Posted on 01/07/2005 10:08:17 PM PST by neverdem
OP-ED COLUMNIST
If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.
It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.
I'm thrilled that we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.
One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world's poor - by opposing the use of DDT.
"It's a colossal tragedy," says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "And it's embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies."
In the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, DDT was used to reduce malaria around the world, even eliminating it in places like Taiwan. But then the growing recognition of the harm DDT can cause in the environment - threatening the extinction of the bald eagle, for example - led DDT to be banned in the West and stigmatized worldwide. Ever since, malaria has been on the rise.
The poor countries that were able to keep malaria in check tend to be the same few that continued to use DDT, like Ecuador. Similarly, in Mexico, malaria rose and fell with the use of DDT. South Africa brought back DDT in 2000, after a switch to other pesticides had led to a surge in malaria, and now the disease is under control again. The evidence is overwhelming: DDT saves lives.
But most Western aid agencies will not pay for anti-malarial programs that use DDT, and that pretty much ensures that DDT won't be used. Instead, the U.N. and Western donors encourage use of insecticide-treated bed nets and medicine to cure malaria.
Bed nets and medicines are critical tools in fighting malaria, but they're not enough. The existing anti-malaria strategy is an underfinanced failure, with malaria probably killing 2 million or 3 million people each year.
DDT doesn't work everywhere. It wasn't nearly as effective in West African savannah as it was in southern Africa, and it's hard to apply in remote villages. And some countries, like Vietnam, have managed to curb malaria without DDT.
But overall, one of the best ways to protect people is to spray the inside of a hut, about once a year, with DDT. This uses tiny amounts of DDT - 450,000 people can be protected with the same amount that was applied in the 1960's to a single 1,000-acre American cotton farm.
Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950's as children played in the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.
I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he could accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs.
"South Africa was right to use DDT," he said. "If the alternatives to DDT aren't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives."
At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."
So why do the U.N. and donor agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, generally avoid financing DDT programs? The main obstacle seems to be bureaucratic caution and inertia. President Bush should cut through that and lead an effort to fight malaria using all necessary tools - including DDT.
One of my most exhilarating moments with my children came when we were backpacking together and spotted a bald eagle. It was a tragedy that we nearly allowed DDT to wipe out such magnificent birds, and we should continue to ban DDT in the U.S.
But it's also tragic that our squeamishness about DDT is killing more people in poor countries, year in and year out, than even a once-in-a-century tsunami.
If they aren't going to use DDT here, they shouldn't use it anywhere.
I'm astonished - now if Nicholas D. Kristof would become a neocon, I might applaud him. DDT is one of the safest chemicals known to mankind. And yes, we should save human lives first. The fewer noxious chemicals that have to be sprayed, the safer its for the environment. Bring back DDT!
Maybe you can help with this. I seem to recall reading that Rachel Carson's research had been well and thoroughly debunked - she'd cooked the numbers, or something similar. Am I right or just imagining things again?
Did you forget your /sarcasm or are you serious?
The chemical name for Digon is Dimethoate, used to kill active mosquitoes during the season. Agnique is used to kill mosquito eggs on the water. Of course you can't use it on water where fish are. It kills them as well.
DDT is probably the single best pesticide I've ever used. Why not bring back? It is effective.
I understand it safe for humans. But:
I thought overuse of it made the some bird egg shells soft, and the mother would squish them-killing the offspring? (bald eagle,trumpter swan...)
I'm pretty sure that much is true. Any evidence to the contrary (RE: birds)?
I'm no authority on Carson, and I can't tell you if she was completely debunked. I'm pretty sure they went from using DDT like it was candy to a total ban. After that raptors at the top of the food chain apparently had more eggs producing live chicks, but I'm no authority on the matter.
Too much environmental science has been politicized. I'm not sure if there are other better explanations of why eagle populations in particular recovered, but it seems to me they went from the sublime to ridiculous with the total ban of DDT and mosquito borne diseases.
Maybe if we we're careful in how it would be used by local governments, we could avoid harming the majestic birds (who gives a crap about robins and common birds), and everyone could be satisfied.
I'd like to see if authorities have careful rules already established. Sounds promising.
bttt
Thanks for posting the article. Happy New Year!
Why not? You should have heard all the p@ssing and moaning in and around New York City when they were spraying with an alternate insecticde for West Nile Virus. Thanks for the link. Happy New Year!
"I'm pretty sure they went from using DDT like it was candy to a total ban."
That's always the problem, the extremeism. We really should strive for a more nuanced approach to a lot of things.
I am serious. If DDT isn't going to be used in this country why push it on poor people? We have enough chemicals in our food chain already. DDT is an environmental fish poison. If it kills fish, exactly what is it doing to me in the long run? I am not convinced.
BTT!!!!!!
I agree 100% with the usage of DDT here but will the
gov't have the cajones to stand up to the enviro-nazis?
They've been screaming about 'bad for children' on talk radio.
Is it a requirement that membership in this group: enviro-nazi, not be capable fo rational thoguht? That's my guess. . . they think with their emotions only, just as all other 'RATs do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.