This compilation of articles highlights the debate over DDT during and immediately following negotiation of the Stockholm Convention. The Stockholm Convention, an international treaty targeting persistent organic pollutants for global phaseout, allows short term use of DDT for malaria control while countries are shifting to safer alternatives. The treaty specifically calls on the international community to mobilize resources to support effective malaria control programs while reducing reliance on DDT.
1. Malaria Control and Public Health (2004)
2. DDT is still needed for disease control. (2002)DDT’s future under the Stockholm Convention.
3. Malaria, Mosquitoes, and DDT: A toxic war against a global disease. (2002)
4. Politically Incorrect U.N. (2001) Alternatives to DDT can control malaria.
5. The Mosquito Killer: Millions of people owe their lives to Fred Soper - Why isn’t he a hero? (2001)
6. DDT Risk Assessments. (2001) DDT Risk Assessments: Response
7. In praise of DDT. (2001)
8. DDT saves lives. (2000) We can all win.
9. Doctoring malaria, badly: The global campaign to ban DDT. (2000) Commentary: Reduction and elimination of DDT should proceed slowly.
10. DDT house spraying and re-emerging malaria. (2000) How toxic is DDT?
11. Balancing risks on the backs of the poor. (2000)
12. The case for DDT: What do you do when a dreaded environmental pollutant saves lives? (2000)
13. Should DDT be banned by international treaty? (2000)
14. DDT and the global threat of reemerging malaria. (1999) Balancing risks of DDT and malaria in the global POPs treaty. (2000)
1) Roberts, D., C. Curtis, R. Tren, et al. Malaria Control and Public Health . Emerging Infectious Diseases [letter]. 2004; 10(6): 1170-1.
Response: Chen, A., and W. J. Rogan. Malaria Control and Public Health . Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2004; 10(6): 1172.
Available Online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no6/03-0787_03-1116.htm
PANNA Summary: Roberts et al. refute the arguments Chen and Rogan made in their article “Nonmalarial infant death and DDT use for malaria control,” published in 2003. Roberts et al. claim that Chen and Rogan’s conclusions require “substantial evidence of a causal relationship between DDT and adverse consequences of DDT [indoor residue spraying] for malaria control,” and that no adverse effects on maternal health or infant survival are attributable to DDT. They assert that DDT spraying is still the cheapest, most effective malaria control method. (Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda , Maryland ; droberts@usuhs.mil.)
In response, Chen and Rogan admit that causality has not been demonstrated between DDT and shortened lactation or preterm birth, but claim “the evidence is sufficiently strong that the possibility of causality cannot be dismissed.” They insist that we should proceed with caution regarding the use of DDT because its safety has not been “demonstrated absolutely.” (Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( niehs ), Research Triangle Park , North Carolina ; rogan@niehs.nih.gov .)
(no abstracts available)
2) Roberts, D. R. DDT is still needed for disease control. Pesticide Safety News. V. 5, No. 4, 1st trimester 2002. http://www.icps.it/english/bollettino/psn02/05020401.htm
Liroff, R. DDT’s future under the Stockholm Convention. Pesticide Safety News. V. 5, No. 4, 1st trimester 2002. http://www.icps.it/english/bollettino/psn02/05020402.htm
PANNA summary: The closing remarks of two authors after an extended debate in this publication.
Roberts argues that DDT use should not be eliminated under the Stockholm Convention, and its additional reduction should not be a goal. Agricultural use, the main source of DDT that has built up in the environment, has already been eliminated by most nations and is banned under the Stockholm Convention. DDT levels in the environment are already falling and will continue to fall once it is banned for agricultural use worldwide. So, the much less harmful public health uses of DDT should be allowed to continue uninhibited.
Liroff summarizes findings on DDT’s health and environmental impacts since Stockholm treaty negotiations began in 1998, and also indicates successes with alternatives to DDT in Latin American countries. He points out that access to DDT will not be denied outright, and that countries still using it for malaria control will be allowed to continue doing so. However, he argues that the over-arching goal should be a reduction of reliance on DDT and other pesticides for any and all uses, and so efforts should be made toward the development and implementation of less harmful and more integrated alternative approaches to malaria control.
