Short answerMostly false
The name comes from press coverage in the 1960s and 1970s. The danger is real but specific: the venom is no stronger, and what differs is how many bees respond to a disturbed colony and how far they pursue.
A real escape, a real increase in defensive behaviour, real fatalities from mass stinging, and press coverage from the 1960s and 1970s that supplied a name and a horror-film register the subject has never shed.
An individual Africanised bee's sting is the same as any other honey bee's, and the venom is not more potent. The difference is behavioural: a disturbed colony mobilises more defenders, more quickly, and they pursue further from the nest and stay agitated longer.
That produces a genuinely different hazard, because the danger from stinging insects scales with the number of stings. Mass stinging incidents can be fatal, particularly for anyone who cannot get away quickly — the elderly, small children, people who are restrained or trapped, and tethered livestock.
Beekeeping continues throughout the affected regions with adapted practice, and Brazil became a substantial honey producer with this bee rather than in spite of it. A sensational frame makes that harder to explain and does not make anybody safer.
Widely repeated and not supported by current evidence. Listed so the correction is here rather than only the claim.
The venom is not more potent per sting. The documented difference is behavioural — more defenders respond and pursue further — which produces more stings per incident.
How sources are selected and weighted is set out in the sources and evidence policy.
Which plant fills this specific gap?
What should I plant in the space I actually have?
What should I plant so that something is always in flower for bees?
HoneyHQ saves your cookie choice on this device. Optional analytics run only if you accept — set a preference now, or change it later on the cookies page.