Bee Careful: Why the ‘Save the Bees’ Movement Could Be Doing More Harm Than Good
Since the 1990s, the global number of bee species has dropped by at least a quarter[1], triggering fears about the future of these critical pollinators. In the US, it is common for beekeepers to lose over 30% of their bees per year, with almost half of all bee colonies perishing in 2023[2]. However, the decline of bees isn’t just devastating for nature; it affects us all. Bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion[3] worth of the agricultural economy in the US and currently provides $350 million[4] in honey products alone. This means a significant amount of human consumption is deeply tied to the health of bees. Notably, bees are also essential in pollinating 80% of flowering plants in North America[5], many of which can’t be fertilized by other pollinators such as butterflies and moths. These alarming consequences of bee decline have ignited a widespread movement to ‘Save the Bees’, with soaring numbers of people purchasing beehives in the US[6].
Above: The Graffiti Bridge, 2021, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1954294271390708&id=360820557404762&set=a.450890135064470&locale=fr_CA
The acceleration of bee decline has historically been linked to ecological issues such as changes in temperature and the growth of beehive pests. While these factors have certainly played a key role in the decline of bee populations, it is important to note the political and economical factors that have influenced this phenomenon as well.
A good example of this is the regulation of toxic pesticides. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses an extremely narrow set of criteria to test pesticides which only considers the immediate toxicity to bees[7], ignoring the sub-lethal and long-term effects of pesticides. The limited scope of testing comes at a deadly cost to bee colonies and mostly benefits large pesticide companies who spend less time and money assessing their products. These companies are closely linked to the almond industry, which requires a wide range of pesticides to efficiently grow almonds. The almond industry holds huge influence in the US agricultural industry, with California producing an impressive 80% of the world's almonds[8]. Essentially, key players in the almond industry have a power in decision-making processes concerning pesticide usage. This results in regulations which aren’t able to effectively protect bees: in order to prioritize profits in certain industries, the long-term negative effects of harmful substances are set aside, resulting in the decline of these populations.
The ‘Save the Bees’ movement aims to fight back against the decline of honeybees, in an effort to preserve this species because of the value that they hold. However, because the foundation of this movement is built upon the economic value of honeybees, this approach is problematic Putting profit first is a huge part of the issue, and it has significantly contributed to causing the decrease of bees in the first place. Whilst well-intentioned,this movement reflects the societal norm of prioritizing commercial value. From this viewpoint, it becomes evident that the approach that has been pushed forward up to this point isn’t effective.
Furthermore, this movement has shifted the focus towards individual action and simplified solutions. This is also the reason the movement has brought attention to the honeybee population specifically. Honeybees, in comparison to wild solitary bees, are easier to manage, which makes them more appealing to conservation efforts. Citizens can sponsor a queen bee[11], or even care for a honeybee colony themselves, but the bees still suffer from unregulated pesticides and a poor diet from monocultures. As a result, the ‘Save the Bees’ movement pushes the responsibility of bee decline towards easier, individual action and ignores the systemic issues causing bees to suffer. In fact, raising a colony to boost the population of bees can actually cause more harm than good. The presence of too many bee colonies in one area can increase competition with native species of wild bees and drive them out[12]. By unintentionally prioritizing honeybees once again, solitary bee species are unappreciated and ignored. This dynamic highlights the issues with the type of line of action that has been supported by this movement so far.
Instead, solutions that view bees beyond their economic function are much more successful at helping these insects. The Bee City movement in Canada took off in 2016 and hasn’t stopped growing since, involving over 180 communities in 2025[13]. Within this movement, cities promise to care for pollinators and educate people about all pollinators, not just honeybees. Citizens ranging from local beekeepers to indigenous groups can all contribute to sharing knowledge about pollination beyond commercial activities. Networks of information are then formed within the city, between cities, and eventually between regions, which helps increase social engagement with solitary bee species. By equipping people with information to oppose the influence of the almond industry and inadequate pesticide regulations, this can challenge the power dynamics that determine the bee decline. As a result, Bee Cities promote an acceptance of pollinators who deserve the right to exist even if they are not useful to humans.
