I agree, that letter was wrong. Good old junkscience.com has some great information on DDT. Here's their
DDT FAQ:
Also:
Anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge in 1971-72. After 7 months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT.
And:
Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.
The AID’s blackmail is eerily similar to its 1970s view that the failure of the Global Malaria Eradication Program (1956-1969) was a blessing in disguise. "Better off dead than riotously reproducing," an AID official said.
A committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1970, "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that otherwise would have been inevitable."
From here -
DDT ban is genocidal
You can find more DDT articles on
www.junkscience.com by going to their main web page and using either the Google or Yahoo search function.
Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT.In the United States.
Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.
This is partially true, and partially wrong. Most of the pressure was aimed at stopping aerial spraying campaigns, and one of the main reasons to do that was to reduce the occurrence of resistance. However, malaria funding has focused on medicines for active malaria cases and not as much on prevention efforts, and they aren't funding DDT programs for indoor and wall spraying, which is effective. This may be due to environmental concerns in the U.S. -- it's clearly a factor for European aid agencies. I agree with the position that the aid programs should include funding for indoor spraying campaigns. So, apparently, does the World Health Organization:
World Health Organization Position on DDT (PDF)