17 de maig 2012


El Colapse de les colònies (Síndrome del Desabellament) és un fenomen misteriós que mata les colònies d'abelles els apicultors, però també les de les abelles silvestres.

Tot i els esforços i les múltiples investigacions, les causes d'aquest síndrome encara no han estat identificades, mentre que les colònies d'abelles del món estan desapareixen a un ritme molt preocupant.

Als EEUU, les conseqüències ambientals i econòmiques són enormes, doncs la pol·linització de les abelles repercuteix en el balanç financer de les collites amb un valor que supera el 15 mil milions de dolars, sobretot en els cultius dels fruits secs, fruites carnoses i verdures. Només una dada aportada per les Nacions Unides: "de les 100 espècies de cultius que proporcionen el 90% de l'alimentació mundial, el 71% són pol·linitzades per les abelles "

Five years ago when CCD was starting to get a lot of attention over in my Network World Backspin column I discussed (under the snappy title of “To Be Proactive or not to Bee“) the soon thereafter discredited idea that radio signals from cellphone networks could be responsible. While, it turned out, cellphones weren’t the cause, the failed theory raised an interesting question: If cellphones had been responsible, would our society be willing to give up using them?
I got a lot of email on the question and the vast majority of people said that if that was indeed the case they would be happy to give up their cellphone though they all thought everyone else wouldn’t be willing.
The question I didn’t ask, and in hindsight should have, was even if people were willing to forgo their cellphones, what would the cellphone service providers do? Would they have been willing to stop a very profitable business just to do the right thing? How would they have handled the problem? Would they have grasped the opportunity to put the environment first or would they have spun the issue so that as little as possible happened for as long as possible?
We’ll never know whether cellular service providers’ corporate profits would have won out over the bees but the question of corporate responsibility for CCD has just come up again. This time, the industry involved is the agricultural chemical business and, even more specifically, Bayer, the huge German conglomerate which is a giant in agro-chemicals.
Bayer produces nicotine-based pesticides called neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid. These products are harmless, in low doses, to humans but more or less lethal to bugs and while these chemicals can be applied safely, so it is claimed, the sheer scale of their use and the fact that not everyone who uses them is careful in their application is problematic. It now appears from three recent studies that even when used properly, where bees are concerned, these chemicals are toxic. Moreover, the Bayer products were approved by the EPA for use based on a study funded by Bayer which was later discredited by EPA scientists!
So, there’s a lot of evidence that to points to Bayer pesticides as a, if not the, causative agent behind CCD.
Given Bayer’s profits or the possible extinction of bees which would you choose?