One of our articles this week notes a local beekeeper has joined a $450-million class action lawsuit against large chemical companies the group claims are impacting bee hives.
Anecdotally, many gardeners this year complained about poor germination and pollination. The connection to fewer bees and fewer butterflies was quickly drawn.
The precipitation this year was great for grass and transplanting trees, but it failed to help in vegetable gardens that got a little too much rain and not enough sun.
We have heard from many people that a blight hit their tomatoes about three weeks ago – ours included. It seemed within days beautiful thick foliage and plump green tomatoes were reduced to stems and rotting produce.
With all of these factors at play, it’s hard to judge why gardens soured in what should have been a decent growing season.
In the back of our mind we wondered a few times if the absence of pollinators was part of the problem. It spooked us a little.
As this lawsuit is heard, it will be interesting to see if a case can be made that changing agricultural practices are to blame.
The science and analysis is far more than a local scribe can unravel, and we see both side of the issue clearly.
Farmers are expected to increase productivity and one way that has happened is through genetic engineering and the use of chemicals to eradicate weeds and fertilize.
Caught in the middle however, are the other elements of the eco-system, including people. Despite the resilient nature of earth’s inhabitants, there is a fragility that has to be respected, otherwise we risk damaging part of the magnificence in which humans live.
The petitioners in the lawsuit have commercial enterprises at stake. The lawyer representing the group told our reporter she hopes to see a settlement before the case actually goes to trial, since most of her clients have suffered substantial losses.
We get that point; proprietors of hives have lost production, but in the grand scheme of things, we are curious if more is at stake than beekeepers losing money.
Should a settlement be reached ahead of time, will Canadians lose another opportunity to know the effect of current farming practices on the natural environment?
Such a conversation remains open ended and without resolution.
Many of this Newspaper’s readers will be against current practices and other segments of our audience will be vehemently in favour of modern methods because they recognize the nation’s implicit directive to produce as much food as cheaply as possible.
Regardless of anyone’s stance on this issue, we all should agree what a travesty it would be for mankind to have fiddled while nature collapsed around itself.
