The History of DDT - Essay Example

DDT In 1962, just 14 years after Paul Hermann received the Noble prize for his discovery of the "high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods", author and environmentalist Rachel Carson alerted the American public to the irreversible chain of evil introduced by the notorious pesticide.1,2 How was such a looming environmental disaster allowed to work its way into the world food chain? Powerful social and cultural forces combined with the pragmatism of saving lives worked to propel DDT beyond the standard of the usual caution that accompanies most new chemicals or inventions. At the end of World War II the technological advancements that were a product of the war began to filter into the commercial economy. The growing demand for food brought about the need for chemicals to grow, preserve, and package food products as agriculture moved from the family farm and into large-scale operations. This era witnessed the introduction of DDT at a time when its long-term effects were unknown, and in 1950 the US House of Representatives opened hearings to investigate the use of chemicals and additives to food products.3 In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote her landmark book Silent Spring, which brought about public scrutiny in regards to the safety of the fertilizer, insecticide, and pesticide programs that were being used in domestic agriculture. Since that time the US has escalated their drive to monitor the use of chemicals in the food chain and have maintained a policy of the evaluation and licensing the use of hazardous chemicals with the goal of creating safer consumer products. While this policy has brought thousands of products under the scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DDT was one of the first and most visible victims of this program. During the 1950s the World Health Organization (WHO) pursued a policy of widespread use of DDT in Asia, Latin America, and Africa in an effort to eliminate the mosquitoes that transmitted the deadly disease of malaria. By 1971 the WHO estimated that as many as 1 billion people had been freed from the risk on contracting malaria.4 However, there were dangers lurking in the shadows of this success. Because there was a chance of the insects building up a resistance to DDT over time, it was necessary to spray the infected areas on a regular and diligent schedule. In addition, the WHO failed to account for several variables that worked against the program. Local bureaucratic governments failed to spray regularly, infected individuals imported the disease, and interest in the program was waning in the Western nations where malaria had been wiped out.5 By the late 1970s malaria borne mosquitoes had become immune from DDT due to irregular spraying, and the ill effects on the human population had become more widely publicized. According to Watts, the Green Movement launched "a massive campaign against all further use of DDT for any purpose anywhere in the world", and protested the enormous effects of science on nature.6 The 1970s also ushered in the creation of the EPA, which began a concerted effort on the part of government to protect the environment and limit the ill health effects on humans from man made chemicals. While the United States was able to ban the use of DDT for any purpose in 1972, critics contended that the lives saved from malaria and typhus outweighed the risk in some parts of the world. During the previous 25 years, approximately 675,000 tons had been applied in the United States reaching a peak in 1959 when nearly 80 million pounds were applied, and by the time of the ban the use had declined to approximately 13 million pounds used primarily on cotton.7 Insecticides have historically been used on cotton more than any other US crop, and the excessive use of DDT on cotton had resulted in pest management problems due to the resistance built up in the target pests.8 The declining effectiveness of DDT had become apparent in the United States as well as the rest of the world. However, the United States opted for a complete ban (except for emergency use), while the areas still burdened by malaria and typhus continued to apply the hazardous chemical. The political influence of the United States and the pressure to discontinue funding for global agricultural programs that used DDT has discouraged its use in most parts of the world, and no industrialized nation still uses it.9 The problems posed by DDT have become global in scope. The most serious and direct threat to health is the possibility of it causing damage to the nervous system and its persistence in nature.10 It has the ability to travel in the air or through the water supply and has migrated in significant quantities to the Arctic, even though the chemical has never been used there.11 In 1998, Arctic women, "already have concentrations of DDT and other persistent pollutants in their breast milk and umbilical cord blood far in excess of recommended safe levels".12 The global concern for the use of DDT culminated in the 2000 convention held in Stockholm, where 120 countries and environmental groups adopted a global treaty that would lead to the eventual outlawing of DDT.13 This treaty was agreed upon in principle, but required ratification by several member states. While