Risk management in primary apicultural production. Part 2: a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point approach to assuring the safety of unprocessed honey

Formato, Giovanni; Zilli, Romano; Condoleo, Roberto; Marozzi, S.; Davis, Ivor; Smulders, F. J. M.

doi:10.1080/01652176.2011.567755

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…European legislation makes many references to the key role of primary production in food safety management and the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System has been indicated as the preferred tool to ensure that consumers are provided with safe foods [84]. In managing risks associated with the human consumption of honey, all sectors of the production chain must be considered, including the primary production phase.…”

Section: Microorganisms In Honeymentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic, Pesticide, and Microbial Contaminants of Honey: Human Health Hazards

Al-Waili

Salom

Alghamdi

et al. 2012

The Scientific World Journal

212

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural contamination with pesticides and antibiotics is a challenging problem that needs to be fully addressed. Bee products, such as honey, are widely consumed as food and medicine and their contamination may carry serious health hazards. Honey and other bee products are polluted by pesticides, heavy metals, bacteria and radioactive materials. Pesticide residues cause genetic mutations and cellular degradation and presence of antibiotics might increase resistant human or animal's pathogens. Many cases of infant botulisms have been attributed to contaminated honey. Honey may be very toxic when produced from certain plants. Ingestion of honey without knowing its source and safety might be problematic. Honey should be labeled to explore its origin, composition, and clear statement that it is free from contaminants. Honey that is not subjected for analysis and sterilization should not be used in infants, and should not be applied to wounds or used for medicinal purposes. This article reviews the extent and health impact of honey contamination and stresses on the introduction of a strict monitoring system and validation of acceptable minimal concentrations of pollutants or identifying maximum residue limits for bee products, in particular, honey.

show abstract

Section: Microorganisms In Honeymentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic, Pesticide, and Microbial Contaminants of Honey: Human Health Hazards

Al-Waili

Salom

Alghamdi

et al. 2012

The Scientific World Journal

212

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are economically the most important pollinator species worldwide, benefiting nature and humans with pollination services, 1,2 and providing bee products such as honey, pollen, propolis and royal jelly. 3 In economic terms, insect pollination service had an estimated worth of approximately €153 billion per year, which corresponded to approximately 9.5% of the total value of crops grown for human food in 2005. 4 In recent years, honey bee colony disorders and population losses have become a major global concern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of acute and chronic toxicity of cyantraniliprole and sulfoxaflor on honey bee (Apis mellifera) larvae

Kim

Chon

Kim

et al. 2022

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Recently, cyantraniliprole (CYA) and sulfoxaflor (SUL) have been considered as alternatives to neonicotinoid insecticides. In this study, we evaluated the acute and chronic toxicities of CYA and SUL on honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) larvae reared in vitro. RESULTS:In the acute toxicity test, the following test doses were used to determine the median lethal dose (LD 50 ): CYA 0.007, 0.014, 0.028, 0.056 and 0.112 ∼g larva −1 ; SUL 2.5, 5, 10, 20 and 40 ∼g larva −1 . In the chronic toxicity test, the following test doses were used to determine the LD 50 : CYA 0.00512, 0.0128, 0.032, 0.08 and 0.2 ∼g larva −1 ; SUL 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 ∼g larva −1 . The acute LD 50 values of CYA and SUL were 0.047 and 11.404 ∼g larva −1 , respectively. Larvae acutely exposed to SUL had significantly lower body weight than controls, but those exposed to CYA showed no difference. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and LD 50 values of the chronic toxicity tests for each insecticide were 0.00512 and 0.064 ∼g larva −1 for CYA, and 0.0625 ∼g larva −1 and 0.212 ∼g larva −1 for SUL, respectively. Larvae chronically exposed to SUL emerged as bees with deformed wings, reaching adult deformation rates of over 50%; however, CYA had no effect on adult deformation. CONCLUSION: Exposure to CYA increased larval mortality but did not cause any adult deformation, whereas SUL exposure increased pupal mortality and caused wing deformation in newly emerged bees. Our study may be useful for the assessment of pesticide toxicity by providing valuable findings on the effects of these insecticides on honey bee larvae.

show abstract

“…Therefore, honey bee's contribution to world food production is indispensable (Klein et al 2007). Furthermore, honey bees provide honey, pollen, wax, propolis, and royal jelly to humans (Formato et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study the Influence of Three Acaricides on Honeybee Workers Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) under Laboratory Conditions

Darwish

Ali²,

Aly³

2022

Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honey bees, Apis mellifera L. is a major global pollinator of crops and native plants. Insecticides have a negative and hazardous effect on A. mellifera, other pollinators, and beneficial organisms. This study was carried out to evaluate the influence of three acaricides; Ortus (fenpyroximate) 5% EC, Everken (abamectin)1.8% EC, and AgriFlex (abamectin+ thiamethoxam) 18.6% SC on the honeybee workers. These acaricides were chosen based on field observations, where those acaricides were used to control two-spotted spider mites on clover fields. A group of newly emerged honeybee workers was exposed to different dilutions (5, 7, 10, 13, and 15 ppm) of study candidate compounds. The control group was not treated with any acaricides. The mortality percentage was recorded after 24, 48, 72, and 96 hrs after acaricide applications, and LC50 and LC90 were calculated. Obtained results showed that everken and agriflex had significantly higher toxicity than ortus. Where LC50 for everken and agriflex ranged between 2.75 ppm to 7.94 ppm after 24, 48, 72, and 96 hrs of acaricide applications, while ortus recorded 47.1 ppm after 24 hrs. Control treatment had the least honey bee mortality compared to all acaricide applications not exceeding (7%) followed by ortus (36%). Nevertheless, everken and agriflex reach 100% mortality after 96 hrs of the applications. Consequently, these results suggest that ortus can be included in the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program against harmful insects or honey bee pathogens and safe to sustainable, productive, and healthy honeybee stocks for the future.

show abstract

Risk management in primary apicultural production. Part 2: a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point approach to assuring the safety of unprocessed honey

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Antibiotic, Pesticide, and Microbial Contaminants of Honey: Human Health Hazards

Antibiotic, Pesticide, and Microbial Contaminants of Honey: Human Health Hazards

Assessment of acute and chronic toxicity of cyantraniliprole and sulfoxaflor on honey bee (Apis mellifera) larvae

Study the Influence of Three Acaricides on Honeybee Workers Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) under Laboratory Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About