Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Is DDT Making a Comeback?

By Kim Larsen, OnEarth Magazine. Posted February 1, 2008.


In Africa, where malaria kills a million children a year, some are advocating the return of DDT. Are they right?
Advertisement

This story first appeared in OnEarth Magazine and was written by Kim Larsen.

Only three of the 20-odd beds at Mbita District Hospital are occupied. This surprises me. After all, we are in the heart of an impoverished, malaria-ravaged region, on the shores of Lake Victoria along Kenya's remote western border. When I ask a medical assistant if it's unusual for the ward to be so sparsely populated, he laughs grimly. "In two or three weeks we will have several patients to a bed, with more on the floor," he explains. "We'll be turning people away." Here's why: malaria infections can occur any day of the year, but surge outbreaks are cyclical, the disease blooming lushly in the wake of a rainy season. It's late June now, and the winter rains are just about spent. Roads, fields, and footpaths are strewn with puddles large and small, ideal breeding sites for the Anopheles gambiae mosquito, malaria's endlessly regenerating delivery system.

Just beyond the hospital walls, battalions of Anopheles gambiae larvae were incubating in their warm, clear, sun-drenched baths. Upon maturity each mosquito, weighing in at a strapping 2.25 millionths of a pound, would fly off in search of sugar, the metabolic fuel provided by certain plants; and then, thus fortified, the female would move on to extract her blood meal, the protein feast that primes her to reproduce. In a matter of days, new malaria patients would begin streaming into the hospital, by foot or in wheelbarrows or splayed across the backs of donkeys, but mostly cradled in their mothers' arms. The immature immune systems of babies and toddlers are particularly vulnerable to the disease, and in this region cerebral malaria -- the deadliest variant, marked by seizures and coma -- is endemic.

Silver bullet, anyone? Vaccine, larvicide, insecticide, bed net, hex? Why should this disease, eradicated in the lucky zones of the world, continue to flourish elsewhere, in unlucky places like Mbita?

David Soti, the hospital's medical director, shook my hand briskly, unsmiling. Our meeting was a brief formality to secure permission to tour the hospital. I was with Hortance Manda, an entomologist investigating plant and mosquito interactions. She works nearby at the Mbita campus of ICIPE, a research facility headquartered in the capital, Nairobi, that, among other things, pursues methods for managing insect-borne disease in environmentally neutral ways. (The name was formerly the International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology, but it's now known as African Insect Science for Food and Health.)

Recently Manda's work had involved malaria patients at the hospital. Soti nodded at her. "Very nice research: What is the mosquito? What does it eat? When? Why? Good. But I don't want to know the mosquito," he shrugged. "I want to kill it. DDT would kill it." He muttered this last point under his breath. ICIPE opposes the reintroduction of the pesticide DDT in the fight against malaria, and Kenyan law forbids its use under any circumstances. But Soti, apparently, would deploy the insecticide in a heartbeat.

He is not alone. Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane has made a comeback. In Kenya, throughout Africa, in malarial regions around the globe, and perhaps most vociferously in certain pockets of the pundit-happy West, scientists, policy makers, and commentators are revisiting the merits and demerits of the iconic neurotoxin. Few would advocate a return to the strategies used in DDT's heyday in the United States, when crop dusters unloaded blizzards of the chemical--675,000 tons from the 1940s through the 1960s -- to control agricultural pests. But some argue that the judicious application of DDT is precisely what's needed to loosen malaria's death grip, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

Enter Patrick Sawa, head doctor at the St. Jude's medical clinic on the ICIPE campus in Mbita, less than a mile from the district hospital. I caught up with Sawa in a supply room, the only semi-quiet spot at a facility swarming with patients and activity. Word had got out that the clinic would be waiving its usual nominal fee while a group of visiting American doctors were in place, and patients -- many with confirmed or suspected malaria -- had arrived in droves.

