# Should DDT be legalized to help control malaria in the Third World? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334 "2004-03-09T19:40:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/1 "2004-03-09T19:40:54Z")
My brother sent me the enclosed article from an online zine, _Tech Central Station_: “The Unnecessary Scourge,” by Paul Dreissen, [http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/030804F.html](http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/030804F.html). Dreissen asserts: > [@](#): > > Malaria infects 300,000,000 people a year – and kills 2,000,000. Most are in sub-Saharan Africa. Over half are children. Malaria control costs Africa, India, Latin America and other affected areas billions of dollars annually, depleting other health and environmental programs. > > The disease leaves victims so weak that they cannot work, go to school, care for their families or cultivate their fields, for weeks or months on end. It is no wonder that central Africa, where malaria is most prevalent, is also the most destitute region on this impoverished continent. > > A major reason for this epidemic and its devastating consequences is a near-global restriction on the production, export and use of DDT. The restrictions result from intense pressure by ideological environmentalists and threats by the United Nations, European Union, foundations and aid agencies to cut foreign aid or curtail trade with any nation that uses the insecticide. > > Of course, none of these activists, bureaucrats or politicians have to worry about malaria killing them or their families. They can afford their viewpoints about malaria and pesticides. Their nations eliminated malaria decades ago, using the same pesticides (including DDT) that they now deny to Africa, Asia and Latin America. > > Nothing currently works better for fighting malaria than DDT. It’s affordable (other pesticides cost 4 to 6 times more), and that’s important for impoverished nations. It’s long lasting. A single spraying retains its potency for at least six months, meaning more dangerous pesticides do not have to be applied more often. And mosquitoes are far less likely to build resistance to DDT than to other pesticides, which are still used heavily in agriculture. > > * * * > > Despite rampant, far-fetched claims straight out of a Stephen King novel, DDT is not carcinogenic or harmful to humans. Used properly, it is safe for the environment, and minor ecological risks that might exist pale in comparison to human health benefits. My brother has sent me several similar articles before – apparently there are a lot of writers out there who are trying to overturn the conventional wisdom about DDT that was established by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, _Silent Spring._ What do you think? Is our suspicion of DDT overblown? Would it be a good thing to make it easier for Third World countries to get it? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/2 "2004-03-09T20:10:28Z")
I think DDT could be a great tool, if used properly. If you spray the stuff on interior walls, mosquito netting, and window screens, you’ll control mosquitos significantly where most people get infected. Application need only be done once or twice per year. And no collateral contamination will occur with this limited spraying. The major problems encountered with DDT forty years ago happened with blanket spraying of swamps and wetlands with vast clouds of the chemical. Nobody is proposing doing that today. ---
**Author:** ![far\_born](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5e9695/32.png) [@far\_born](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/far_born)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/3 "2004-03-09T20:29:40Z")
What exactly is the question being debated? What exactly would be done to make it easier for third world countries to get it? Here’s a somewhat older article (2001) on ddt africa and malaria [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1677073.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1677073.stm) One country chose on its own not to use DDT. IOW it hardly seems to be from outside pressure. South Africa doesn’t seem to have any problem with using it or getting a hold of it however. Which makes me wonder what the heck your source is talking about. What needs to be done, since it apparently it’s there for the taking? ---
**Author:** ![kwildcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e5b9ba/32.png) [@kwildcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kwildcat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/4 "2004-03-09T20:33:15Z")
This is an interesting one. 1. The disparaging remark at the end of the quote is totally out of line. There is tremendous evidence that DDT poses a health risk to humans in sufficient concentrations, and the fact is that as DDT works its way through the ecosystem, it _increases_ in concentration. For a more detailed history, you might start with the EPA: [http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm](http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm). It is most definitely not “safe for the environment”, as the article supposes. I suspect the virtually extinct California condor would be very upset to read Dreissen’s piece. 