DDT doesn't just hurt mosquitoes. The United States and most Northern countries have banned its usage because of its threat to animal and human health. These bans are extended to the foreign assistance that flows North to South.
Is the ban the "best" thing for those facing the imminent threat of malaria in developing countries? Saying a pesticide is too dangerous for the rich folks but okay for the poor is an environmental or health relativism that should make everyone uncomfortable. Ecojustice movements have been built to fight such axioms. International laws like the Basel Convention -- negotiated to prevent dumping the North's toxic waste in the South -- are meant to prevent disparate treatment.
But along comes Nick Kristof's tight argument calling for the North to reintroduce DDT as a weapon in its efforts against malaria. Used in conjunction with treated bed nets and medicines, DDT is saving literally thousands of lives in a host of countries, according to Kristof.
As he points out, when many of us in the North hear DDT, we immediately flash to the threat DDT poses to charismatic species such as the bald eagle. But do we risk reinforcing the existing perception in the global South that we in the North value charming wildlife more than people? Or more likely, are Northerners just so unfamiliar with the daily struggles of life and death commonplace in the global South that they cannot wrap their brains around the notion that people would want to be poisoned today to live to tell about it?
As a result, the North-knows-best attitude costs lives.
Comments
View as Flat
Lisa Hymas Posted 12:25 pm
09 Jan 2005
I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he could accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs.
"South Africa was right to use DDT," he said. "If the alternatives to DDT aren't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives."
At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."
So why do the U.N. and donor agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, generally avoid financing DDT programs? The main obstacle seems to be bureaucratic caution and inertia. President Bush should cut through that and lead an effort to fight malaria using all necessary tools -- including DDT.
I'm with Kristof on this. I was convinced in part last year by the persuasive article "What the World Needs Now Is DDT," by Tina Rosenberg in The New York Times Magazine.
Permalink
da silva Posted 6:04 am
10 Jan 2005
Permalink
jshore Posted 12:12 pm
10 Jan 2005
Permalink
Naturegal Posted 8:59 am
11 Jan 2005
As for human exposure, DDT was included as one of the "dirty dozen" chemicals in the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, where signatories to the "POPs Treaty" agreed to ban all uses of DDT except as a last resort against disease-bearing mosquitoes.
In America, DDT has remained a banned pesticide for over three decades, but the chemical can still be found in the environment. The Rachel Carson Council reports that DDT residues can remain in nature from 20-50 years, depending on the temperature, and soil samples from many areas in the U.S. still show lingering signs of the pesticide. The World Wildlife Fund reports that an Oregon orchard still had 40% of the original DDT that had been used on it 20 years earlier.
The National Cancer Institute has found associations between DDT and "increased leukemia, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer." And the EPA has classified DDT as a "probable human carcinogen" that "damages the liver, temporarily damages the nervous system, reduces reproductive success, can cause liver cancer, and damages the reproductive system."
Physicians for Social Responsibility (an organization representing more than 20,000 physicians, nurses, health care professionals, and concerned citizens devoted to nuclear disarmament, violence prevention and environmental health) has publicly stated that, "We believe that DDT is no longer an appropriate tool in the fight against malaria. This extremely persistent pesticide poses a threat to the environment and, potentially, to public health globally."
Also, in July 2001, scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences reported that they have discovered a strong link between DDT exposure and the likelihood of pre-term birth, which increases the risks of infant mortality. Dr. Matthew Longnecker, the lead author of the report, estimated that based on their studies, DDT use in the United States could have been responsible for as much as 15% of infant deaths during the 1960s.
Is DDT a quick fix for killing mosquitoes? Yes. But I'd like to see more information about the long-term affects on areas that have persistent DDT usage.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:03 pm
11 Jan 2005
First, what did the people in areas where malaria is rampant do before the chemical industry invented this poison? Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria.
More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? I think a good environmental ethic woould be that it is immoral to kill anything one doesn't eat, meaning that all pesticides should be banned immediately.
Environmentalists should have at least some respect for all forms of life, even if they don't think all forms of are equal. I don't see any respect for the mosquitos in these posts, nor do I see any comments or questions about what their place in the web of life might be. Just because we don't know what their function is does not mean they don't have one, even if that function is population control.
