DDT Is Only Real Weapon to Combat Malaria

Related Articles


I don't have much today but I found this...

Tweetpoo for Tuesday January 24 2023

OK ! I'm good! I'm now more than fully...

Justin Trudeau and Canadian “news” media don’t look up.

For years, "Connecting rural Canada" has been a huge...

The Article

During the few minutes you spend reading this column, malaria will kill six Africans and sicken about 3,000 more, mostly children and pregnant women—a rate of more than one million deaths and 500 million illnesses annually among the 2.2 billion people who live in malarial regions like Africa.

There’s legislation moving through the Senate right now intended to reduce this tragic toll.

U.S. taxpayers spend about $200 million annually on malaria control efforts. Ironically, almost none of this money is spent to kill or repel the mosquitoes that spread disease. The money is instead spent on anti-malarial drugs and insecticide-treated bed nets that aren’t very effective.

Bed nets are often torn. They are uncomfortable on hot African nights and may get kicked off. There may not be enough nets for every family member or people who are still up and about at sunset when the mosquitoes arrive for their night feeding. Anti-malarial drugs are in short supply. The U.S. Agency for International Development hopes to have 55 million pediatric doses for 2006 — leaving the other 445 million people on their own to battle with malaria without any drugs.

Although researchers are working to develop an anti-malarial vaccine, there is little prospect for one in the next 10 years. It’s a grim reality, but it doesn’t have to be. We have the technology to make a large dent in this tragedy, if only we could rid ourselves of the most infamous environmentalist myth of all-time, our irrational fear of the insecticide DDT.

As discussed in JunkScience.com’s “100 Things You Should Know About DDT,” the Rachel Carson-Silent Spring-inspired campaign against DDT was utterly detached from reality. DDT did not cause declines in populations of great birds like the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. These bird populations were threatened before DDT had even been invented ,thanks to over-hunting, habitat destruction, and egg collectors.

The bird populations rebounded, in fact, during the period of the greatest use of DDT.

No scientific experiment has ever shown that typical levels of DDT found in the environment cause the thinning of bird egg shells — a mechanism by which DDT was alleged to have harmed birds. While a host of natural and artificial factors have been scientifically identified as potentially contributing to egg shell-thinning, typical environmental levels of pesticide residues aren’t among them.

DDT has also never been credibly linked with cancer or non-cancer health effects in humans.

What really drove that point home to me was a recent visit to the Imperial War Museum in London, where I saw a display about the DDT de-lousing that was done to liberated World War II concentration camp victims. DDT was used to save their lives — and despite the extremely fragile state of their health during such use, no ill-effects among the survivors have been attributed to DDT in the medical literature.

DDT was ultimately banned in the U.S. in 1972 because of politics, not science. For no stated reason, then-EPA Administrator William Ruckleshaus overruled a finding of DDT’s safety by an EPA administrative law judge. Evidence was later discovered identifying Ruckleshaus as a fundraiser for the Environmental Defense Fund—the activist group spearheading the anti-DDT campaign.

Of course, by the time Ruckleshaus banned DDT, malaria in the U.S. and Europe had essentially been eradicated so the insecticide was no longer needed. Although DDT was also used — some say over-used — in U.S. agriculture, economical substitutes could be had.

But there is no economical substitute for DDT when it comes to malaria in poorer regions of the world. Other chemicals are too expensive and don’t work as well for the sort of widespread spraying needed to control mosquitoes in Africa. While DDT has not been officially banned in Africa, its use is discouraged by limited production and cumbersome environmentalist-designed rules on use and handling.

The European Union, which environmentalists often lead by the nose, has even threatened a ban on agricultural imports from countries that use DDT.

But when DDT is available, the results are nothing short of spectacular. Indoor spraying with DDT, for example, reduced malaria cases and deaths by nearly 75 percent in Zambia over a two-year period and by 80 percent in South Africa in just one year. DDT works like nothing else — there’s simply no doubt about it.

For these reasons, we ought to support a bill in Congress (currently it’s known as the Senate version of H.R. 3057) that would reform the U.S. Agency for International Development so that insecticides like DDT could be added to the arsenal for fighting malaria. President Bush announced in July that U.S. taxpayers would spend $1.2 billion for world malaria control over the next five years.

Rather than wasting that money on ineffective bed nets and anti-malaria drugs — and then repeating such futility in another five years — let’s spend it on DDT and get the job done now.

Steven Milloy
Latest posts by Steven Milloy (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?

    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img