2. There is a broader trend among proponents of certain public policies to try to debunk scientific research that runs counter to their points of view. This has been discussed in other threads in greater detail. I would simply suggest that rational individuals not dismiss scientific consensus for ideological reasons. Since honest scientific research is by its very nature rarely (if ever) 100% certain, it is almost always possible to find contrary results. But 100 studies saying cigarettes will kill you versus one study funded by Phillip Morris saying they won’t does not a refutation make. 3. The impact of DDT should not be weighed just in human terms. Even if a person can live a 100 years with a daily dose of DDT, what about the toxic effects on other wildlife? In the EPA piece cited above, fruit producers in California faced devastating drops in yields after widespread DDT usage. DDT was killing the bees upon which their fruit crops depended for pollination. Fruit growers and honey producers both got slammed. 4. That said, the reason for the persistence of malaria in Africa is because the environment is just so darned fabulous for the little fuckers (NOT because the industrialized world is conspiring to impoverish Africa, like the article suggests). Vector control is the only way to attack the disease because there it is too widespread to eliminate from the human population (as was done with polio, via massive innoculation campaigns). Indeed, DDT is the absolute best killer of mosquitos this side of a Biblical plague. It also happens to be less expensive than pesticides designed to avoid the collateral damage that doomed DDT in the U.S, therefore more affordable to cash-strapped African governments. Several alternatives seem to present themselves: 1. Use DDT sparingly and strictly regulated to minimize its accumulation in the food chain. 2. Improve healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa to the point where malaria is more treatable and not necessarily a death sentence. 3. Subsidize the purchase of alternative vector control methods for African states that cannot afford them. All of which are problematic. The reason DDT is so attractive is that it is _easy_. But using it indiscriminately is like saying, “Cleaning my room is too hard. The _easy_ way is to just burn the house down. That way I’ll never have to clean my room again.” Playing games with an African ecosystem that is already at risk from bad development practices and global climate change is foolhardy. This Driessen fellow sounds like he has all the answers, but I doubt he has fully considered the questions. ---
**Author:** ![Ewiser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Ewiser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ewiser)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/5 "2004-03-09T20:35:03Z")
It would be MUCH simpler if you just shipped them massive quantities of quinine. DDT is a great pesticide but simply spraying indoors won’t solve the problem (and would cause another due to human exposure to a poison). The problem with DDT is not that you spray it where birds and other things eat it, but that the mesquites that die of it are eaten by predators… Those predators are eaten again and again until the levels of DDT in the system of the final predator cause problems (egg shells too soft to support the weight of the parent so the egg breaks killing the baby animal) – its called bioaccumulation, and it is a serious problem. You also have to contend with the longevity of DDT as it persists in the environment since it doesn’t go away quickly. Like I said, you would be better off if you just sent then tonic water. The quinine in the tonic water is a pretty effective anti-malarial chemical, which was why it was included in tonic water in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/6 "2004-03-09T21:44:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > My brother has sent me several similar articles before – apparently there are a lot of writers out there who are trying to overturn the conventional wisdom about DDT that was established by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, _Silent Spring._ Well, yes, but these “a lot of writers” tend to be associated with libertarian think-tanks / organizations like Tech Central Station (and [junkscience.com](http://junkscience.com)). I don’t think that there is really any serious doubt in the scientific community about the effects of DDT on the ecology, e.g., bird populations. (I think the evidence for ill effects to humans was always somewhat more ambiguous, although I am not confident of that.) There was a thread several months back where we discussed the science on this and I’ll try to link back to it once I find it. Whether there are limited cases where it should be used (and there are still parts of the world where it is being used) might be a matter for debate but such debate must be informed by good science. ---
**Author:** ![rodent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4bbf92/32.png) [@rodent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rodent)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/7 "2004-03-09T22:52:08Z")
[From the Master](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021213.html) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ddt-be-legalized-to-help-control-malaria-in-the-third-world/233334/8 "2004-03-10T04:32:32Z")
[Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=184490) is the thread I was thinking of which, although not originally on DDT, did morph into a discussion of it about halfway down the 1st page and onto the first half of the 2nd page (admittedly concentrating a lot on Milloy’s [junkscience.com](http://junkscience.com) page on DDT). [Here](http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0082.htm) is one recent paper from the CDC website discussing some issues of DDT for modern malarial control. [Here](http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm) is a cite that deconstructs the myth that environmentalists are responsible for millions of malarial deaths over the years because of the DDT ban (and has links to other sites).