DDT: A Double-Edged Sword

DDT Makes It to the Top 12

2005-11-09T03:20:00.000-05:00

As recently as May of 2005, the United Nations sponsored the Stockholm Convention. Held in Uruguay, the Stockholm Convention takes action on banning industrial chemicals that are considered harmful to the environment and to people. The initial list has 12 industrial pollutants, DDT being one of them. The criteria for the list include effects of the chemicals such as deaths, diseases, and birth defects not only to humans but also to animals. These twelve industrial pollutants, which may be added on to, are called Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP’s). As these actions affect most countries worldwide, many things are considered before decisions on banning are made. DDT is one of the more controversial topics that the Stockholm Convention is focusing on. The reason for this is that, presently, DDT is used for malaria-control in at least 15 countries around the world. Thus, banning DDT may increase the death rate worldwide and the spread of malaria. Perhaps limits and boundaries would be made for certain double-edged chemicals. Currently the Stockholm Convention is still deciding on what actions to take not only for DDT but for the other POP’s.

To read more on this: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=14200&Cr=pollut&Cr1=

Central and South American Countries Announce Opposing Views Towards DDT

2005-11-09T01:38:00.000-05:00

According to this article,

“The insecticide DDT remains an effective weapon against malaria, according to the United Nations. All indications are that the first meeting of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, this week in Uruguay, will approve its continued but limited use.”

While on the other hand, “Guatemala … is resoundingly opposed to application of the insecticide. ‘'The use of DDT should not be permitted,’ Rodolfo Zeissing, head of the Guatemalan Health Ministry's malaria program.”

Just like South Africa and many other parts of the world, Central and South America are places where malaria, among other diseases, is a serious problem. In order to deal with the problem of malaria, DDT is sprayed in order to kill mosquitoes that transmit malaria. Sprayed in the walls of houses and on crops, it greatly reduces cases of malaria and starvation due to damaged crops. However, serious problems in humans have been known to occur due to exposure to the insecticide. Today, DDT is on the list of only 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants worldwide. Despite this fact, even the United Nations agencies have acknowledged that DDT is still an “effective and affordable” way to reduce cases of malaria.

Currently, there are various perspectives on what to do with DDT. The people of Guatemala feel that they should avoid the use of DDT as much as they could, but still have it available for certain circumstances. There are other nations on another hand that would like to depend on DDT as much as they can when it comes to dealing with malaria. Thus, it would be a difficult decision for the Stockholm Convention whether or not to ban the use of DDT, what limits should be set, and for purposes of malaria control or issues dealing with crops. According to UNEP executive director Klaus Toepfer, it would be some time before DDT used would be completely halted in this following quotation:

''Unless more ambitious investments are made in the search for better vaccines against the malaria parasite and better pesticides and methods for fighting against the mosquitoes that serve as vectors, it will be many years before the complete elimination of DDT is achieved.''

DDT Byproduct Brings Upheaval to Small Michigan Town

2005-11-08T22:02:00.000-05:00

St. Louis, Michigan, a small city 50 miles north of Lansing, has been put on the map because of its problems with toxic waste. The government found old pesticides laced deep into the bottom of the river that cuts through the middle of town and a syrupy ooze of industrial poisons pouring out of the dump where the city's old chemical plant is buried. Every time it solves one problem, another turns up. And now something has bled into the city's drinking water. Federal officials insist the byproduct of DDT production they detected in three of the city's wells in tests over the past year is not dangerous, though many people don't believe them.

"We never drank the water. Everyone always knew it was contaminated," said a resident of St. Louis, "Now they just have proof."

