by Jennifer Jabri

Created on: April 11, 2010

There are numerous published studies regarding the negative environmental and health effects associated with DDT, so it would make sense to completely ban it, right? That was my first instinct until I researched this issue further. It is not such an easy question to answer and multiple issues must be taken into consideration. The costs and benefits of banning or keeping DDT must be weighed carefully.

It is easier for people in industrialized nations, where malaria is not a threat, to demand a complete ban on DDT. Of the over 350-500 million worldwide cases of malaria each year, only about 1500 of them occur in the United States (CDC, 2010a).

Of the over one million deaths caused by malaria each year, ninety percent of them are children in sub-Saharan Africa (CDC, 2010b; RBM, 2010b). In fact, it is the “2nd leading cause of death from infectious diseases in Africa, after HIV/AIDS” (CDC, 2010a, para. 2).

 It is the leading cause of under-five mortality in Africa (RBM, 2010). Severe malaria can kill children so quickly that “often, mothers cannot get their children to facility-based treatment in time” (Nelson & Williams, 2007, p. 1124). The impact of malaria does not end with high rates of morbidity and mortality, but there are economic and social costs as well.

I tend to lean toward the ruling of the Stockholm Convention (2008), which restricts the production and use of DDT solely for the purpose of indoor residual spraying (IRS) for vector control of mosquitoes that transmit malaria. The World Health Organization (2006) also supports the use of DDT for IRS.

While there are adverse health effects associated with widespread environmental usage of DDT, indoor residual spraying should not pose as great of a risk because it will be sprayed on the walls and surfaces of homes, versus sprayed on the land, and DDT is not easily absorbed through human skin (Szaflarski, Dean, Dean, & Simon, n.d.).

We know this because we used to think that it was harmless to humans as it was formerly applied directly to the body to control lice and there were no adverse effects noted (Szaflarski et al., n.d.). IRS must be applied before the peak transmission period, and there must be a high rate of coverage in order to protect the community (Heymann, 2008).

There are logistical issues that can be problematic with IRS, as teams of sprayers must go from community to community and do the IRS twice a year because the spraying is only effective for several

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>