(no abstract available)
3) McGinn, Anne Platt. Malaria, Mosquitoes, and DDT: A toxic war against a global disease. WorldWatch. May/June 2002, pp.16., http://www.worldwatch.org/mag/2002/15-03.html
PANNA summary: A well-balanced article, interesting for its current statistics on the prevalence of malaria worldwide and comparisons with other diseases of global concern like AIDS. Briefly describes malaria—the history of the disease and its phases and symptoms. Includes comments on the Stockholm Convention and a list of the four guiding principles of WHO’s Roll Back Malaria program. McGinn concludes that there is no place for DDT in modern malaria control efforts—it’s simply obsolete, and half a century of experience has shown that there is little justification for its continued use.
(no abstract available)
4) Article: Politically Incorrect U.N. July 12, 2001. Review & Outlook, The Wall Street Journal. available at: http://www.junkscience.com/july01/wsj-UN.htm
Response: Liroff, Rich. Alternatives to DDT can control malaria. July 19, 2001. Letters to the Editor: The Wall Street Journal. Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., p. A23.
PANNA summary: The Wall Street Journal applauds the U.N for its "politically incorrect" stance in the report Making New Technologies Work for Human Development, which supports the use of DDT for malaria control (and criticizes environmental and public health groups concerned about genetically modified foods).
(no abstract available)
Full text of response: Your July 12 editorial "Politically Incorrect U.N." congratulates the U.N. for supporting use of DDT for malaria control. In so doing, the Journal is perpetuating the myth that environmentalists want DDT banned regardless of its usefulness in combating malaria. The World Wildlife Fund supports reduced reliance on DDT for malaria control primarily because of the hazards it poses to human health when it is sprayed indoors and the demonstrated success of alternative approaches. DDT contaminates food and mothers’ milk. Just this week, the British medical journal The Lancet reports that DDE — a breakdown product of DDT — is associated with pre-term deliveries and low birth weights. Mexico and Vietnam are among the countries that have successfully controlled malaria while eliminating DDT, showing the promise of alternative methods. The World Health Organization’s Roll Back Malaria program emphasizes use of bed nets treated with other chemicals. The new Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) — negotiated under U.N. auspices — provides for DDT’s continued use for malaria control, increased investments in and periodic evaluations of alternatives, and the ultimate elimination of DDT when countries are satisfied the alternatives are workable. WWF and the many other environmental and public health organizations who were observers at the treaty negotiations endorse this prudent approach. (Richard A. Liroff, Ph.D, Director, Alternatives to DDT Project, World Wildlife Fund,Washington)
5) Gladwell, Malcolm. The Mosquito Killer: Millions of people owe their lives to Fred Soper - Why isn’t he a hero? The New Yorker: Annals of Public Health. July 2, 2001. pp. 42-51.
PANNA summary: A rich historical piece that brings a unique perspective to the present debates, this article traces the history of DDT’s use for malaria control, with special attention to Fred Soper. Soper worked for the Rockefeller Foundation in the days before the WHO and UN. “With DDT as his weapon, Soper almost saved the world from one of its most lethal afflictions. Had he succeeded, we would not today be writing DDT’s obituary. We would view it in the same heroic light as penicillin and the polio vaccine.” Gladwell traces the history of Soper’s and DDT’s successes and failures, from the discovery of DDT’s miraculous insecticidal capability in the early forties, through the rise and fall of the global malaria eradication campaign of the sixties, which Soper led, to the post-Silent Spring environmentalists’ movement to limit and ban use of DDT.
(no abstract available)
6) Roberts, D.R. DDT Risk Assessments Environmental Health Perspectives, Correspondence. Volume 109, Number 7, July 2001. p. A 302-3.
Liroff, R. DDT Risk Assessments: Response. Environmental Health Perspectives, Correspondence. Volume 109, Number 7, July 2001. p. A 302-3.
PANNA summary: Roberts contends that environmentalists bent on eliminating DDT and its subsequent ban in many countries have caused the resurgence of diseases previously controlled by DDT, as well as diverted research attention and funds from the development of insecticidal methods of disease control into research on the adverse effects of DDT. Roberts in essence blames environmentalists for “spiraling increases in disease rates” he says are preventable by DDT.
Liroff points out that the language of the Stockholm treaty, while recognizing a total elimination of DDT as an end goal, provides for the slow phase-out of the insecticide for vector control. He counters Roberts’ claims by pointing to Roberts’ own history of staunch defense of DDT and downplay of the toxicological risks. Liroff concludes that while DDT is very effective, less risky alternatives should be sought out and used.
