According to the World Health Organization (WHO), around 880,000 people a year die worldwide, mostly children in sub-Saharan Africa, from Malaria (Scientific American). Currently, the WHO is backing the use of DDT, a cheap insecticide, to combat the spread of malaria in developing countries. Should DDT, an insecticide that has been banned in the U.S for over 40 years, be used to kill the mosquitoes that spread malaria?
A Scientific American article describes a recent conclusion made by a panel of scientist. Led by a University of California epidemiologist, 15 environmental health experts concluded that DDT “should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available.” DDT has no immediate negative effects on human health, and organizations like the WHO are actively backing the use of DDT because of how effective it is. Arata Kochi, head of the WHO’s antimalaria campaign, has made a move to bring back DDT and is asking for environmental groups to join the fight to save the lives of babies in Africa.
This active support of DDT in recent years has stirred much controversy. For decade’s scientist have studied DDT and its effects "and over the years [DDT] has been found to cause cancer, endocrine disruption, adversely affect the immune system and is very problematic from the standpoint that it is persistent.” DDT also leaks into the environment and bioaccumlates in an ecosystem, negatively effecting food chains. A quote taken from a NPR article explains this nicely, "You're not seeing leakage into the environment. You're not seeing leakage into agriculture. What you are seeing are sharp dramatic reductions in malaria deaths and disease." Similar to a lot of environmental problems, the negative effects of DDT on the environment take much longer to see then the intended benefits.
Even though DDT remains the cheapest and most effect form of defense against Malaria, its use is irresponsible and other modes of protection should be looked into. DDT seems to be the easiest answer to the problem. We already mass produce the product and send it overseas for agriculture use in developing countries, so why not use it to combat malaria as well? The potential environmental risks seem to high to justify the use of DDT. The eventual deterioration of food webs will cause food shortages, doing more harm then good. And according to the Scientific American article, it is possible for mosquitoes to develop a resistance to the chemical effects of DDT.
One of the main reasons that it was banned in the United States was because of Rachel Carson. She did extensive research on the use of DDT. Her research was unveiled through a controversial book, Silent Spring. It was tough for because she was sick, she was a woman, and because she was taking on big industry and government. In the end policies dealing with human health and the environment were directly impacted by her work. Anyone wanting to look further into this issue could check out her book.
ReplyDeleteGood comment, but who is "B"?
ReplyDeleteI never though about how malaria carrying mosquitoes could be come resistant but that is a really good point. This means that DDT should be used responsibly however look at the areas it is being used in. Malaria is one of the top killers in developing countries. Other technologies such as bug nets dipped in insecticide have been looking into but those are often expensive. Again most of the people dying from malaria are the more impoverish people that have no money and could not afford any other technique to help turn the malaria tide. Is DDT bad? Yes extremely. Should it be used in dire situations? Maybe. Should people who have no money, are unable to move, and are uneducated be expected to understand the effects of DDT when all they know that it kills the bugs giving them Malaria? No way. Take a look at this situation from their perspective. Its not so cut and dry. Obviously new insecticides must be developed but until then why not give people a fighting chance.
ReplyDelete-Donny Hayes