Uh yeah, I'll top post this to save everyone the wasted effort of
reading the following polemic; you see, the basic thesis it spends so
much time working on, that banning DDT is responsible for an epidemic
of malaria, has this one tiny problem: DDT is NOT banned for malaria
control by the POPs Treaty, or from control of any other disease, only
from agriculture.
"They decided that DDT is a unique case, and whereas the oth=AD=ADer
eleven POPs dealt with by the treaty are on a list to be
"prohibite=AD=ADd or eliminated" (Annex A of the treaty), DDT alone is on
a list =AD=ADto be merely "restricted" (Annex B), with the primary
restriction =AD=ADbeing that DDT use in agriculture is hereby eliminated.
The future=AD publ=ADic health uses of DDT are safeguarded by a "DDT
exemption" writ=ADten into the treaty. That exemption:
(1) restricts DDT use and production to disease vector contr=AD=ADol only
(not agriculture);
(2) requires countries using DDT to follow WHO guidelines fo=AD=ADr
disease vector control;
(3) requires countries to notify WHO if they use DDT;
(4) requires rich countries to pay the "agreed incremental c=ADosts" of
more expensive alternatives to DDT (this is located elsewher=AD=ADe in
the treaty); and
(5) encourages rich countries to support research and develo=ADpment of
alternatives to DDT;
and having said this, what the treaty does NOT require is eq=ADually
important:
(1) it does NOT require a country to notify WHO before it sp=ADrays DDT,
so in an epidemic a country may spray first and report to WH=AD=ADO
later;
(2) it does NOT require a country to obtain WHO's approval a=AD=ADt any
time;
(3) it does NOT require poor countries to bear the added cos=AD=ADt of
alternatives to DDT;
(4) it does NOT set a deadline by which countries must stop =ADusing or
producing DDT; and
(5) it does NOT restrict DDT use to malaria control, but all=ADows for
controlling any vector-borne disease. "
<http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html>
and in fact, goes on to say:
"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the statu=AD=ADs quo
going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the firs=ADt time=AD,
there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector co=ADntrol
onl=ADy, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes wi=ADll be
slower th=ADan before."
Sounds like they're not nearly as unhappy about the POPs treaty as Ms.
Logomasini. Sounds like they actually think it's helping fight malaria.
But who you gonna believe, the people who actually spend their days
fighting malaria, or the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their
resident compassionate conservatives, whose compassion unfortunately
seems in reality to be more geared to the poor third world cotton
plantation owner who now has to cut his profits than to the poor
malaria victims, over whom they weep so copiously and so publicly.
As for the emergency use of DDT in the tsunami-affected areas; the
reason it's not being sprayed is that it's too late, the longterm
agricultural overuse has made it ineffective for mosquito control now.
"Endemic sporadic malaria close to the affected areas transm=ADitted by
An.culicifacies, which has been considered DDT-resistant for=AD many
years"
<http://mosquito.who.int/docs/Asia_tsunami_malaria_risk-v1-5Jan.pdf>
But again, who you gonna believe, the people at WHO who actually spend
their days fighting malaria, or the Competitive Enterprise Institute
etc. etc. etc. who loyally defend the pocketbooks of those who are
actually responsible for DDT being useless against malaria after the
tsunami.
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Six Tsunamis
By Angela Logomasini Published 01/20/2005
Imagine that every year the world suffered from six or more tsunamis
producing
the horrific death toll recently experienced. That's how many people
die every
year from malaria alone, and the tsunami may contribute to even
higher rates
this year. That disaster has created new habitat suitable for the
proliferation
of malaria and other disease-carrying mosquitoes.
Public health officials can take steps to reduce the impact, one of
which
involves using the controversial pesticide DDT. Since the 1960s
green
activists pushed bans of the substance around the world based largely
on false
claims about its health affects. The result was a public health
disaster --
contributing to skyrocketing malaria rates.
Yet finally, two environmental leaders reluctantly admitted that
nations may
need to use DDT to save lives in tsunami-affected regions. Recently,
quoted by
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Greenpeace's Rick Hind
explained
that the organization was "all for" DDT use "if there is nothing else
and its
going save lives," while the World Wildlife Fund's Richard Liroff
noted that it
has "saved lots of lives" in South Africa.
DDT is the best tool for controlling the spread of malaria. It can
be applied
in and around huts and other homes that don't have screens and other
devices
that effectively keep out mosquitoes. Used this way, DDT repels
mosquitoes
from entering the homes. This approach is effective because
malaria-carrying
mosquitoes feed largely at night when people are inside.
DDT has a proven record of effectiveness. Many nations, including
the United
States, eradicated malaria-carrying mosquitoes using DDT. South
Africa nearly
did the same, but it stopped using DDT under political pressure.
After halting
DDT use, cases rose from about 4,100 in 1995 to more than 27,000 by
1999,
according to a study conducted by researchers Amir Attaran and
Rajendra
Maharaj. In recent years, South Africa resumed DDT use, and cases
have dropped
85 percent according to Roger Bate of Africa Fighting Malaria.
Despite anti-DDT activist claims, DDT has not been shown to have any
adverse
impacts on human health. According to A.G. Smith of the scientific
journal the
Lancet: "If the huge amounts of DDT used are taken into account, the
safety
record for human beings is extremely good. In the 1940s many people
were
deliberately exposed to high concentrations of DDT through dusting
programmes
or impregnation of clothes, without any apparent ill effect."
Additionally,
limited use of DDT for malaria control does not affect wildlife
because of it
is not used widely in the environment where animals could be exposed.
Given these realities, world policymakers should rescind the
Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Treaty) -- the international
treaty that
seriously restricts DDT use and will ban it in the future along with
11 other
chemicals. The POPs treaty -- ratified by some nations and awaiting
U=2ES.
ratification -- is based on the faulty assumption that world
regulators need to
take products off the market to protect the public, even though some
nations
and individuals find them valuable.
The DDT ban reveals the dangers of such policies. As nations debated
the POPs
treaty, one- to two-million people -- mostly children -- have been
dying
annually from malaria. Another 400 million suffer from the
devastating effects
of the malaria disease. POPs treaty supporters defend their position
by noting
that the treaty has a limited exemption to allow limited use of DDT
use for
malaria control. But the treaty -- along with nation-level bans of
the
substance -- eliminates incentives for its production, limiting its
production
and supply. DDT production is now limited to the efforts of a few
governments.
In addition, the treaty applies bureaucratic red tape to nations
that seek to
use DDT, making it more difficult and more expensive to access.
Finally, the
treaty provisions call for an eventual all-out ban.
The tsunami disaster certainly warrants emergency use of DDT -- as
some
environmental activists admit. But equally clear is that the annual
malaria
disaster in Africa and other parts of the world warrants its use
around the
world today and as long as it is needed in the future.
Angela Logomasini is director of risk and environmental policy at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
.
