Banning of the pesticide DDT is often credited as one of the best decisions made for the betterment of human beings and the environment. However this decision has also led to more than 30 million deaths since it was implemented. It was a decision made without any scientific basis and has resulted in irreparable losses in developing countries.
DDT was banned in 1972 by the EPA claiming that DDT is a carcinogen and has harmful effects if exposed to the environment. Public support for this cause came by means of a then best selling book by Rachel Carson, known as "Silent Spring". However it has been found out that Silent Spring was not based on sound scientific findings and also that the decision made by the EPA to ban DDT was based on fraudulent reports and was a result of bureaucracy.
DDT was a very effective pesticide that was used to control malaria. Countless scientific experiments have reported that DDT has no harmful effects on humans or nature. But apparently these scientific findings have not been considered when deciding to ban the said pesticide that ultimately led to millions of deaths. The negative effects of banning DDT is most felt in developing countries. For instance, in Sri Lanka alone, spraying of DDT has reduced the number of malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After the ban was imposed, the number has risen again to 2.5 million.
(source : http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html)
The actual reasoning behind the decision to ban such a useful pesticide is not known. Developed countries don't feel the impact of it as much as the developing countries do. In spite of this, forcing developing countries also to ban DDT is clearly not justified. Just like most cases in the modern world, it seems the agency behind this decision had its own agenda and gains to make from such a decision.
More information : http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
First, spraying of DDT in Sri Lanka was stopped because it was ineffective -- mosquitoes had developed resistance. The rise in malaria cases was due to the nation's cessation of malaria prevention programs, which included spraying, but which together could have provided reduced malaria.
ReplyDeleteSecond, malaria cases and malaria deaths have plunged since DDT use was reduced. At peak DDT use in 1959 and 1960, 500 million people got malaria each year, and 4 million died.
Today? In 2010 there were about 250 million malaria cases, a reduction by half. There were fewer than 800,000 malaria deaths, a reduction of more than 75%. These reductions were achieved largely without DDT, and since DDT use was reduced (the "ban" applied only to agricultural crops, and only in the U.S.; the "ban" made all DDT made in the U.S. available for export to fight disease, which multiplied the amount of DDT available to fight malaria).
The reductions are more stunning when we realize that world population more than doubled in that same time, and humans moved into areas where malaria is endemic in greater numbers, and the areas where mosquitoes can survive and easily spread malaria also increased.
The actual reasoning behind the U.S. ban on DDT was that it is an uncontrolled poison in the wild, and it kills entire ecosystems, starting with the top predators. Since that ban, we've learned that DDT is carcinogenic (mildly so in humans, we hope), and it is an estrogen disruptor, scrambling the reproductive organs of affected fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 1970 that called DDT one of the most beneficial synthetic chemicals ever -- but, the NAS said, it's harms outweighed its benefits. NAS called for a phase out of DDT as soon as possible to protect human health and wildlife.
Silent Spring was studied by the President's Science Advisory Council in 1962 and 1963. They determined that Ms. Carson's book was deadly accurate in science. No one in the past 50 years has published any research that contradicts any of the research she cited in the book, nor any of the conclusions she drew. More, here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ddt-chronicles-at-millard-fillmores-bathtub/
Mr Ed Darrell, Thank you for providing the above information. I was under the same impression about DDT until I read the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Although it is a novel, the author has provided references for the claims made in it. This got me thinking about the ban on DDT and I did a google search and came across some sources including a scientific paper(http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf) that supported the point of view given in the novel. This is why I wrote the above blog post. However I'm still open minded regarding this and will do some further research on it. Thanks again for taking your time to share your knowledge.
DeleteDon't ever let fiction trump science, if you're making policy.
DeleteCrichton's fears about DDT and malaria are simply wrong on the facts and the history. I've answered him point by point here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/michael-crichton-hysterical-for-ddt/
And again here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/good-interred-with-their-bones-dept-michael-crichton/
In the U.S., regulatory agencies cannot act on whims. The EPA ban on DDT on crops was based on extensive scientific evidence, including the very good collection of studies mustered by Ms. Carson by 1962, and including a decade of hard studies on specific problems after her book which could not be included in her book. Two U.S. federal courts had declared DDT absolutely uncontrollable, but stayed orders for an outright ban pending EPA's study of the stuff. EPA held hearings for several months in 1971, and put together a hearing record of more than 9,000 pages covering DDT's benefits and harms, and alternatives in usage patterns, and alternative chemicals. On the basis of that record, EPA banned DDT from agricultural use in 1972. That ban was challenged twice to appeals courts on the basis that the science was in error -- both appeals failed when the courts found plenty of science to back up EPA's actions.
I don't know why Crichton went off the rails on DDT, but he did. His fictional diatribe is factually, historically, scientifically and legally wrong. His defenses of his diatribe similarly err. Crichton does not give even passing reference to the study by the President's Science Advisory Council, nor does he acknowledge the significant EPA hearing record, nor the court decisions, nor later research.
Gordon Edwards, alas, seems to have parted ways with sanity on DDT near the end of his life. He could not get any science journal to publish his anti-DDT screeds as a result. After his death, the political nutcase Lyndon Larouche seized on his rambling writings and published a piece based on a speech Edwards made. Very little of that speech checks out, especially the science and law. JPANDS, the journal you cite with Edwards's screed, is a notoriously bad anti-science journal.
You could start with the collection of articles I cited earlier, if you want serious science. Or you could read Ms. Carson's book, and pay particular attention to the more than 50 pages of scientific study citations she offers, none of which have ever been contradicted, especially by Gordon Edwards.
You might also check these sources:
Bug Girl: http://membracid.wordpress.com/category/rachel-carson/
Deltoid, especially this post that dissects the claims about malaria in Sri Lanka: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/15/indor-goklnay-ddt-and-malaria/
Or, if you prefer better writing and good story telling (nonfiction), see Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/05/13/in-praise-of-rachel-carson/
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/06/14/defending-rachel-carson-the-last-word/
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/11/07/yet-more-zombies/
Stick to the facts. It will astonish critics, and please your mother.
Mr Darrell, I will go through the sources that you have provided. It rekindled my interest on this subject and I'm thankful to you for that.
Delete