It was back in the 1940’s when dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane, or DDT as it is more commonly known, was labelled a miracle pesticide, and won Swiss chemist Paul Müller a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Now experts are saying that this widely banned pesticide is the best bet to save millions of lives threatened with malaria, a disease that affects mainly pregnant women and children and is spread by mosquitoes.
The US Agency for International Development endorsed the use of DDT for indoor use in May, and the World Health Organisation is expected to follow suit.
But why was it banned? And if it’s so bad, why is it making a comeback at a time when we should be protecting the earth from environmental disasters, not endorsing them?
DDT eradicated malaria in the US in 1949, but at a huge cost to wildlife. Ecosystems were destroyed by this chemical that caused reproductive problems in animals. The bald eagle became endangered because a build-up of DDT caused a blockage to calcium absorption and thinner eggshells meant babies weren’t protected enough by their shells to reach hatching age.
And the environmental costs of DDT don’t stop there, there is a debate about whether the pesticide could also be responsible for premature human births, children with lower IQs and baby girls growing up to retain the chemical in their breast milk. There has also been worry that DDT may be carcinogenic.
But with millions of people dying of malaria, is it worth the risk?
While some environmental groups are not against the use of DDT in developing countries to safeguard the population from malaria, there is the fear that if DDT is brought back into use at all, there will be the temptation to start using it for agriculture again. This would have to be strictly monitored. And another challenge would be monitoring the mosquitoes’ resistance to the chemical.
But with all these disadvantages and problems, DDT is still being seen as a miracle pesticide, even after the disasters of the past.
Comments:
I concur that the chemical should be used in places where malaria causes widespread death. However, the pro-DDT crowd is crowing about how there is “no evidence” of the pesticide’s ill effects on humans.
The problem with this statement is nobody is studying the issue. There is no incentive to prove that there are harmful effects, so with the lack of evidence, the pro-DDT crowd can point at a lack of evidence.
There is evidence that DDT can eradicate Malaria, and so they should where this disease afflicts a population, but they should also use the opportunity to create studies.
Mark
sustainablelog.blogspot.com
These DDT endorsers should read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, and reconsider using DDT. It kills animals, plants, and people, too. There’s a reason and ample evidence why DDT was banned. I don’t know enough about how to combat malaria and death risks compared with DDT use, but certainly I’d research all possibilities before getting comfortable with DDT.
Leave a reply or comment:
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed