Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

This is a sobering article. Along with others we have recently read, it 
points out that malaria kills many times more people than the recent 
tsunami did. But--somebody give me a reality check, please--I find myself 
wondering if such human catastrophes are not simply Nature protecting 
herself, a way that Gaia is creating a balance from the increasing 
destructiveness of its dominant species. I feel pretty certain that human 
overpopulation is the biggest threat to our planetary home. Yet, not one of 
us  could look a sick child in the face and not want to help in any way 
possible. But looking at the big picture, consider the outcome if all lives 
were saved. Am I losing my humanity?

It's Time to Spray DDT
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: January 8, 2005

If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka 
and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one 
step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

I'm thrilled that we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the 
relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. 
Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in 
the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are 
winning.

One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the 
mosquitoes against the world's poor - by opposing the use of DDT.

"It's a colossal tragedy," says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical 
public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "And 
it's embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies."

In the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, DDT was used to reduce malaria around 
the world, even eliminating it in places like Taiwan. But then the growing 
recognition of the harm DDT can cause in the environment - threatening the 
extinction of the bald eagle, for example - led DDT to be banned in the 
West and stigmatized worldwide. Ever since, malaria has been on the rise.

The poor countries that were able to keep malaria in check tend to be the 
same few that continued to use DDT, like Ecuador. Similarly, in Mexico, 
malaria rose and fell with the use of DDT. South Africa brought back DDT in 
2000, after a switch to other pesticides had led to a surge in malaria, and 
now the disease is under control again. The evidence is overwhelming: DDT 
saves lives.

But most Western aid agencies will not pay for anti-malarial programs that 
use DDT, and that pretty much ensures that DDT won't be used. Instead, the 
U.N. and Western donors encourage use of insecticide-treated bed nets and 
medicine to cure malaria.

Bed nets and medicines are critical tools in fighting malaria, but they're 
not enough. The existing anti-malaria strategy is an underfinanced failure, 
with malaria probably killing 2 million or 3 million people each year.

DDT doesn't work everywhere. It wasn't nearly as effective in West African 
savannah as it was in southern Africa, and it's hard to apply in remote 
villages. And some countries, like Vietnam, have managed to curb malaria 
without DDT.

But overall, one of the best ways to protect people is to spray the inside 
of a hut, about once a year, with DDT. This uses tiny amounts of DDT - 
450,000 people can be protected with the same amount that was applied in 
the 1960's to a single 1,000-acre American cotton farm.

Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950's as children played in 
the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. 
There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, 
but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.

I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard 
Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he could accept the use of DDT when 
necessary in anti-malaria programs.

"South Africa was right to use DDT," he said. "If the alternatives to DDT 
aren't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use 
it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and 
saved lots of lives."

At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: "If 
there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. 
Nobody's dogmatic about it."

So why do the U.N. and donor agencies, including the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, generally avoid financing DDT programs? The main 
obstacle seems to be bureaucratic caution and inertia. President Bush 
should cut through that and lead an effort to fight malaria using all 
necessary tools - including DDT.

One of my most exhilarating moments with my children came when we were 
backpacking together and spotted a bald eagle. It was a tragedy that we 
nearly allowed DDT to wipe out such magnificent birds, and we should 
continue to ban DDT in the U.S.

But it's also tragic that our squeamishness about DDT is killing more 
people in poor countries, year in and year out, than even a 
once-in-a-century tsunami.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/opinion/8kristof.html?oref=login