Insects are, by far, the most common animals on our planet. The ubiquity and plethora of ecological niches occupied by insects, along with the strict and sometimes forced coexistence between insects and humans, make insects a target of public health interest. This article reports the negative aspects historically linked to insects as pests and vectors of diseases, and describes their potential as bioindicators of environmental pollution, and their use as food and feed. Both negative and positive impacts of insects on human and animal health need to be addressed by public health professionals who should aim to strike a balance within the wide range of sometimes conflicting goals in insect management, such as regulating their production, exploiting their potential, protecting their health and limiting their negative impact on animals and humans. This requires increased insect knowledge and strategies to preserve human health and welfare. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of traditional and emerging topics bridging insects and public health to highlight the need for professionals, to address these topics during their work. The present and future role and activities of public health authorities regarding insects are analyzed.

A progressive honey bee population decline has been reported worldwide during the last decades, and it could be attributed to several causes, in particular to the presence of pathogens and parasites that can act individually or in synergy. The health status of nine apiaries located in different areas of the Veneto region (northeast of Italy) was assessed for two consecutive years (2020 and 2021) in spring, during the resumption of honey bee activity, for determining the presence of known (Nosema spp., Varroa mite and viruses) and less known or emerging pathogens (Lotmaria passim and Crithidia mellificae) in honey bees. After honey bees sampling from each of the nine apiaries, Nosema apis, Nosema ceranae, L. passim, C. mellificae, ABPV, CBPV, IAPV, KBV, BQCV, SBV, DWV-A, DWV-B and V. destructor were investigated either by microscopic observation or PCR protocols. The viruses BQCV, SBV, CBPV followed by N. ceranae and L. passim were the most prevalent pathogens, and many of the investigated hives, despite asymptomatic, had different degrees of co-infection. This study aimed to highlight, during the resumption of honey bee activity in spring, the prevalence and spreading in the regional territory of different honey bee pathogens, which could alone or synergistically alter the homeostasis of bees colonies. The information gathered would increase our knowledge about the presence of these microorganisms and parasites in the territory and could contribute to improve beekeepers practice.

In recent years, honey bee colony losses in the Republic of Kosovo remained largely unknown. From 2019 to 2021, 81 apiaries with different disease suspicions were investigated in the framework of honey bee disease passive surveillance. Fifty-nine of the eighty-one apiaries were tested for Vairimorpha ceranae, Vairimorpha apis, trypanosomatids Lotmaria passim, and Crithidia mellificae. All samples were positive for V. ceranae (100%) whereas L. passim was found with a lower frequency (11.9%). V. apis and C. mellificae were not found. Thirteen of the eighty-one apiaries were tested for seven viruses (ABPV, CBPV, DWV, BQCV, SBV, IAPV, KBV) and five of them were found (ABPV, CBPV, DWV, BQCV, SBV). The most frequently detected viruses in honey bees and Varroa mites were DWV (100%) followed by BQCV, ABPV, SBV, and CBPV (92.3%, 69.2%, 30.8%, and 7.7%, respectively). Varroa mite samples had different degrees of co-infection by viruses. Nine of the eighty-one apiaries consisted of brood combs with larvae, eight of them were AFB positive, ERIC I genotype, and one EFB positive. This paper represents the first molecular investigation (PCR) and detection of the honey bee viruses ABPV, CBPV, DWV, BQCV, and SBV as well as V. ceranae, L. passim, and M. plutonius in the Republic of Kosovo.

Some photochemical and photobiological properties of 4,6,8,9‐tetramethyl‐2H‐furo[2,3‐h]quinolin‐2‐one (HFQ) were studied in comparison with its isomer 1,4,6,8‐tetramethyl‐2H‐furo[2,3‐h]quinolin‐2‐one (FQ) and 8‐methoxypsoralen (8‐MOP). The HFQ photobinds to DNA forming furan‐side monoadducts (MA_HFQ) that have molecular structure very similar to those of FQ (MA_FQ). Unlike MA_8‐MOP and MA_FQ, MA_HFQ no longer photoreact. The HFQ, like FQ, produces moderate amounts of singlet oxygen but no superoxide anions. The HFQ and FQ induce numbers of DNA–protein cross‐links (DPC), much more plentiful than those of 8‐MOP (about two and seven times, respectively) but no interstrand cross‐links. The mechanism of DPC formation was studied in vivo in mammalian cells by alkaline elution and in vitro using a new test mixing histones and DNA from calf thymus. The latter is a very useful technique for the double irradiation protocol. The DNA (or histones) are separately exposed to a first UVA dose in the presence of the sensitizer; then, after its unbound molecules have been removed, histones (or DNA) are added to assemble the chromatin‐like complex that is irradiated again. According to in vitro and in vivo methods, DPC appear to be formed by FQ and 8‐MOP by a biphotonic process that starts with monoadduct induction in DNA, followed by their conversion into DPC. In the resulting lesions, the sensitizer molecule forms a covalent bridge between the two macromolecules (DPC at length greater than zero). Instead, HFQ induces DPC by a monophotonic process; thus, HFQ is probably not a physical part of the bridge between DNA and proteins, which may be linked together directly, like DPC at zero length induced by UVC.