Search

Twenty-two pesticides and veterinary drugs of which residues were detected in beeswax in Europe were selected according to different criteria. The risk to honey bee health posed by the presence of these residues in wax was assessed based on three exposure scenarios. The first one corresponds to the exposure of larvae following their close contact with wax constituting the cells in which they develop. The second one corresponds to the exposure of larvae following consumption of the larval food that was contaminated from contact with contaminated wax. The third one corresponds to the exposure of adult honey bees following wax chewing when building cells and based on a theoretical worst-case scenario (= intake of contaminants from wax). Following these three scenarios, maximum concentrations which should not be exceeded in beeswax in order to protect honey bee health were calculated for each selected substance. Based on these values, provisional action limits were proposed. Beeswax exceeding these limits should not be put on the market.

Pesticide and veterinary drug residues are one of the stress factors affecting bee health and mortality. To investigate the occurrence, the concentration and the toxicity risk to bees of pesticide residues in four different types of beeswax (brood comb wax, recycled comb wax, honey comb wax, and cappings wax), 182 samples were collected from apiaries located all over the Belgian territories, during spring 2016 and analysed by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS for the presence of 294 chemical residues. The toxicity risk to bees expressed as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) was calculated for each wax sample, according to two scenarios with different tau-fluvalinate LD50 values. Residues showing the highest prevalence were correlated to bee mortality in a multivariate logistic regression model and a risk-based model was used to predict colony bee mortality. Altogether, 54 different pesticide and veterinary drug residues were found in the four types of beeswax. The residues with a higher likelihood to be retained in beeswax are applied in-hive or with a high lipophilic nature. The multivariate logistic regression model showed a statistically significant influence of chlorfenvinphos on bee mortality. All our results indicated that cappings wax was substantially less contaminated. This national survey on beeswax contamination provides guidelines on the re-use of beeswax by beekeepers and shows the necessity to introduce maximum residue levels for global trade in beeswax. An online tool was developed to enable beekeepers and wax traders to estimate the risk to honey bee health associated with contaminated wax.

To assess the health risk posed by flumethrin residues in beeswax to honeybees and honey consumers, 124 wax samples randomly distributed in Belgium were analysed for flumethrin residues using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. The risk posed by flumethrin residues in beeswax to honeybee health was assessed through the calculation of a non-pondered and a pondered Hazard Quotient by the prevalence rate of flumethrin considering an oral or topical exposure. No statistical difference was found when comparing both the average flumethrin residues concentrations and contact and oral pondered hazard quotients between apiaries with lower and equal or higher than 10% of colony loss. Flumethrin residues estimated daily intake by Belgian consumers through honey and wax ingestion was estimated via a deterministic (worst-case scenario) and a probabilistic approach. The probabilistic approach was not possible for beeswax consumption due to the lack of individual consumption data. The highest estimated exposure was

A scenario analysis in regard to the risk of chronic exposure of consumers to residues through the consumption of contaminated honey and beeswax was conducted. Twenty-two plant protection products and veterinary substances of which residues have already been detected in beeswax in Europe were selected. The potential chronic exposure was assessed by applying a worst-case scenario based on the addition of a "maximum" daily intake through the consumption of honey and beeswax to the theoretical maximum daily intake through other foodstuffs. For each residue, the total exposure was finally compared to the acceptable daily intake. It is concluded that the food consumption of honey and beeswax contaminated with these residues considered separately does not compromise the consumer's health, provided proposed action limits are met. In regard to residues of flumethrin in honey and in beeswax, "zero tolerance" should be applied.

An online survey was conducted to describe stakeholders' perceptions, attitudes and practices towards risk prevention in the food chain and to explore if common features could be extracted from different fields of competency or groups of stakeholders. Out of 80 participants, 60% believed that pathogenic microorganisms were the main hazard to prevent. Twenty-four percent perceived climate change as the main risk factor. Seventy-three percent believed that hazards in the food chain are preventable and they often showed a positive attitude towards risk prevention measures. The opinion of 75% of stakeholders was that prevention measures should be compulsory and under the shared responsibility of both food business operators and competent authority. Seventy-five percent of the respondents had recent experience with particular hazards and declared to have undertaken risk reduction measures. Incentives to implement measures were policy obligation and public health consequences whereas barriers were budgetary reasons and doubts about their effectiveness. However, there was not always a complete agreement between the perceived usefulness of risk prevention measures and their effective implementation, and conversely. No significant difference could be observed in the perceptions, attitudes and practices towards risk prevention between neither groups of stakeholders nor their fields of competency. The results are important for improving the risk communication process because the same issues can be emphasized when promoting risk prevention in the food chain regardless of the type of food sectors and the groups of stakeholders.