the goals of the treaty were widely accepted as a positive step towards a cleaner and safer environment, the agreement would meet considerable resistance when its implementation in developing tropical nations became impractical. The nations with the political and financial power did not require DDT, while the poorest nations depended on it to keep malaria in check. By 2005 it had become apparent to the UN, and the nations that provided the financial support, that the total ban on DDT was not a realistic goal. There has been continued economic pressure on the nations using DDT, as they risk sanctions against exporting agricultural products that contain the chemical. Though DDT is permitted in emergency situations for malaria control, it often ends up on the black market and applied to agricultural fields to control other pests.14 This has prompted the industrialized nations to maintain a hard line against DDT. In a 2005 meeting of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) it was reported that, "While accepting the continued need for the use of DDT in some developing countries, the EU stressed that the long-term aim of the Stockholm Convention is to eliminate its production and use and suggested that there be a review of the evaluation of the continued need for DDT".15 The controversy surrounding DDT continues as nations grapple with the costs and benefits associated with the risk posed to human health and the desire to control the malaria mosquito. DDT poses a serious risk to health and in the 1960s the effects began to appear in fish, birds, and wildlife. The ban in the United States reduced the risk to human health, but in other developing countries the use has continued and DDT has worked its way into the human food chain. The chemical is believed to cause cancer in humans, but this has been refuted by recent research and continues to be a point of controversy.16 In addition, the risk of malaria may be greater than the threat posed to the population by DDT. Belize discontinued its use in 1992 and by 1996 the rates of malaria had soared to the highest levels in history, infecting 1 in every 20 people.17 The threat posed to the worlds food supply and the requirements of the tropical nations that rely on DDT have prompted the United Nations to begin to regulate the use of DDT and search for a safer alternative. However, most of the affected countries do not have the legal framework required to control or regulate the chemical, and they are often the poorest nations that do not have the financial resources required to fulfill the UN requirements.18 The convention has for now agreed to allow the use of DDT for emergency situations and tightly control the delicate balance between DDT contamination and the risk of malaria. In conclusion, the promise that DDT held for the world in 1948 has come as a mixed blessing. While it has been a significant advantage in the war against malaria epidemics, it has come at the cost of a risk to human and animal life. The chemical drew world attention when Carson published her book highlighting DDT in 1962, and within a decade it was banned from use in the US. However, tropical nations that are heavily infested with malaria still depend on DDT as the only practical solution. Most of these countries are ill equipped to monitor, regulate, or find an alternative for the hazardous chemical. The UN continues to offer hope and has agreed to a limited use, while they wait in hopes of finding a suitable, and safer, substitute. Bibliography Boyce, Neil. "Focus: A Necessary Evil." New Scientist, 7 February 1998. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721202.700-focus--a-necessary-evil--banning-ddt-might-seem-like-a-good-ideain-the-north-but-there-is-no-more-effective-weapon-for-fighting-malaria-in-thetropics (accessed 30 October 2008). Dept. of Health and Human Services. "Malaria Nobel Prizes." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/features/index_20041220.htm (accessed 30 October 2008). Editors of Salem Press, Landmarks in Modern American Business. Pasadena, Cal.: Salem Press, 2000. International Institute for Sustainable Development. "POPS COP-1 Highlights: Monday 2 May 2005." Earth Negotiations Bulletin. http://www.iisd.ca/vol15/enb15113e.html (accessed 31 October 2008). Martin, Ashley K. "The Regulation of DDT: A Choice Between Evils." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 41 (2008): pp.677-704. Nash, Gary B., Julie R. Jeffrey, John H. Howe, Peter J. Frederick, Allen F. Davis, and Allan M. Winkler. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society. 6th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. Timbrell, John A. The Poison Paradox: Chemicals As Friends and Foes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. United States EPA. "DDT Ban Takes Effect." EPA History. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm (accessed 30 October 2008). United States EPA. "DDT: A Review of Scientific and Economic Aspects of the Decision to Ban Its Use as a Pesticide." EPA History. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/DDT.pdf (accessed 30 October 2008). Watts, S J. Disease and Medicine in World. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge, 2003. "World Review: United Nations." Greener Management International 34 (2001): 19-24. Read More