I have a hard time with anyone calling him- or herself an environemtnalist who is not unequivocally opposed to all pesticides. You can't have your cake and eat it too, nor can you fight for the people of Middle Earth and Sauron at the same time. Support for poisoning the Earth and being an environmentalist are completely incompatible.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:28 am
12 Jan 2005
www.grist.org
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 2:43 am
12 Jan 2005
Permalink
da silva Posted 10:16 am
13 Jan 2005
Permalink
Brent Posted 11:39 am
13 Jan 2005
Rachel Carson's Ecological Genocide
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 3:15 pm
13 Jan 2005
Nor have you addressed the fact that there was life before DDT and these other horrible Earth destroying poisons. What you should be looking for is a solution that does not poison the Earth, and you need a historical perspective for doing so.
Finally, regarding Mr. Roberts's comment, the deaths of humans caused by malaria is not an environmental problem. If you're more concerned with that than with protecting the Earth from poisons like DDT, you are correct, you're not an environmentalist.
Permalink
KerryDowns Posted 8:59 pm
13 Jan 2005
Then to reply to the comment by jdhlax, generally the people in developing countries exposed to malaria consume far far less than your average american and thier impact on the earth is far less. So sacrificing them in the name of overpopulation will do little to help the earth.
Kerry
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 7:28 am
14 Jan 2005
Second, overconsumption is only one result of overpopulation. The main result, which is unavoidable regardless of people's behavior, is that our species takes up far too much space. Ecosystems need large areas of wilderness in order to be healthy, and this is not possible with anywhere near the current level of human population, for the following reason: For humans to live in wilderness without destroying its wilderness characteristics, they would have to live as pre-industrial hunter-gatherers. This type of living, which, of all human lifestyles, is the least environmentally destructive, requires large areas and there is nowhere near enough wilderness to go around.
Unfortunately, most people have fallen for the false idea that the only problem with overpopulation is overconsumption. There are so many people in so many places that the plants and other animals have nowhere to live. That's the main problem caused by overpopulation.
Jeff
Permalink
da silva Posted 8:24 am
14 Jan 2005
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 11:49 am
14 Jan 2005
More fundamentally, your statement that we can feed an overpopulated world highlights our differences. The question for people like me with a biocentric world view is not whether we can further destroy the Earth enough to feed an overpopulated world, but whether we should. Unfortunately, even the vast majority of people who consider themselves environmentalists don't ask the latter question, because they believe that humans are the end-all and be-all of creation. I don't believe this, so I don't think we should endeavor to further destroy the Earth to feed ever more people. Instead, we should focus our efforts on lowering the human population to a small fraction of its current size. On the topic discussed here, we certainly should not advocate poisoning the Earth in order to prevent malaria or for any other foreseeable reason. I can't imagine how one could consider oneself an environmentalist with a contrary position.
Permalink
McGee Posted 3:56 pm
14 Jan 2005
We know it's bad for living creatures and that it has managed to stick around in our environment for decades.
By saving people from malaria now, how do we know we won't be poisoning future generations causing them to suffer in the future? Do we want to keep people alive on poisoned earth so that the future generations can start out with low birth rates only to grow into developing some kind of cancer at a young age?
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 2:50 am
17 Jan 2005
In conclusion; I would like to see DDT banned completely for most uses. Health organizations can still use it, (under carefully controlled conditions), to combat malaria, but with the understanding that it is a stopgap measure of last resort, to be used only untill better measures become availible. The goal should be to work agressively on developing safe and effective alternatives, and to phase DDT out altogether. (Who knows, perhaps we can find a way to protect both humans and mosquitoes!)
Permalink
Ajaxx Posted 9:01 pm
25 Feb 2005
A second problem is the food chain multiplication factor. Many persistent poisons, DDT, most chlorinated hydrocarbons, etc., are transferred to the top of the food chain with amazing efficiency. A significant portion of all the persistent poisons that have entered the environment is still in the fatty tissues of the top predators (including us!).
Malaria is certainly a huge problem. DDT is a dangerous solution. It should only be used with the greatest of care.
Sincerely
Albert J. Hoch Jr.
Permalink
Cyberactivist Posted 1:13 am
02 Mar 2005
Mosquitoes are vital to the normal life of a pond or stream. They are a link in the food chain from algae to minnows to gaunt fish. Many serve as bacteria traps in stagnant water. Some are even downright beneficial, killing other mosquitoes. There are about 1500 different species in the family Culicidae, btw.
The larvae are a vital source of food for minnows and other fish and are regular little aquatic vacuum cleaners. Fringes of bristles, known as oral brushes, surround the mouth of a wiggler. When it is hungry, which is most of the time, for they may eat double their weight in a single day, it sets the little brushes in motion. These create a tiny whirlpool, sucking bacteria, algae, yeasts, and tiny aquatic animals into the vortex. A single hungry wiggler may "filter" as much as a quart of water per day. They can stand pollution even better than we can, which is one point for them right there.
