What do you think - DDT or Malaria?

[Guest guest]

I came across this site in search for something else. It

had a number of interesting articles. Though this one was provocative -

while DDT is clearly a poison, could it's use save lives? I had no idea

so many people were being infected and dying of malaria.....Lynn

The Case for

DDT

By

Roger Bate Monday, November 5, 2007

Filed under:

Health &

Medicine, World

Watch

Activist groups should join together in support of an anti-malaria

insecticide that could save millions of lives, writes ROGER

BATE.

Malaria is as old as mankind and still going strong, infecting hundreds

of millions (and killing between one and three million) each year. A cure

was known in 17th-century Europe. But because it was brought to the

continent by Catholic missionaries (who actually learned of it from South

American natives), many malaria sufferers, included Oliver Cromwell,

thought the medicine was part of a “Popish plot” and refused to take it.

Cromwell died of the disease in 1658. It took his death, and the

subsequent curing of King Charles II, to shift public opinion in favor of

“quinine,” as the anti-malaria agent is now called.

A similar situation confronts us today. Mankind now has all the

scientific and economic tools to virtually eradicate malaria. But some

influential groups are refusing to sanction one of the most effective

prevention measures. Here’s the twist: in 17th-century Europe, those who

rejected quinine sacrificed their own lives. Today, those who block the

proven anti-malaria insecticide DDT are mainly condemning poor children

in Africa.

It is unfortunate that DDT has become so politicized. Indeed, it is now

associated with “right-wing” politics, largely because it has been

demonized by environmental activists on the left. Over the past few

years, malaria bureaucracies and aid agencies have been harried by

American conservatives to account for their reluctance to use DDT. At

more than one Senate hearing, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn has asked

why DDT was not being purchased with U.S. tax dollars, given its

demonstrated efficacy. Conservative talk-radio hosts, notably Rush

Limbaugh, have helped create a groundswell of support for DDT across the

country, which has prodded the Bush administration to change its

policies.

Mosquito control is a smallish market; but for those selling products in

it, DDT can create quite a crimp. The German pharmaceutical giant Bayer

was embarrassed a couple of years ago when The Financial Times reported

that it was arguing against the use of DDT while trying to sell

competitor products. At the time, Bayer actually had a representative

sitting on a United Nations anti-malaria committee. Still, its decision

to oppose DDT was consistent with corporate self-interest.

 

 

In 17th-century Europe, those who rejected quinine sacrificed their

own lives. Today, those who block DDT are mainly condemning poor children

in Africa.

Having attempted to raise funds for a pro-DDT campaign in the 1990s,

I can attest that most businesses simply were not interested. Even though

DDT had great potential for fighting malaria, not a single European or

American firm I contacted was interested in defending it. The typical

response from industry directors was something along the lines of, “We

have enough other battles,” or, “Yes, it’s harmless and shouldn’t have

been banned, but DDT is a lost cause.” After at least 100 separate

letters, emails, and phone calls, I quit trying to raise support from

industry. The only companies that seemed to have any interest were mining

firms operating in southern Africa, which had already deployed DDT to

save lives.

But over the past decade, a new pro-DDT campaign has gained momentum,

with the notable backing of conservative political commentators.

Left-wing activists often accuse the pro-DDT crowd of being corporate

shills for industry. Yet the only factories that still produce DDT are

government-owned shops in China and India. Western companies have no real

financial interest in the promotion of DDT. But to many people, industry

funding invariably calls research into question, regardless of the

topic.

Indeed, even attempting to solicit funding from industry can blemish

one’s reputation in the eyes of anti-corporate crusaders. Although I

thought it unlikely to succeed, I wrote a letter to the tobacco company

Philip Morris in 1998 requesting funding for my pro-DDT campaign. Today,

this letter is making the rounds on assorted left-wing blogs. To them, it

is the “smoking gun”­the root explanation of why conservatives have

embraced DDT­even though Philip Morris denied my request.

Though you wouldn’t know from the anti-DDT bloggers, Western tobacco

firms have consistently opposed DDT use. In their view, it threatens to

“contaminate” tobacco leaves (even though no tobacco products have ever

been denied importation because of DDT contamination). Tobacco companies

have rarely issued public statements on the matter; but when they have,

the statements have been anti-DDT. Despite these facts, the storyline of

tobacco money funding a right-wing pro-DDT campaign is just too good to

check.

Of course, support for DDT is hardly confined to the political right.

Ottawa University scientist Amir Attaran used to work for Ralph Nader.

Journalist Tina Rosenberg writes for The New York Times. They are both

enthusiastic champions of DDT. So is scientist Donald Roberts, who

recently won the prestigious Frank Brown Berry Prize in federal

healthcare for his research on malaria. None of these people can

objectively be called “right-wing.” Nor can the post-apartheid government

of South Africa, which has been another vital advocate of DDT

spraying.

The fact that the right has supported it does not suggest a conspiracy.

Using DDT should be a no-brainer. If they truly want to help fight

disease in developing countries, leftist advocacy groups in the United

States and Europe should support DDT. For whatever their politics,

anti-malaria activists are all working toward the same goal: saving

lives.

Roger Bate is a resident fellow at the

 

American Enterprise Institute. His “Health Policy Outlook” on DDT was

released today.

 

 

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-11-07/the-case-for-ddt

[Guest guest]

The Case for DDT

Thanks for sending the article. My husband should have died at a real young age if DDT was supposedly so bad for you.

In fact he mixed up the stuff to put in the sprayers -- and had the powder all over him -- but he is in his latter 60's - great health - (not on any pills) - no health problems at all

my husband views the DDT as making him stronger than the average guy

thea

 

 

___________Click for information on obtaining a VA loan.