I asked Sawa about the DDT option. "It's the wrong approach, an act of desperation," he said, gesturing toward the clinic's densely packed waiting area. "Desperate times, desperate measures?" I offered. His answer was immediate: "Not when the measures make matters worse."

There you have it. Two Kenyan doctors, working in the same grievously malarial and medically underserved outpost, each with a very different take on the role DDT might play in reducing the burden of the disease.

The burden is profound. Globally, more than 500 million individuals are infected with malaria every year, of whom more than a million die, mostly babies and pregnant women. More than 90 percent of the deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where the most virulent form of the disease resides. Malaria is caused by a single-celled parasite -- Plasmodium -- which is transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. Of the four Plasmodium species that infect humans, P. falciparum, carried by the Anopheles gambiae mosquito, is by far the most lethal. This deadly duo has brought Mbita, and regions like it throughout vast swaths of Africa, to their knees.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: africa, ddt, malaria

Freelance writer Kim Larsen's work examines the intersection of culture, conservation and national identity. Her last piece for OnEarth reported on the bushmeat crisis in Congo.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
In areas in which DDT resistant mosquitos dominate...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 1, 2008 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...then, well, of course they are right.

Unless you value human life as less important than the potential impact to fowl.

Fact: DDT saves the lives of the most vulnerable of homo sapiens.

Personally, I think nets would be better, but until you can identify a country that can buy nets for all its citizens cheaper than easily synthesized DDT, you're braying at the moon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Help with nets Posted by: jmooney
» RE: OH Good! Posted by: donl51
IVM and Botanical options
Posted by: margo1 on Feb 1, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Success in controlling insect populations requires a multi-pronged approach that the IVM program is attempting to accomplish. Reduction of breeding sites,larvacides, sanitation, exclusion, nets and finally, pesticides. Education for the population and funding are big obstacles to put these programs in place. It is good to see NGO's stepping up and trying to help. Pesticides are a quick fix and they can not be successful unless the IVM approach is followed. The big chemical manufacturers who many of them also work in the drug trade would love to see drugs and pesticides as the leading approach to the problem for obvious reasons.
EcoSMART Technologies has created an effective mosquito pesticide that not only kills adult mosquitoes, it also acts as a short term repellent. It is comprised of essential oils that are food grade making them exempt from EPA registration. The product targets a receptor in the insect called octopamine that controls many of the functions in the insects nervous system. By shutting down this receptor the insect will die immediately. Mammals, fish and birds do not have receptors for octopamine, thus it is safe to use around people and water where fish are present. Field studies in the US have been conducted and the product is being used commercially in this country. In addition, resistance to this product is not an issue and many of the products have worked in controlling resistant strains of insects. The big chemical manufacturers have taken note of this technology and are attempting to lobby the Government of the US to force the product to go through registration despite the fact that it has met all the requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act and meets the requirements of Minimum Risk Categories. I work for EcoSMART, so I have an interest in this fight. You could say that I would benefit from the introduction of this product into the world wide mosquito market, and that might be true. However, my passion for our products goes beyond any financial gain. We do not need to go back to DDT to fight mosquito problems. We need to encourage R&D to come up with safer, effective products, improve education, support foundations that are doing good works and demand that the big chemical and drug companies stop suppressing new technologies and put that energy into being good corporate citizens and stewards of the environment. After all that, put pressure on those governments that are trying to benefit from incoming resources at the expense of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mosquito netting - who's got money for that?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 1, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, we're better off drenching lakes and rivers with insecticides than we are building houses that are mosquito-proof.

How about new medications and treatments to fight malaria? Why do that? Poor people can't afford to buy drugs (or mosquito netting).

No, we need to give subsidies to DuPont as part of a "foreign aid" package so that they can sell a bunch of DDT to corrupt Third World dictators - which will benefit everyone.

