Comments on: DDT vs. Malaria: The Lesser of Two Evils?

By: May Berenbaum

May Berenbaum — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:03:50 +0000

Thanks to all who commented on this complex and challenging issue. It’s amazing that, on the 70th anniversary of the discovery of its insecticidal properties in a laboratory in Switzerland, DDT continues to make headlines and create controversy. In closing, I’d just like to make the plea that parties on all sides of this issue remember to take advantage of seven decades of acquired knowledge about DDT’s strengths and weaknesses and make decisions based on data–not only with respect to DDT use in Africa for malaria but for pest management problems around the world.

By: Jerry Giambeluca

Jerry Giambeluca — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:02:48 +0000

I also worked in a DDT manufacturing plant in California called Montrose Chemical Co many years ago. At the time I worked there we were told there was a government study going on at the plant to see if DDT was preventing cancer.
In later years, I read all the stories in the news that DDT was a cause of cancer, how it hurt birds and fish, etc. I assumed that the study the company originally told us was a cover story, to protect themselves and confuse the workers.
For many years I worried that I would surely come down with cancer, or some giant goiter, or some other gruesome defect.
Well, I’m now 70 years old, have no bad effects, and I’ve found out the original study the company told us about was actually done by the government and the study found that no-one who worked there had gotten cancer in at least 20 years. That’s quite an amazing result for a known carcinogen.

By: Paul Saoke

Paul Saoke — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:52:36 +0000

Karl,
It is important to note that the WHO’s international Program on Chemical safely (IPCS) has been reviewing new evidence of DDT toxicity but has kept its release postponed since 2006 to date. Weare not even sure that it will see the light of day. Secondly the landmark Pine river statement should be a popinter of what to expect from the IPCS review. You are right karl that the issue is not DDT versus malaria. People die from malaria because they do not get treated from it.

By: Paul Saoke

Paul Saoke — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:42:16 +0000

Kwabena is not knowlegeable on the matter and talks about kenyan doctors who have done research on the matter. I am a Kenya and have stayed with the issue since 1998 and have never seen any publication by a Kenyan that he could be referring to. There are studies which only documented the DDT chemical body burdens (For example Kahunyo et al. in the East African medical Journal studied organo-chlorine pesticieds in chicken eggs, Leiticia Kanja – another Kenyan studied the dDT concentration in human breast milk in Kenya way down in 1986. I do not think that it is fair to evoke emotions of Africans versus the rest of the world. What i know is that Americans are at the fore front of championing DDT use in Africa and that fit within the neo-conservtive ideology which has changed now even though there are still hangovers. I see elsewhere people quoteing concocted statistics about African children dying every second – basically hperbolic statements that do not have scientific basis. People sjould realize that the people who coined these statements were funded by corporations and we have evidence to that extent. Malaria in Africa is over estimated and misdiagnosed. A recent journal article of research conducted in Kampala uganda indicates that anybiody who presents with fever is treated for malaria – presumptive treatment which in itself poses serious problems. I know many South African scientists who have published on the health effects of DDT. Prof Christian De, Jager and Prof Rianna Bornman have published extensively in peer reviewed journals yet their works are not highlighted since they do not take any political angles. Kwabena do you listen to only Africans or humanity is the same regardles of colour?

By: Paul Saoke

Paul Saoke — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:22:37 +0000

Dear May,
The practical experience with DDTspraying in Africs is that the chemical is widely abused in countries like Ethiopia where farmers use it in Agriculture. We have also seen the buse in Uganda where spray teams dump remains of DDT in ant hills.

By: May Berenbaum

May Berenbaum — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:20:55 +0000

I believe that Maureen Coetzee is South African;; she has been working in South Africa since 1969 and she earned her master’s and PhD degree from University of the Witwatersrand. She currently holds the National Research Foundation Chair in Medical Entomology and Vector Control, Division of Virology and Communicable Disease Surveillance, University of the Witwatersrand is also affiliated with the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD), Johannesburg, Private Bag X4, Sandringham 2131, South Africa
http://web.wits.ac.za/NewsRoom/NewsItems/COETZEEINUAGURALLECTURE.htm

By: Kwabena Sarfo

Kwabena Sarfo — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:07:35 +0000

none of those mentioned is an african. listen research by Kenyan doctors who are Africans and speak for Africans. DDT has no effects on human and should be allowed to be used! period! You cannot tell me birds are important than humans.Stop western government from playing fiddle with policies. United States allow Africa to use DDT to some extent and then collude with EU to ban exports from countries that are using it.
The ‘poor’ African nation has no other means than to stop using DDT so it products will be accepted on EU or US market. If not, then their economy will collapse and the evil effects of poverty spread through out their region.