The city is asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to finally dig up all of the old pesticides and flame retardants buried beside the plant. As far as the EPA knows, St. Louis is the only city in the country where para-chlorobenzene sulfonic acid,p-CBSA, a byproduct of the pesticide DDT, has been found in drinking water. The agency told the city in September it had detected low levels of the chemical in wells that supply half of the city's water. No one knows how long it's been there. But the city isn't taking chances. It stopped pumping water from the wells where the EPA found contamination; city officials are thinking about drilling new ones. The schools turned off their drinking fountains and sent workers out to buy truckloads of bottled water. Not that many people drank the city water before mainly because of the chemical plant buried a quarter-mile from the closest city wells. "Who knows if it's safe or not," said another resident, who has lived for a decade in St. Louis without drinking the water. The highest concentrations of p-CBSA found in city wells are 140 times lower than the level the EPA has said could put people's health at risk. But water samples taken over the summer from a monitoring well across the street from the two city wells closest to the plant found concentrations of the chemical that are at least 11 times higher than the agency's safety threshold. The few studies that have been done found that p-CBSA is not harmful in low doses, but did not measure the effects of long-term exposure. Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow demanded last month that the EPA conduct a more thorough study. The discovery could point to bigger problems ahead: If fast-moving p-CBSA can find an underground channel from the chemical dump to the city's wells, other, more harmful chemicals might follow. That's why the EPA tested for it in the first place. When the Velsicol Chemical plant closed in early 1978, the entire operation was buried where the plant had once been. The company was then required to cover the dump with a layer of clay and surround it with an underground wall to keep the chemicals there from leaking out. This attempt to prevent the spread of chemicals failed miserably. In 1997, the EPA found dangerous levels of DDT in the muck at the bottom of the Pine River that flows through the town. The reparation of this problem dug up even more problems. The worst was a thick ooze of highly concentrated DDT and other toxins seeping out from beneath the plant. That prompted a state and federal investigation of what to do about the leaks from the site. And that's when they found something in the water

India and Malaria

2005-11-08T15:19:00.000-05:00

Despite years of attempts to control malaria, the disease still afflicts millions in Dina. According to V.P. Sharma’s article, “Getting to grips with malaria: a view from India,” the country desperately needs a major overhaul in handling the disease.

New Delhi’s national malaria eradication program states one single control strategy that must be followed by all local governments. This program involves the use of DDT, and although it worked extremely well in the 1940s and 1950s, the Indians are now finding that many mosquitoes have become resistant to the chemical. Also, one single strategy is foolish to use in a nation as large and environmentally diverse as India.

Although many of the previous articles explored on this blog urged the usage of DDT to control malaria, Indian scientists are finding that ACTs (Artemisinin combination therapies) are a far more effective way to control malaria. These therapies involve the cultivation of the plant Artemisia annua to create anti-malarial drugs. Many feel that this is the only way to succeed in stopping malaria, especially when more and more mosquitoes become resistant to DDT.

To learn more:
A View From India

What Are ACTs?

WHO Pushes DDT Usage in Fight Against Malaria

2005-11-08T11:24:00.000-05:00

As we've often examined on this blog, many people and organizations are fighting for the use of DDT to fight malaria. Now, the World Health Organization is joining the cause, revealing their plan to use DDT to control mosquitoes, which often carry the disease.

WHO stated that they hope their stance on DDT will encourage more African countries, ravaged by malaria, to use the pesticide. However, many environmentalists concerned about possible ecological repercussions oppose DDT.
According to WHO, and the UN Children’s Fund’s Malaria Report 2005, roughly 350-million and 500-million in more than 100 nations are afflicted with malaria each year.

South Africa, Swaziland, and Mozambique are among the nations that use DDT, but other African countries have encountered much resistance when announcing intentions to introduce like programs.

As mentioned a few weeks ago, the European Union strongly opposed Uganda’s attempt at using DDT to control malaria, by threatening to ban Uganda’s agricultural imports.
DDT’s supporters are urging environmentalists to realize that only “very minimal amounts”, according to Professor Wen Kilama, are sprayed inside homes.

To read the article: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A110081

125 Years and Still No Relief

2005-11-04T09:54:00.000-05:00

It was on the 6th of November in 1880 that Charles Alphonse Laveran discovered the parasite that causes Malaria. After 125 years, it is still one of the world’s most deadly diseases, despite world-wide research to find a cure. To commemorate 125 years since its discovery, an International Conference on Malaria has been organized in New Delhi from November 4th until November 6th, by the Malaria Research Center in collaboration with the National Vector Borne Diseases control program. The Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss will open the conference by addressing the challenges in controlling the disease. While eradication of Malaria still remains a big question, containing it, limiting it, and controlling it will be the focus of this conference. Also the immunity the parasite is developing to drugs, DDT, etc. will also be addressed. Various national programs on Malaria aim at conducting basic, applied, and operational research to reduce the number of deaths due to Malaria to the level that it is no more considered a serious public health problem and eventually eradicate it entirely.