What other options are there?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Social reform not DDT
Posted by: zipoka on Feb 1, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alleviating poverty in malaria zones would alleviate the malaria. To use DDT is to destroy the village to save it. DDT causes cancer and birth defects, and poisons the wildlife that it touches, with ripple effects through the chain of biodiversity. The alleviation of poverty with region-compatible agriculture and jobs would allow people to build proper houses with screened windows, and have a few guinea fowl (who love to eat mosquitos), get better medical care with early identification and treatment of malaria symptoms, get educated about mosquito control in the home. We can't just spray poison on everything. An ecosystem is complex and sacred. A 400 million dollar contract to spray DDT is profits for Monsanto. Economic well being is a better future for people in troubled areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Social reform not DDT Posted by: Livemike
think hard and fast
Posted by: the man with a dog on Feb 1, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DDT,is a chlorinated hydrocarbon that never breaks down.However it is used it will never break down.Be it used as crop or insect spray it will filter itself into the food chain through drink or consumation. Eventually it enters the human body and the liver and kidneys retain the hydrocarbons and lives are shortened. A great deal of discussion must be undertaken before the final decision is made. Human lives are at stake and can be ended naturally or by human intervention

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: think hard and fast Posted by: Scott
» RE: think hard and fast Posted by: margo1
» RE: think hard and fast Posted by: iwilker
» RE: Ironically Posted by: nightgaunt
Destroy the environment and the result is another sickness
Posted by: pete ess on Feb 1, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will we learn that we cannot "destroy to fix"? This is seen as "progress":
"The British owners could not have turned a profit with a sick and dying labor force, so they cleared vegetation, drained swamps, screened houses, and distributed bed nets and quinine. Within a few years malaria had ceased to threaten the economic stability of the enterprise."
Clearing precious vegetation and draining precious wetlands (called "swamps" so no-one will protest their destruction) leads to long-term destruction anyway!
The question is even more vexed than our tiny minds can come to grips with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DDT=closer than you think
Posted by: grethart on Feb 1, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DDT is used in agricultural areas of our neighbor, Mexico. Having spent two years in the agricultural area of the Baja Mexico, working with the poor, ag. workers, and their children, I saw the horrible affects of the use of DDT through crop dusting......skin lesions and loss of skin, respiratory illnesses, deaths, great percentage of birth defects....AND this produce is sold and shipped to the U.S......hope you are all washing your food well before consumption !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Is this conjecture . . . Posted by: pete ess
» RE: Is this conjecture . . . Posted by: grethart
Absurd argument (unless you profit from DDT)
Posted by: heid on Feb 1, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that using DDT to get rid of malaria is absurd if you simply think it through.

There are many natural predators of mosquitoes - birds, dragonflies, fish, and bats. DDT kills not only mosquitoes, but also their predators. The result of using DDT is resistant mosquitoes and the elimination of their predators - ultimately, more mosquitoes. And this doesn't touch on the health effects on humans, including chronic harm to the nervous system, liver, and kidneys. There is also evidence of reproductive harm, teratogenic effects (birth defects), and cancer. All of these effects last long into the future.

Use of DDT may have short term benefit in limiting one disease, but over the long run, it destroys the environment and does permanent harm to the health of not only the current generation, but those who aren't yet born. Unless that is factored in, no discussion about whether DDT should be used to prevent one disease is relevant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DDT Propaganda
Posted by: DDTConference on Feb 1, 2008 6:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The campaign to discredit restrictions on DDT is a classic case of revisionist history. One pesticide expert I know compared it to holocaust denial. To addess this issue, on March 14, 2008, there is the International DDT Conference at Alma College, Alma, MI. For more information go to www.alma.edu/academics/DDT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rachel Carson Haters Posted by: lessbread
The Best Thing to do is mostly NOTHING!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Feb 2, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let the children die. By unleashing DDT in the environment, hundreds of millions more will be adversely affected, not only there but globally as well. And the power the chemical companies will accumulate as a result of sales of these poisons will negatively empower them even more.

