Active versus Passive Moral Culpability.

[elfs]

Malaria is a disease Westerners no longer have to think about. Independent malariologists believe it kills two million people a year, mainly children under 5 and 90 percent of them in Africa.

Yet DDT, the very insecticide that eradicated malaria in developed nations, has been essentially deactivated as a malaria-control tool today. DDT is most likely not harmful to people or the environment. Certainly, the possible harm from DDT is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children's lives. "I cannot envision the possibility of rolling back malaria without the power of DDT," said Renato Gusm-o, who headed antimalaria programs at the Pan American Health Organization, or P.A.H.O., the branch of W.H.O. that covers the Americas. "In tropical Africa, if you don't use DDT, forget it."

"Why it can't be dealt with rationally, as you'd deal with any other insecticide, I don't know," said Janet Hemingway, director of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. "People get upset about DDT and merrily go and recommend an insecticide that is much more toxic."

Washington is the major donor to W.H.O. and Roll Back Malaria, and most of the rest of the financing for those groups comes from Europe, where DDT is also banned. There is no law that says if America cannot use DDT then neither can Mozambique, but that's how it works. The ban in America and other wealthy countries has, first of all, turned poor nations' agricultural sectors against DDT for economic reasons. A shipment of Zimbabwean tobacco, for example, was blocked from entering the United States market because it contained traces of DDT, turning Zimbabwe's powerful tobacco farmers into an effective anti-DDT lobby. From a health point of view, of course, American outrage would have been more appropriate if traces of tobacco had been found in their DDT than the other way around.

Read the whole thing: What the World Needs Now Is DDT (New York Times; registration required).

Comments

this might be continued

[merwy.livejournal.com]

Ought to stick to my proper homework. But even if I must admit my theoretical base is not extensive, my enviromental chemistry course has only lasted for about 4 months so far, I can't really not comment on this. I know you believe in liking humans better than plants. So do I. But the humans do not in the long term survive without the plants. I believe there must always be a careful weighting of harmful and positive effects of chemical compounds, it is simply not true to say that DDT has no harmful effects.
In britain, there was according to a study (by someone named Ratcliffe in 1993) a drop of about 50% in the peregrine population in 1961 compared to that in 1930. This followed the introduction in about 1940 of DDT and in 1955 of cyclodienes. After restriction were imposed on those two substances, the population has risen above the 1930 levels. The decrease was caused by DDT disturbing the incorporation of calcium into eggshells, making them too thin to hatch. That spells dangerous to me. Yes, I am a tree-hugger, and yes, I'd rather see peregrines die than children - but sufficient concentrations of DDT might also kill the children. The lethal oral dose (LOD-50 - the dose at which 50% of test animals die) of DDT is 110 mg per kg body weight. Obviously, direct tests have not been carried out on humans, but it is assumed that LOD-50 values are roughly equal for different species. 110 mg is not such a lot.
AS for alternatives, I believe a substance called methoxychlor "has the same insecticidal properties (as DDT)" but is much more easily degraded in nature and hence not as dangerous. These last facts are from Colin Baird : Environmental Chemistry, 2nd edition pages about 300.
I am not saying there are no reasons for or situations in which to use DDT, but there IS serious cause for concern and restrictions.