For more see: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13050

Archbishop Desmond Tutu Joins Call for DDT to End Malaria

2005-11-03T20:42:00.000-05:00

The Kill Malarial Mosquitoes NOW! Coalition announced that Desmond M. Tutu, a Nobel Laureate, has joined an international campaign, which calls on the Bush administration and Congress to use DDT as a “primary weapon” in controlling worldwide malaria.

Tutu, the first black Archbishop of the Cape Town diocese, joins hundreds of scientists, physicians, clergy, and opinion leaders who have signed a "Declaration of the Informed and Concerned," which promises to make malaria control and eradication an important health and human rights issue.

On Thursday, Tutu said, “Malaria is a devastating disease that holds back development in Africa. Many African countries desperately need cost-effective insecticides, such as DDT, to battle the deadly mosquitoes that transmit the disease. It is a human tragedy that children die largely because donors fail to support appropriate and effective solutions to this preventable disease.”

The declaration calls for 2/3 of the world malaria control funds to be spent on DDT, or any other such cost-effective insecticide. The declaration refers to the UN Stockholm Convention, which endorses small amounts of malaria control under programs that apply small amounts of the insecticide to the interior walls of homes (but not for crop dusting or outdoor applications). The Bush administration signed the Convention, but the Senate has not yet ratified it.

For more information: Archbishop Desmond Tutu Joins Call for DDT to End Malaria

Undying Support for DDT Use in South Africa

2005-11-03T20:15:00.000-05:00

South Africa’s top malaria control experts, researchers and doctors advocate the use of the insecticide DDT in order to protect the citizens from malaria. In addition they are fighting against the banning of DDT in South Africa.

The use of DDT as a way to kill malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in South Africa started at around 1946. Perhaps in its early years DDT was used without proper instructions and in excessive amounts. However, today, only a very small amount of DDT is sprayed onto the walls and cracks of the houses in South Africa. This method is monitored and is very effective in killing the female mosquitoes that transmit the disease.

On the other hand, many others try to convince these South African countries to find alternatives as DDT is known to negatively affect people and the environment. However, since most of these South African countries are poor, they turn to DDT for malaria control, because not only is it effective, it is also exceptionally cheap. In 1996, DDT use was halted and cases of malaria sky-rocketed. In 2000, malaria was again controlled when DDT was brought back to use. Today, malaria control experts, researchers and doctors see that the benefits of DDT use against malaria outweigh the negative effects towards the environment and humans.

To read more: SA’s Leading Malaria Researchers & Doctors Support the use of DDT to Control Malaria

DDT Alternatives in Mexico

2005-10-28T11:23:00.000-04:00

Public health experts in Mexico, along with the nation's Malaria Control Program (MCP), are searching for new ways to fight malaria without using DDT. A multi-disciplinary team funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) is looking at ways to manage the local environment to reduce the incidence and spread of malaria. The team is focusing on the State of Oaxaca which is the main site of malaria outbreaks in Mexico. "We're looking at malaria from many different angles including the molecular biology of the vector and the parasite, community perceptions of malaria, statistical analyses, and a geographic information system (GIS)-based surveillance system,” says Juan Hernandez, Director of Informatics at the National Institute of Public Health. The MCP's long-term goal is to prevent future outbreaks of malaria, without harming the local environment. DDT has been the main tool used in fighting malaria but since it is dangerous to the environment, the MCP has decided against using it. The research team used geographic information system (GIS) tools to analyze different areas in Oaxaca in terms of malaria incidence and frequency, elevation, climate, hydrology, distance to rivers and roads, and short-range human movements. The team found that cases of malaria occurred more frequently in areas with closely clustered villages and in places where health facilities are scarce. The researchers are now focusing on humans as the main vector. A vector is an organism that carries a disease-causing microorganism from one host to another. The researchers have found that mosquitoes merely introduce the disease into the population but without the availability of medical treatment the people with the disease cause it to spread. The MCP is also working on an algae removal strategy, the purpose of which is to reduce the number of disease carrying mosquitoes in the area; they are giving people who have had malaria before malaria medicine to prevent them from relapsing; and they are working on rapid diagnosis of people showing symptoms of malaria to get them treatment more quickly. The rapid diagnosis approach is currently being evaluated in 20 different areas. The new malaria control strategies are working well, between 1998 and 2001 the number of malaria cases had fallen sharply.

Effects of DDT on Male Fertility

2005-10-28T09:40:00.000-04:00

According to this article, “there were few significant associations between DDT exposure measures (measured as years worked at MCC and serum DDT) and reproductive outcomes.”