Full text: DDT Risk Assessments
Two recent articles in EHP (1,2) and the latest Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry toxicologic profile for DDT (3) make repeated references to DDT risks. These statements of risk, like so many others, are one-sided and give no consideration to colossal increases in diseases previously controlled with DDT. Behind disease statistics are grievous human tragedies, as with the case of a little girl who died of an infection that could have been prevented if her house had been sprayed with DDT. She lived in a village in the Andes and was 8 years old in 1998 when she died of bartonellosis. Bartonellosis was previously controlled through malaria housespray programs, but without DDT, the disease returned.
One-sided and narrowly focused risk assessments form the bedrock of anti-DDT advocacy (4,5), but advocacy for global elimination of DDT through United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) treaty negotiations failed (6). Countries can continue using DDT for disease control, and DDT is not listed for global elimination. This outcome was possible only through efforts of hundreds of scientists on behalf of hundreds of millions of people at risk of illness and death from malaria (7).
Environmental activists who still want DDT eliminated and who are surprised by the lack of cost-effective alternatives should understand that global vilification of DDT eliminated almost all research on public health insecticides. Lack of research support persists and contrasts sharply with the richness of funds for research on adverse health effects of DDT; 29 major projects are presently funded by the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) (3). The evidence of DDT efficacy in controlling diseases is irrefutable. In just 3 years, house spraying in Guyana reduced maternal and infant mortalities by 56% and 39%, respectively, and reduced malaria cases by 99% (8). Similar evidence from other geographic areas persuaded delegates to UNEP treaty negotiations that DDT is still needed. Yet, and in spite of all contrary evidence, the UN program to phase out DDT is unabated (9,10). The current “phase-out” program by the World Health Organization’s Roll Back Malaria initiative and the Global Environment Facility (Washington, DC) includes no publicized disease control performance standards and does not include appropriate on-site studies or tests to determine, under varying epidemiologic and environmental conditions, that DDT alternatives will provide adequate and sustained protection of rural populations.
After years of successful efforts, the modus operandi of DDT elimination remains the same: apply political and economic pressures, convince country politicians that DDT is not needed, pass laws banning its use, and let impoverished rural populations quietly suffer spiraling increases in disease rates (11,12). Even short-term commitments of funds for purchasing the more expensive and less effective DDT alternatives are a continuation of past practices: in the end, disease rates will increase. The Andean girl’s death is one of millions of preventable deaths that occurred as national and international regulations, trade barriers, international policies, and UN resolutions were applied to stop public health uses of DDT (13). With absolute certainty, the best measures of success in the anti-DDT campaign are increases in disease and death from malaria, leishmaniasis, bartonellosis, dengue fever, and dengue hemorrhagic fever. We can add to this list the renewed threat that urban yellow fever will once again ravage populations of the Americas. Even this emerging threat is linked to past failures to continue appropriate public health uses of DDT. The Andean girl’s unrecognized but precious stake in the DDT issue was her life, now lost. How many millions more must die because of hypothetical risks from minute quantities of DDT sprayed on internal house walls? (Donald R. Roberts, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, droberts@usuhs.mil)
Full Text: DDT Risk Assessments: Response
Donald Roberts contends that organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) failed in efforts to eliminate DDT under the recently negotiated persistent organic pollutants (POPs) treaty. To the contrary, the WWF strongly supports the treaty’s language on DDT. Throughout the negotiations, the WWF recognized that DDT should not be banned immediately and that uncertainties about the cost and effectiveness of alternatives required flexibility in treaty language (1,2). Reflecting this, the new treaty proclaims ultimate elimination of DDT as a goal while establishing a mechanism for reducing reliance on DDT and promoting alternatives (3). As a result of the treaty, new funds are being provided by the Global Environment Facility to develop malaria control programs that reduce use of DDT.
Roberts has been an outspoken defender of DDT. He has prolifically and passionately downplayed the toxicologic risks of DDT while emphasizing its effectiveness for malaria control (4–6). He frequently argues that external political pressures drive poorer nations to abandon DDT, thereby endangering millions of the world’s most impoverished people. Malaria-endemic countries have had ample scientific justification for seeking alternatives. For example, in the mid-1990s, Mexican public health researchers expressed concern about high human exposures to DDT as a result of malaria control operations (7,8).
Mexico has since eliminated DDT while successfully combating malaria. South Africa also sought to reduce use of DDT in the mid-1990s because of concern about elevated levels in mothers’ milk (9). One species of mosquito was resistant to alternative sprays, so South Africa resumed using DDT. South Africa concluded that the hazards from malaria outweigh those associated with DDT exposure.
