DDT and the effects on malaria
From Appropedia
Contents |
[edit] Abstract
The main idea behind the AAEA article on Malaria was to not only inform people about what it is and how its affected other countries besides Africa like Brazil and Mexico, but also to bring DDT to the attention of the public and how and can benefit those in communities with malaria outbreaks.Coming from an environmental standpoint, it would sound absolutely crazy to be using a toxic insecticide to aide in an epidemic like malaria. Reading both sides of the story, I understand the AAEA's persistence to prevent a global ban on DDT. But the environmentalist in me has a hard time thinking of the condition of many species if the 1972 U.S. ban of DDT would not have been sucessful[1]. The most important thing at this point will be an indepth study on whether it would be beneficial for countries with the malaria epidemic to use DDT as a preventative measure. They will also have to keep in mind how DDT will impact not only the health of humans, but the habitats of animals and other wildlife that may be negatively affected by the insecticide. For species that rely on insects for food, using DDT could ruin a population even if it is benefiting another.
[edit] Using DDT to stop Malaria in African Countries
The African American Environmentalist Association believes that DDT (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) insecticide should be used to prevent deaths from malaria in African countries. DDT is an organochlorine pesticide that has been used as an insecticide in agriculture and to combat insect vectors of diseases such as malaria and typhus. Because of its effectiveness at killing insects with few acute effects on humans, DDT had been a mainstay to fight malaria, a parasitic disease that is a growing health threat in Africa and other parts of the world. DDT should also be used in India, Brazil and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur (Mosq Control Assoc, 1998). Malaria afflicts hundreds of millions of people and causes millions of human deaths each year. Swiss scientist Paul Muller was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering (1939) DDT's insecticidal properties.
DDT kills mosquitoes. Malaria is transmitted to humans via mosquito bites. According to U.N. estimates, malaria kills one child every 30 seconds and more than a million people each year.[2]
[edit] Malaria Foundation International's push to prevent a ban on DDT
In certain situations [see KwaZulu-Natal and Ethiopia] there are few effective or affordable alternatives. This puts hundreds of thousands of lives at risk from malaria - in countries where DDT is used to spray homes to block transmission of malaria.
Malaria and leishmaniasis are diseases that are in resurgence in many parts of the world. Diminished control efforts are, at least in part, responsible for this resurgence (Roberts et al. 1997, Roberts et al. 2000, Baird 2000).
The MFI has supported an eventual (not immediate) ban, with the proviso that an effective and affordable replacement is found before DDT is banned.
DDT is one tool of many in the malaria control worker's toolbox. The reason that it is being discussed at this site is that, unlike other tools, there is an imminent danger of it being taken away. This puts not just health, but lives, at stake. The MFI wants to see all possible tools for malaria control be readily available, because malaria is a serious, resurgent problem with drug resistance and increasing numbers of illnesses and deaths.[3]
[edit] WWF's call for Ban Against DDT
WWF initially called for a global phaseout and eventual ban on DDT production and use by the year 2007, together with financial and technical assistance to the developing world. The 2007 deadline was intended as a motivational tool to encourage the necessary financial and technical assistance. The proposal of a 2007 deadline drew considerable public attention to the scope of the world's malaria problem and the need to implement alternatives to DDT.
However, it also raised fears that DDT would be phased out without sufficient guarantees of protection of public health from malaria. To allay these fears, WWF has set aside discussion of the 2007 deadline, while retaining its commitment to eliminating DDT. Both the UNEP and WHO recognize that such elimination can be a "win-win" situation for public health and environmental protection.
DDT and the POPs Treaty The Stockholm POPs Convention, a treaty to phase out persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including DDT, is currently open for ratification. WWF welcomes this historic agreement which involved provisions for phasing out DDT, while still allowing for its continued limited use for malaria control.
Evidence continues to accumulate about the dangerous health effects associated with DDT. The treaty provisions appropriately balance the need to reduce these hazards while promoting stronger malaria control programs. The accord states that "with the goal of reducing, and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT," individual countries may continue to use the chemical for controlling malaria. However, these countries will also be encouraged to prepare national implementation plans to reduce their reliance on DDT.
Specifically, the national plans would promote methods for reducing illegal uses of DDT, such as agricultural applications. Countries would also identify steps to implement alternative approaches and promote measures that strengthen health care and reduce the incidence of malaria. The parties to the treaty will periodically review the status of alternative approaches to determine whether DDT is still needed or whether it can be eliminated completely.[4]
--Kellygreen06 08:48, 26 October 2007 (PDT)