DDT is a hormonally active chemical that is known to have estrogen-like effects. Exposure to DDT have been also been known to cause breast cancer as well as early miscarriages. However, these cases were mostly regarding women. Last year, a study was conducted regarding DDT effects on male fertility and sperm quality. Sixty male workers from a Malaria Control Center(MCC) in South Africa were studied. Since these male workers have been exposed to DDT much more than an average person would, the results would show significant effects, if any. The test’s goal was to analyze sperm count, density, and motility (the sperm cells’ ability to swim). These results were then judged according to the World Health Organization and Tygerberg criteria. The results showed that, based on these criteria, the average sperm quality from the male workers at MCC was below average. In addition, “the most prevalent genital abnormality was abnormal testis disposition at 71%.” These results however are not so drastic so as to support any negative effects on fertility and sperm quality from DDT exposure.

Just for Fun: A DDT Limerick

2005-10-28T09:21:00.001-04:00

A mosquito was heard to complain

A mosquito was heard to complain
That a chemist had poisoned his brain
The cause of his sorrow
Was paradichloro
Diphenyltrichloroethane.

 by Dr. D. D. Perrin

Advantages of DDT Resistant Flies

2005-10-27T17:42:00.000-04:00

From

“http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050808-14265200-bc-britain-resistance.xml

This article expands on Jostine's article from last week, which discussed the benefits for DDT-resistant insects, by focusing on a specific study.

British researchers in Bath, England, have declared that insects that can withstand DDT have additional genetic advantages as well. These findings are in direct contrast to past research which stated that resistance to the pesticide caused genetic disadvantages.

The University of Bath researchers believe that fruit flies that have developed resistance to DDT develop two advantages: they can withstand and survive being sprayed with DDT (unlike other insects) and their offspring will continue to thrive, even after spraying is halted. Researchers believe that a similar process, with bacteria and antibiotics, could occur. If doctors prescribe antibiotics to cure infections, they could potentially be transferring a similar type of genetic advantage to bacteria, known as “superbug” bacteria.

Lead researcher, Richard ffrench-Constant said,

“We found DDT resistance in fruit flies not only carries no cost, but in fact confers an advantge when inherited through the female…This suggests by becoming DDT resistant the female flies are passing on some unknown advantage to their progeny. ... These results are important for the use of any drug, pesticide or antibiotic as they suggest that resistance will not always go away when we do not spray or prescribe antibiotics."

DDT Benefits Some Insects Rather Than Eradicate Them

2005-10-21T12:38:00.000-04:00

This article discusses some issues on DDT-resistant insects. It is not uncommon for a target of medication or pesticide to become resistant to that substance; this is especially the case if the substance is excessively misused. Though DDT today still used in some countries mainly to protect the people from malaria, many mosquitoes and flies have come to be resistant to DDT and pesticides similar to DDT.

Just how does the insects’ resistance to DDT affect the people and even the environment? For one, research shows that in a region sprayed with DDT, resistant insects were able to compete much better than those who were not resistant to DDT. Additionally, since these resistant insects were able to survive exposure to DDT, they were able to produce as many as three times more eggs than those that were not resistant.

Many studies have been done on insect resistance on such substances. Though the insects’ being resistant to DDT is a negative effect especially for people, it does have a positive side. This may lead to the understanding of how organisms have come adapted and resistant to medications.

The Ugandan Dilemma Over DDT Usage

2005-10-21T10:49:00.000-04:00

Uganda’s Minister of Agriculture, Janat Mukwaya, was quoted by the government as saying the country is in a dilemma over whether they should use DDT to control malaria. If the country does use the pesticide, they could lose the international market for agricultural markets. However, if they avoid the usage of DDT, they will continue losing lives.

“She explained that dealers in vegetables and flowers would be directly affected since European Union markets are sensitive to DDT, where the use of the pesticide have been long banned.”

However, 80,000 people in Uganda die from malaria every year and will continue to die if DDT is not used to control the mosquitoes. Mukwaya added that, unfortunately the country would also lose international markets, even if there were no usage of DDT, because would-be producers of agricultural products would die of malaria. As in other nations, environmentalists in the country strongly oppose the usage of DDT, saying that it is dangerous to the Earth’s flora and fauna.

