aim of this food authenticity project is to establish a harmonised and sustainable framework for food authenticity testing in the Caribbean, aimed at protecting consumers, supporting fair trade, and strengthening food control systems through evidence-based approaches. This includes testing for residues of pesticides in food and other products. 

A National Pollinator Residue Monitoring Programme could be rolled out to test for pesticide residues in beeswax at a representative network of apiaries across Saint Lucia. This will provide the required empirical and defensible evidence to determine the extent to which pesticide residues are present within the environment and whether long-term accumulation is occurring. More importantly, this information could help to guide rehabilitation strategies, based on levels of chemicals found in the environment. 

From Opinion to Evidence 

A National Pollinator Residue Monitoring Programme would answer questions that statistics alone cannot answer. The data derived will be able to evaluate where pesticide hotspots are (agricultural districts versus forests), as well as to identify the types of pesticides, the residue levels, the level of pollinator exposure to these pesticides and colony survivorship. Most importantly, this data will be able to support information on colony survivorship based on exposure to diseases in bees, including varroa infestations and viral diseases.

These are questions that cannot be answered through import statistics or public opinion. They can only be answered through science. 

An Opportunity for Regional Leadership 

The Caribbean is already developing advanced laboratory capacity through regional collaborations involving CAHFSA, UWI, the International Atomic Energy Agency, national standards institutions, and regional beekeeping organisations. Expanding these partnerships to include pollinator residue monitoring would create the first coordinated Caribbean Pollinator Health Observatory. Rather than arguing over international rankings, the region could begin producing its own evidence, tailored to Caribbean ecosystems and agricultural systems. 

The laboratory partnerships already established through the Caribbean Honey Authentication Programme demonstrate that much of the analytical infrastructure is already emerging. Expanding that network to include pollinator residue surveillance would be a logical and cost-effective next step. 

Conclusion 

The FAO report should not be ignored, nor should it be accepted uncritically. It should be viewed as an invitation to investigate further. Likewise, defending or criticising farmers without objective evidence serves neither agriculture nor environmental protection. 

Honey bees offer us an extraordinary scientific opportunity. They continuously sample the landscapes in which we grow our food and sustain our livelihoods. Perhaps it is time we stopped arguing about what we think is happening and started listening to what the bees are telling us.

Richard Matthias is President of the Association of Caribbean Beekeeper Organisations (ACBO) and the Iyanola Apiculture Collective (IAC).