By: Ellady Muyambi (Uganda)

Ellady Muyambi (Uganda) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:23:41 +0000

Dear David and May,
As indicated in my separate e-mail to David, I work for the Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control (UNETMAC) as the Secretary General. UNETMAC is a registered non- for profit, non- governmental organization and an umbrella organization which co-ordinates, supports and builds capacity for its partner organizations to engage in malaria control initiatives without using dangerous toxic substances. As regards to previous comment to May Berenbaum, it’s unfortunate if I mistook her for supposedly supporting DDT IRS in Malaria control programmes. I have read some of her publications and am now clear of her position. I just wanted to clear the glitch that DDT in Uganda is opposed due to economic gains. There is a compendium of issues why we are opposed to DDT. For instance, while DDT IRS was used in the formerly Kigezi district during the 1959-1963 in the area of Rwangaminyeto (Kihihi in the presently Kanungu district), it is vital to acknowledge the fact that the metabolites of DDT then used are still present in the bodies of the residents and other environmental specimens in the said areas and even in areas such as Nyarusiza in Kisoro district where DDT was not used and that these residents are suffering from the negative health effects from DDT exposure. This is well indicated in unpublished study done in 2006 by G. S. Bimenya et al, the head of Pathology Dept. Faculty of Medicine, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7072 Kampala.

By: May Berenbaum

May Berenbaum — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:40:04 +0000

?! Well, this is the first time I’ve ever been accused of being a DDT-lover! One reason that I was a little reluctant at first to participate in this program is that I’m actually NOT involved in malaria management–my only experience in Africa to date was attending the International Congress of Entomology in Durban last summer. So I’m not a malaria expert and I have tremendous respect for the entomologists who are tackling this incredibly daunting problem.
As for my endeavoring to “promote the use of DDT indoor residual spraying (IRS) for malaria control especially in Uganda,” well, that statement is simply baffling. I agreed to become involved in this discussion because the opposition to DDT for IRS in Uganda clearly came from Ugandans for economic reasons (organic cotton), and not from developed-world environmentalists, a novel development in the history of DDT. I’m on record, actually, in a Washington Post editorial, stating that DDT use in Africa was not a particularly desirable option and in many circumstances shouldn’t even BE an option (e.g., where resistance has arisen or persisted). So not only do I not love DDT, I don’t even like it very much…
So, it’s not surprising that I agree with all of the points you’ve made. A high rate of malaria does not immediately translate into a need for DDT; lack of infrastructure and lack of funding for malaria control programs are crippling problems (infrastructure is in issue not just in Africa–when West Nile struck New York City, the city had all but abandoned its mosquito surveillance program, to its lasting detriment). Many of the voices calling (vociferously) for reflexive use of DDT absolutely do not spend a lot of time and effort documenting adverse impacts; I’ve written extensively about selection for behavioral resistance (e.g., exophily), which would render IRS far less effective (here in this forum, actually!). And no spray program, IRS, broadcast, any type, will work unless the human population is supportive of the program (witness the petitions filed in California to protest spraying of pheromones to control light brown apple moth).
In summary, then, I’m not at all certain how you got the idea that I’m advocating for DDT IRS; most actual DDT advocates consider me a pointy-headed treehugger. I have no cake at all in this discussion and I urge you to go back and read the posts here…

By: May Berenbaum

May Berenbaum — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:16:35 +0000

In response to the question as to how Americans can contribute to managing malaria, certainly supporting ongoing efforts on the ground in Africa (there are several nongovernmental organizations dedicated to obtaining, securing and maintaining insecticide-treated bednets, for example) but supporting research that can lead to novel environmentally sustainable approaches is also important (the Gates Foundation has been instrumental in this regard). Raising awareness is critical, too–because malaria isn’t an American problem, many people are completely unaware of its global impacts.

As for the claims that “birds, especially eagles, did well with DDT, ” I have to admit that’s news to me. There’s an extensive literature documenting declines of birds of prey that correlate with DDT use as well as laboratory studies that demonstrate adverse impacts of DDT on calcium metabolism in birds that contribute to eggshell thinning. I don’t know of any study showing that DDT is good for eagles..
.
In terms of West Nile, there’s no need here in the U.S. for DDT–as a wealthy nation we can afford to use equally effective insecticides that lack the nontarget adverse impacts of the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Moreover, the CDC advocates awareness and prevention–reducing the likelihood of getting bitten by mosquitoes with the use of repellents, timing of outdoor activity, and sourc reduction by eliminating breeding places also reduces the likelihood of infection.

Finally, bed bugs are back not because DDT use declined but rather because global trade increased, second-hand markets have expanded, bait-based cockroach control has become more popular, and possibly even because attributes of the biology of the bed bug may have changed that have led to an increase in abundance.
If anything, DDT is likely to be less effective against bed bugs than it was 60 years ago because of resistance problems (e.g., Karunaratn et al. 2007, Insecticide resistance in the tropical bedbug Cimex hemipterus Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 88, 102-107; AGEM, Ronaldo L. and WILLIAMS, Paul. Susceptibility tests of the bed-bug Cimex lectularius L. (Hemiptera, Cimicidae) to DDT in Belo Horizonte, MG (Brazil). Rev. Saúde Pública [online]. 1992, vol.26, n.2 [cited 2009-05-07], pp. 125-128. ISSN 0034-8910. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89101992000200009). In the U.S., pyrethroid resistance is widespread (Romero et al. 2007, ournal of Medical Entomology 44(2):175-178. 2007
doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2007)44[175:IRITBB]2.0.CO;2
nsecticide Resistance in the Bed Bug: A Factor in the Pest’s Sudden Resurgence?)

And, finally, thanks for your interest in this important issue!