To read the article:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/15/content_3618047.htm

DDT Linked To Dwindling Fish Population

2005-10-20T21:09:00.000-04:00

Zimbabwe’s Lake Kariba, its main supplier of fish, has been reported to have below-expected stocks of fish, thus forcing the fish supplier companies to scale down their operations. Scientists believe that the persistent use of DDT, which has not been banned in Zimbabwe, is threatening to destroy the marine life, with the tiger fish and kapenta fish going first. Many anglers are complaining, due to their threatened livelihoods.

“‘Its pay back time for the nation. Our reckless past environmental practices are catching up with us,’ comments Martin Wilson of Fresh Fish Private Limited amid reports of a drastic decline in the fish harvest from Lake Kariba.”

DDT affects the nervous system of the animal, resulting in its death. Although banned in many nations, quite a few governments persist in using it to control malaria and the Tsetse fly, saying that it is the most effective and least expensive pesticide. Due to the chemical spraying in the Kariba area, DDT has entered the lake, and has been linked to the declining numbers of fish.

For more information, read:
http://site.mweb.co.zw/mirror/index.cfm?id=57&pubdate=1999-04-23

DDT Linked to Early Miscarriages

2005-10-14T08:10:00.000-04:00

A recent study conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health has shown that women with high levels of DDT in their bloodstream are far more likely to miscarry in the early weeks of pregnancy than those with lower levels. The participants in the study were newly married, healthy, nonsmoking textile workers in China, who were trying to get pregnant. The women ranged from ages 20 to 34. Even though DDT was banned decades ago, the chemical residue can be found in most people, no matter how far they lived from where DDT was used or produced. The Chinese women who participated in this study were found to have an average level of DDT residues about ten times higher than those ordinarily found in the United States. The levels were similar to those found in countries where DDT was more recently used. The study found that the women who had the most DDT in their system were more likely to miscarry in the early weeks of pregnancy, before they even knew they were pregnant. The researchers found that for every additional 10 nanograms of DDT per gram of serum, a woman’s chance of early miscarriage rose by about 17 percent. The chance that DDT is linked to infertility was not investigated by this study.

For more information: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050912124225.htm
For the full version of the study: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/kwi275?ijkey=h9AKIxsz45iaLkB&keytype=ref

Are You Ingesting DDT?

2005-10-13T19:48:00.000-04:00

DDT stands for dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane. This substance is an insecticide that kills insects almost instantly. However, years of study show a negative effect towards humans as well. So the question is: how would one know if he had DDT in his system?

More likely than not, anyone could have DDT in their system, whether through eating food contaminated with DDT, swimming in a lake sprayed with DDT, or other ways of being exposed to DDT. However, it is not only people who can be exposed to DDT in such manners. Animals can also be exposed to DDT in such ways; and to them, DDT can cause much more serious problems.

DDT is not so easily excreted from the body; rather, it is stored in fat tissues, where it can accumulate. Biomagnification offers an explanation on how DDT can move up a food chain. In almost all cases, the organisms higher on the food chain receive higher concentrations of DDT, which cause more serious problems. A brief explanation would be: those organisms lower on the food chain would be exposed to DDT. These organisms would then be consumed by a primary consumer, which may also have been exposed to DDT in addition to the DDT it is receiving from its prey. A secondary consumer would then come in, ingesting all the substance that had been in the previous two organisms’ systems. The chain can go on, and those organisms higher on the food chain would end up having higher concentrations of DDT in their systems. Consequently, these organisms would suffer more as higher concentrations of DDT in the system means greater damaging effects.

The Case For DDT and Malaria

2005-10-13T18:00:00.000-04:00

Sebastian Mallaby, Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post, makes the case for DDT in his article,

“Look Who’s Ignoring Science Now.”

“DDT… works miracles against diseases that are spread by insects. During the Second World War, vast quantities of the stuff were dusted over troops and concentration-camp survivors to kill the body lice that spread typhus. Later, DDT was used widely in Latin America to beat back dengue and yellow fever. But the chemical's noblest calling is to combat malarial mosquitoes.”

He writes that the National Academy of Sciences has estimated the prevention of 500 million deaths due to DDT spraying. However, due to its banning, 500 million people a year still get the disease, and at least 1 million die. WHO [World Health Organization] refuses to approve DDT spraying, however, and the U.S. government’s programs don’t purchase the chemical at all. The European Union refuses to fund DDT spraying, and also threatens to punish any nations that use DDT with import restrictions.
Mallaby mentions “Silent Spring”, but maintains that it was about the larger-scale agricultural sprayings, instead of limiting spraying of homes. He mentions Uganda, which was threatened by the EU, and its 12 million cases of malaria in 2003.
While Mallaby certainly makes a compelling argument for DDT use, he fails to truly explain the scientific and natural drawbacks that cause it to be as harmful as it is helpful.