In order to assess bee and human exposure to residues of glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) and its main degradation products aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and to characterise the risk posed by these substances, we analysed 3 different bee matrices; beebread (N = 81), wax (N = 100) and 10-paired samples of wax/honey collected in 2016/2017 from 379 Belgian apiaries. A high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-MS-MS) was used as analytical method. Limit of quantification and detection (LOQ and LOD) for GBH residues and AMPA in the 3 matrices was respectively of 10 ng g−1 and 1 ng g−1. In beebread, 81.5% of the samples showed a residue concentration > LOQ and 9.9% of the samples a residue concentration LOQ versus 81.5% >LOQ). The maximum GBH residues and AMPA concentration found in beebread (respectively 700 ng g−1 and 250 ng g−1) led to sub-lethal exposure to bees. The Hazard Quotient (HQ) for beebread and beeswax (7 and 3.2, respectively) were far below the “safety” oral and contact thresholds for bees. For human health, the highest exposure to GBH residues in pollen corresponded to 0.312% and 0.187% of the ADI and of the ARfD respectively and, to 0.002% and to 0.001% for beeswax. No transfer of glyphosate from wax to honey was detected. Considering our results and the available regulatory data on the glyphosate molecule considered solely, not including the adjuvants in GBH formulation, the consumption of these three contaminated matrices would not be a food safety issue. Nonetheless, caution should be taken in the interpretation of the results as new studies indicate possible glyphosate/GBH residues toxicity below regulatory limits and at chronic sub-lethal doses.

The development of a plant health barometer, an instrument to measure the general phytosanitary situation on a national level (Belgium) and on a yearly basis and to monitor its evolution over time, is described. The elaboration of a set of 13 plant health indicators (PHI’s) as the basis for the plant health barometer is discussed. These indicators were weighted by experts - including scientists, policy makers and agro-industrial representatives - to determine their relative impact in the barometer. The result of the barometer is expressed as a comparison with the previous year. Based on the results of the 13 PHI’s, it is concluded that the general plant health in Belgium shows a positive evolution from 2007 until 2010 and a negative evolution from 2010 until 2012. The plant health barometer provides a overview of the phytosanitary situation of plants and plant products in Belgium and is a tool to communicate in an intelligible, comprehensible manner on aspects of plant health to consumers and professional stakeholders in the plant production chain. Together with the food safety barometer and the animal health barometer, the plant health barometer is one of the three instruments to provide a overview on the general status of the safety of the food chain in Belgium.

This paper describes the development of a concept to measure the safety of the food chain in Belgium based on the ‘Pressure–State–Response’ model. The actual measurement tool or barometer consists of a measurement of the ‘State’ based on a set of indicators. The present paper discusses the elaboration of a set of 30 food safety indicators (FSIs) as the basis of the food safety barometer. These indicators were weighted by expert opinion in order to determine their relative weight to be considered in the barometer. Food safety was reflected in a composite and agreed upon set of indicators related to i) the compliance to action limits/criteria for selected chemical and microbial hazards, ii) the implementation of preventive and control measures to mitigate food safety throughout the food chain from farm to fork and iii) the reported number of foodborne outbreaks and reported cases of some selected zoonotic agents (Salmonella sp. and Listeria monocytogenes). As food safety remains an abstract term and no quantitative value could be attributed (also due to lack of quantitative food safety objectives), the option was taken to document the status of food safety in a relative manner by comparing the results of the set of indicators of the current year with the previous year. By comparing the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 it was concluded that the status of the global food safety in Belgium was high and an upward trend could be observed. Statistical analysis on each of the individual indicators was performed, however since at present a restricted data set is available (2009 versus 2008 and 2008 versus 2007) no trend analysis could yet be performed. The barometer provides a helicopter view of the status of food safety in Belgium and is a tool to communicate in an intelligible, comprehensible manner on aspects of food safety to consumers and other stakeholders in the food chain. The methodology and results of the survey for the ‘Pressure’ and ‘Response’ collection from the Belgian stakeholders in the food chain will be discussed in another manuscript.