Other solutions such as Bee Bricks[14] also help the solitary bees who are at much higher risk of being endangered compared to the honeybee. These bricks are designed in a fascia shape, which mimics natural patterns within nature such as the structure of sand banks. The bricks contain small cavities which offer protection to solitary bees and are designed to fit into a standard brick shape in order to be used in houses. This not only accepts but welcomes the connection between nature and humans, which transforms the narrative of ‘saving the bees’ into ‘living with bees’.
Above: Bee Brick in context, Christman et al, 2022, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366343678_The_Bee_Brick_building_habitat_for_solitary_bees
These solutions offer a different view of pollinators, which is critical to boosting the populations of bees. The prevention of bee decline isn’t a technical or neutral process, but rather a highly politicised and complex task. It is important to acknowledge the variation in pollinating bees and shift our mindset from exploiting bees into co-existing with them. By making living organisms part of our lives, instead of shifting to focus on the utility they serve, we can create a more sustainable and overall thriving society.
Written by: Nicole Bowen
Edited & contributed to by: Sophia Hernandez & Beatrice Bos
[1] Eduardo et al, 2021
[2] Borenstein, 2023
[3] USFDA, 2018
[4] Shahbandeh, 2024
[5] Randall, 2020
[6] Nairn, 2023
[7] Durant, 2019
[8] Armstrong, 2020
[9] Davies & Riach, 2018
[10] Davies & Riach, 2018
[11] BeeHut, 2022
[12] Iwasaki & Hogendoorn, 2022
[13] Bee City Canada, 2025
[14] Christman et al, 2023
Referencing list:
Eduardo E. Zattara, Marcelo A. Aizen, Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness, One Earth, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 114-123, ISSN 2590-3322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.005.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220306515)
Borenstein, S. (2023). Nearly half of US honeybee colonies died last year. Struggling beekeepers stabilize population. [online] AP News. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/honeybees-pollinator-extinct-disease-death-climate-change-f60297706e19c7346ff1881587b5aced.
United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2018). Helping Agriculture’s Helpful Honey Bees. FDA. [online] Available at: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/helping-agricultures-helpful-honey-bees#top.
Shahbandeh, M. (2024), Value of U.S. honey production 2003-2023, https://www.statista.com/statistics/191993/value-of-honey-production-in-the-us/
Randall, B., (2022), The Value of Birds and Bees, NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife·Jun 22, 2020, https://www.farmers.gov/blog/value-birds-and-bees#:~:text=Honey%20bees%20alone%20pollinate%2080,types%20of%20fruits%20and%20vegetables
Nairn, C., (2023), The City Bee, https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/the-city-bee/##
Durant, J. (2019). Bitter honey: A political ecology of honey bee declines. University of California, Berkeley.
Armstrong, L. (2020). California’s almond trade is exploiting one of nature’s most essential workers. www.ifis.org. Available at: https://www.ifis.org/blog/californias-almond-trade-exploiting-bee-population.
Davies, O. and Riach, K. (2018). From manstream measuring to multispecies sustainability? A gendered reading of bee‐ing sustainable. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(3), pp.246–266. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12245.
BeeHut (2022). Sponsor a Queen Bee | Bee Hut. [online] Bee Hut. Available at: https://www.beehut.co.uk/about-6-2 [Accessed 29 Jan. 2025].
Jay M. Iwasaki, J. M., and Hogendoorn, K. (2022) Mounting evidence that managed and introduced bees have negative impacts on wild bees: an updated review, Current Research in Insect Science, 2,100043, ISSN 2666-5158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cris.2022.100043.
Bee City Canada (2025), About Us, https://beecitycanada.org/about-us/
Christman, K., Shaw, R.F. and Hodsdon, L. (2022). The Bee Brick: building habitat for solitary bees. 4(3/4), pp.285–285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsdes.2022.128532.