The Beginnings of DDT

2005-10-07T12:12:00.000-04:00

In 1948, Dr. Paul Muller received the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery of DDT’s toxic effect on insects. Tiny amounts of this chemical could kill a large amount of insects and studies showed that it was not very toxic for plants or animals. It was first put to use in 1939 to wipe out the Colorado potato beetle that was destroying Switzerland’s potato crop. It was then used successfully to protect soldiers from mosquitoes, body lice, and other disease spreading insects. DDT had proven to be exactly what Muller had been looking for.

Dr. Muller had been working in the dye division of the J. R. Geigy Corporation researching natural products to be used as pigments and tanning agents for leather. He was researching this until 1935 when he was assigned to develop an insecticide. He was looking for a compound that would have a rapid potent toxicity for the most species of insect; that would be stable enough to last long periods of time; and that would cause little or no damage to plants and animals. DDT satisfied all of Muller’s requirements and it was thought to be an ideal insecticide, until people realized it was being overused and because of the chemical’s persistence, there was too much of it in the environment. This created a hazard to animal life and spurred people like Rachel Carson to fight and have DDT banned.

Rachel Carson and Silent Spring

2005-10-06T17:17:00.000-04:00

In 1962, Rachel Carson brought the results of DDT use to the public, thus launching a campaign to end its use. At the time, DDT was viewed as modern marvel, as it had been successfully used during the second World War, as a way to kill fleas, mosquitoes, and other spreaders of deadly disease. Biologists, however, had begun to collect evidence of DDT’s harmful side effects on other species, as well as insects that were becoming resistant to DDT. Carson’s interest in DDT began when a letter from a friend in Massachusetts bemoaned the loss of large birds in Cape Cod, due to DDT sprayings. Silent Spring alarmed readers with its descriptions of DDT entering the food chain, accumulating in animals’ fatty tissues [human beings included] and eventually causing cancer and genetic damage. The chemical industry, naturally, was indignant and attacked Carson, often personally, as they questioned her integrity, and even sanity. “Anticipating this reaction, Carson included 55 pages of notes and a list of eminent scientists who had read and approved the manuscript. President John F. Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee thoroughly vindicated both Silent Spring and its author. As a result, DDT came under much closer government supervision and was eventually banned.”—From http://www.nwhp.org/tlp/biographies/carson/carson-bio.htmland http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/chemach/hnec/rc.html

DDT: A Lifesaver or Earth’s Path to Destruction?

2005-10-05T18:40:00.000-04:00

“’To few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT,’ the US National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1970. It reported that DDT had prevented many millions of deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable. “

The ban on DDT finally came to effect in 1972 due to studies that show a relation with DDT use and the decline of numbers of bird species. Additionally, some claim that DDT also increases the chance of having breast cancer, especially for pregnant women. During World War II, DDT was primarily used as an insect repellent. In the following years, the effectiveness of DDT would spread worldwide, which would lead to enormous use of the substance both indoors and outdoors,

Studies would then show the direct relationship between the decline in bird populations and the excessive use of DDT. However, studies would also show the significant decrease in cases of fatal diseases such as malaria. DDT is long lasting and even at small amounts is lethal to insects. A little spray inside the house may keep away mosquitoes, decreasing the chance of getting bit by a malaria-carrying mosquito.

With DDT banned in many countries worldwide, the number of cases of malaria is again increasing. According to a study, most South American countries that stopped using DDT experienced a huge increase in cases of malaria, while the only country that continued to use it, Ecuador, experienced a 60 % decrease.

One may say that the banning of DDT is bad while another may say that it is only right for our environment. With DDT being very popular, it is of no doubt that many farmers saw only the fact that DDT was a great pesticide; besides that, they knew nothing more. This sure would have led to excessive use of the substance. Today, given the circumstances, saving thousands, maybe even millions, of lives with DDT would surely outweigh any minor harm to the environment. Additionally, if this was to be allowed, the amounts of DDT being used must be strictly monitored.

Everyone can judge this matter on their own. Given the positives and the negatives of DDT, should it really be banned?

To read more about this: DDT Should Not Be Banned