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.
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?
1 comments:
No m'extranya que l'abella es mori, doncs la seva funció en els ecosistemes li comporta rebre cops de totes les porqueries que llencen les empreses fitosanitàries. Quina desgràcia!
Publica un comentari a l'entrada