Yes, some events must allow to pass. This may sound cruel and inhuman but since when is Mother Nature always kind and benevolent?

And if we want to do something beneficial, we can reintroduce serious population control methods into the third world: abortion-on-demand, contraceptions, and education must be freely available to the masses and with no strings attached.

Let the children die. For all our sakes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Humans Are NOT Better Or More Important
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Feb 2, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the posters here have it right. But to the rest, I say this: even in your highly biased (toward humans) science, there is not only no evidence that humans are better or more important than any other species, including mosquitoes, but in fact the opposite is true: modern humans are completely useless ecologically, because we have completely removed ourselves from the food chain except as unnaturally destructive forces (for example, we destroy natural areas with "developments").

Therefore, all pesticides, including DDT, should be banned, regardless of any perceived benefits to humans. It is thoroughly disgusting that anyone who calls him- or herself an environmentalist would even consider supporting use of DDT or any pesticide for any reason. Mosquitoes have just as much a right to live as humans, as do the birds that need to eat them and as do the plants, animals, air, land, and water that all suffer from use of DDT and other unnatural pesticides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Posters missed the biggest argument against DDT
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Feb 3, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It only works in the short term. Virtually every target insect that has been attacked on a large scale with DDT has developed a genetic immunity to it. So why not mosquitoes?

Mutation and natural selection works marvels with large populations of rapidly breeding organisms. All it takes is one insect in a million to develop DDT immunity and the power of DDT crashes. Then what do we do? At least now we still have the ammunition to strike back if the problem becomes really serious. Follow the lead of the science illiterates and we'll lose even that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Girls Exposed To DDT Have 5X Breast Cancer Risk In Adulthood
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Feb 3, 2008 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
according to new study :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
story/2007/10/08/ST2007100800983.html

Again, "nature vs humans" proves to be a false dichotomy: insect poison = people poison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Best Defense is a Well Nourished T-Cell!!!
Posted by: drjasonmd on Feb 4, 2008 10:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Anopheles mosquito is hands down the greatest killer of homo sapiens that ever roamed the earth. While our natural inclination is to seek out and destroy that which "bugs" us (pun intended), any attempts at eliminating this prehistoric vector will only lead to wasted resources and heartier mosquitoes. I mean really, they are found on both sides of the K-T boundary! If you make a better mosquito trap, a better mosquito will escape and have millions of babies. This bug has been with us so long that it has affected our genome!

The problem with eradication campaigns is that they ignore the true underlying problem. Africa (and tropical regions all along the equator) is suffering from massive malnutrition. Millions of debilitated homo sapiens make for an ideal reservoir for the plasmodium parasite; it's like an all you can eat buffet for microscopic critters. Add lack of clean drinking water, pervasive HIV infection rates, dysfunctional migration, and seemingly endless wars to the mix and you're too weak to even swat at the mosquitoes.

Reducing the overall parasite load, including the plasmodium variants, in homo sapien populations is the best way to reduce the effects of the disease. Simple access to clean drinking water will go a long way in reducing the load that tropical immune systems have to carry. Access to three square meals a day would do most of the rest. Mosquitoes replicate too fast for head-on combat, and plasmodium parasites multiply even faster. The best solution for malaria, like staphylococcus and the myriad other organisms we carry around with us, is peaceful coexistence.


"I'm not an internet doctor, but I do play one in real life."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DDT: Been There, Done That....
Posted by: stina723 on Feb 5, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't we already sprayed DDT, realized the ill effects on people, environment weren't worth it and banned it? Why isn't anyone asking "Hey we've already done this. There is never one solution to a problem, let's find something that isn't toxic and works. In the 30+ years since DDT was banned in the US, you would think that someone somewhere would have developed another solution. Nope, DDT is still being exported to other countries, it's just banned in the US....It seems like we keep running around in circles, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We, the human race, deserve whatever horrible fate we end up with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]