Some species have little oral attachments that include stiff projections, like ice tongs, with which they seize their unsuspecting cousins If several of these predatory larvae get in a puddle they do away with every available larva, then start in on each other until there is only one left.
One inquisitive scientist took a census of a shrinking puddle. His result: more than a thousand wigglers to a pint of water. So, naturally there has to be a leveler, or the mosquitoes would inherit the earth. Water tigers and other predatory insects take their toll. So do salamanders, ducks, geese, bats (which can eat up to their own weight in insects each night), and even the sun if it dries up that puddle.
As most mosquito larvae spend much of their week or ten days near the surface of the water, poking those rear-mounted breathing tubes up for air, one time-honored way to discourage such activity is to spread a film of oil on the water, which apparently clogs their snorkels. Although this fails to work with a vicious biter known as Mansonia because it attaches its air hose to underwater plants and breathes oxygen from the pithy stems.
As for the type of mosquito that causes malaria, a femme fatale known as Anopheles, she suffers as much from the malarial parasite as her victims do, though this probably doesn't provide much consolation to the human victims. But when she takes in a blood meal containing the malarial parasite, the microscopic invader penetrates her stomach, multiplying and forming cysts on the stomach wall, sometimes even killing its host. If the host survives, the cysts break and release hundreds of new parasites, some of them making their way to the salivary glands. There they wait, waiting to be injected into a new victim when the mosquito gets her next meal. (So we should perhaps vaccinate more people against this disease, keeping them from spreading it to more mosquitoes and thus other people?)
I happen to agree that we should not use poisons, especially ones as bad as DDT, to control "pests," which we must remember are a natural part of the ecosystem. And I also agree that many of these poisons also destroy the very beneficial predators that prey on these "pests" as well as the intended victims the poisons are used on (among a wide number of other species, with long-lasting consequences). There is also the fact that the more a particular food source (yes even those thought of as "pests" by many people) are reduced, then so are the numbers of the predators who will reproduce stay in the infested area in numbers high enough to control them naturally.
Many of the problems addressed here have been on target, such as the problem of over-population creating more people experiencing more miserable and shorter lives. This also increases the problem of larger numbers of people invading more and more spaces once left alone by humans, thus bringing more and more diseases out to the human population as we move into what was once a balanced ecosystem that was home to a whole host of wild beings living in balance with one another. The more we try to manipulate and control Mother Nature, and even downright destroy her for our own selfish needs as opposed to trying to live in harmony with her, the more consequences we bring upon ourselves. There was a great article appearing here on this site I read just this morning Down With the Sickness that brings this problem to the forefront.
We do need to get a handle on the exploding population of less-developed countries. I also believe that we must have respect for every life form on this planet, not taking any life unless absolutely necessary for our survival. I further believe that not only does a true environmentalist not support the use of poisons in the ecosystem, they also do not consume meat, especially that from factory farms. This is not only out of respect for the right of each of these animals to live their lives free of pain, suffering, and exploitation by us, but also because much of the pollution is caused by the practice of raising food animals for meat; there is more fossil fuel usage, more water usage, more rainforest destruction - both for grazing cattle and raising soybeans to feed those cattle, and the inescapable fact that it takes many pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat - a quite inefficient use of our dwindling natural resources, wouldn't you agree?
According to the WWF, two thirds of the world's agricultural land is used for feeding animals. Wheat grown in the UK is used to feed animals to supply cheap meat, while most of the country's breadmaking wheat is imported. The EU imports 70 percent of the high quality protein it uses in animal feed, some from countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Senegal where there is widespread poverty. Even in the UK more than 75 percent of agricultural land is devoted to livestock.
Here is the U.S., in McDonald County, Miss., home to 13 million broiler chickens and a few hundred thousand turkeys, every stream is on a government "impaired water body" list. The 22,600 cows housed by northwest Ohio's 22 new dairies produce about 2.8 million pounds of manure a day. At least 33 mega-dairies operate statewide, 27 of which were built in the past three or four years, mostly in northwest Ohio. The vast majority of Ohio's dairies let their cows graze on pasture, which requires about 1½ acres per cow. Most of the state's mega-dairies have been built on 40- to 80-acre properties. Ohio mega-farm regulation is the exclusive province of the agriculture department, by order of House Bill 152, passed last July. Previously, the Ohio EPA regulated mega-farms on a case-by- case basis without rules. Dairy farms under 700 cows, however, do not fall under the department's oversight.
Northwest Ohio is particularly inappropriate for mega-dairies, said Julie Weatherington-Rice, a certified soil scientist and geologist, because the soil type, "fractured glacial till," is unsuitable for lagoon storage systems and field applications of manure.
The Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development Corp. is driving northwest Ohio's dairy boom. The company, based in Wauseon, just west of Bowling Green builds basic dairy farms including barns, manure ponds and feed storage areas that sell for $3.5 million to $5 million each. The company also helps buyers with financing, cow purchases, worker recruitment and investor visas, which allow them to enter the country.
Since 1998, the company has built 41 dairies: 23 in Ohio, 10 in Indiana and eight in southern Michigan. Six more are under development in Ohio, including a 4,500-cow farm in Hardin County, and two more in Indiana, said Vreba-Hoff partner Cecilia Conway.
In southern Michigan, a citizens group has documented illegal manure discharges at all 10 dairies built by Vreba-Hoff. In the last four years, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality confirmed more than 100 violations and discharges, including fish kills, and filed lawsuits against two of the dairies. Both have been asked to install sewage treatment plants, a plan that Vrega-Hoff rejects. The agriculture department monitors manure applications only if the dairy does the job itself or if the dairy gives manure to another livestock manager who applies more than 4,500 dry tons of manure a year,
That's more than a billion pounds on an average 127 pounds of manure per cow per day.
All of northern Ohio's waterways feed into Lake Erie. Ohio State University zoologist David Culver poses the very real possibility that manure from northwest Ohio farms is contributing to Lake Erie's 6,300-square-mile "dead zone," an oxygen-depleted area where fish cannot live. Manure fertilizes algae, which sink to the lake's bottom when they die.
In addition, all animal waste contains viruses, parasites and bacteria, including E. coli, which can live in the soil for six to 10 months. Manure runoff can also affect the taste of drinking water tainted by decomposing algae. Bowling Green, for example, spent $3 million about four years ago to install a filtration system to improve the flavor of the city's water, which comes from the Maumee River. New filters cost about $70,000 a year.
We don't need meat to survive, so to me, it is unethical for us that can make the choice to do so when the consequences for many, including our own selves, are so high. I honestly do not see how anyone can call themselves a true environmentalist while eating meat and thus supporting this kind of ecosystem destruction, reduction if biodiversity, and exploitation of and downright cruelty to animals.
And before someone decides to call me some ignorant urban elitist, read my profile. I am a vegan in rural AR whose household of two survived on around $6000 last year. We live in the woods, bordering the Ouachita National Forest right on the banks of the Ouachita River. Oh yeah, and I worked for over a decade in the hellhole that is the poultry industry. I know whereof I speak. And I have personally witnessed the destructive effects of the factory farming industry. I have watched the river I swim in get polluted by the cattle upriver, who are allowed unfettered access into it, eroding the riverbank and polluting the water. Before spouting off at me if anything I said offends you, again, check me out and see exactly how much I have written and spoken out publicly about this. And what I am actively doing about it, besides just complaining.
"Nothing will benefit health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein
Permalink
mh Posted 7:40 am
26 Nov 2005
Basic human morality compels me to reply.
None of the world's malarious zones are "over-populated". Indeed, if any parts of the world are over-populated they are North America, Western Europe and Japan - the places where nobody dies of Malaria.
The average North American uses 9 times the resources (i.e. land and the stuff like oil, metal and food) the average African uses. Africa, by the way, is the world's second largest continent and has an area that exceeds 30,000,000 square kilometers in size. At current levels of consumption, the continent of Africa could accommodate about 5 times more people than currently live there before becoming as "populated" as North America in terms of resource use and impact on the environment.
Or, put another way, about 80% or 250 million North Americans would have to die in order to reduce North America's resource use to that of all of Africa.
Yet, there are no signs that a malaria pandemic is going to sweep North America in order to reduce the "over-population" on that continent. Why not? Because malaria is not a
"natural population control". If it were, malaria would be killing suburban Americans, not poor Africans and Asians that make negligible demands on their environment.
The reality is that "biocentric" people like Hoffman have a distorted and dangerous morality that equivocates between human persons, with rights and responsibilities, and plants and animals which have neither. The Malaria bug, and mosquitoes for that matter, cannot be reasoned with. That gives human persons the right and responsibility to do whatever it takes to ensure their own survival.
I wonder if Hoffman would be so eager to prevent the use of DDT if his child or parent were among the 3 million people annually of Malaria, a disease that we have conveniently eradicated from the developed world by using, among other things, DDT.
I doubt that Hoffman is prepared to sacrifice his own life to reduce "over-population" on this planet. It is sickening that he would expect the poor and less fortunate to bear all of the real sacrifice for his "biocentric" utopia.
Permalink