South Africa’s experience underscores the importance of the flexibility provided by the POPs treaty. Brazil and India offer important lessons about limits to DDT’s effectiveness. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, malaria rates in Brazil went up even as spraying of houses with DDT increased, but dropped after Brazil shifted strategies (10). With assistance from the World Bank, India is reducing its reliance on DDT. The main rural malaria vector (responsible for 65% of India’s malaria) is resistant to DDT (11). Indian researchers found elevated levels of DDT in buffalo milk, soil, water, and human blood where DDT had been sprayed to control malaria (12,13).
The ATSDR’s 2000 update of its toxicologic profile for DDT/DDE (14) reflects major concerns raised by the WWF and other environmental and public health groups during the POPs negotiations. In contrast to the previous profile published in the early 1990s, the update contains a large section, “Health Effects in Wildlife Potentially Relevant to Human Health,” reminding readers that animals are sentinels for health effects in humans. A new section captioned “Children’s Susceptibility” reiterates a central message from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ landmark 1993 report on pesticides in the diets of infants and children (15): children are not little adults, but may be uniquely susceptible and exposed to pesticides. The data in the toxicologic profile support the logic of the POPs treaty: DDT can be valuable for controlling malaria, but it is prudent to reduce human exposures.
Recent studies on humans, too late to be included in the toxicologic profile, further support such caution. For example, Longnecker et al. (16) found that DDE concentrations in mothers are associated with increased risk of pre-term delivery and lowered birth weight. Roberts takes EHP’s contributors to task for their “one-sided” references to DDT’s risks and their failures to account for DDT’s benefits. Roberts’ encomium to DDT is itself one-sided. Why expose humans to hazards from DDT when less risky strategies might be employed? The POPs treaty encourages development of alternatives and provides a new funding mechanism to support malaria control. (Richard A. Liroff, Alternatives to DDT Project, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., Rich.Liroff@wwfus.org)
7) Attaran, A. In praise of DDT. Pesticide Outlook. June 2001; p. 83.
PANNA summary: The author "argues the case for the retention of DDT in the battle against malaria as the POPs Convention reaches the signing stage." He points to incidences in Africa and Asia where malaria was almost completely under control until the country started phasing out DDT, at which time there were huge rebounds in the numbers of malaria cases. It is, in his eyes, a case of pitting speculative though unproven health risks of DDT as a toxin against the definite health risks of malaria if DDT, the cheapest and still most effective solution, is not used.
(no abstract available)
8) Attaran, Amir. DDT saves lives. The Globe, Canada. December 5, 2000.
Watt-Cloutier, S.; R. Charlie, and J. Crump. We can all win. The Globe, Canada. December 11, 2000.
Attaran, PANNA summary: Attaran targets the Canadian government’s support of the Stockholm Convention on the eve of the Johannesburg meeting in December, 2000. The environmentalists, he says, are being naïve. DDT may kill birds, but it saves people. The amount of DDT used for malaria control has little or no environmental impact compared to the amounts that were being applied for agricultural uses in Rachel Carson’s day, so why make it harder and more expensive for "world’s poorest, most disease-ridden countries to obtain?" Attaran says calling on the precautionary principle in this instance is tantamount to "stepping into speeding traffic as a "precaution" against tripping on a crack in the sidewalk." He scolds the Chretien government for their strong support of global elimination of DDT.
Watt-Cloutier et al, Full Text:
Amir Attaran’s portrayal of Canada’s position on global management of chemicals (DDT Saves Lives – Dec. 5), currently being negotiated in Johannesburg, misrepresents what is going on.
Indigenous peoples from Northern Canada here in Johannesburg are replying not only to defend Canada but also to set the record straight. We do so because Mr. Attaran’s widely reported views sow mistrust between delegations from the developed and developing worlds, thus undermining the efforts of us all to achieve a global convention on 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including DDT.
Mr. Attaran says: "Not only is Environment Canada arguing in the Johannesburg treaty negotiations that DDT should be eliminated once and for all, it has also proposed that the treaty not include a financial aid mechanism to help poor countries finance the alternatives. Canada is alone among wealthy countries in advocating this parsimony. Such policies literally kill."
The government of Canada has pressed for a global POPs convention as have Northern indigenous peoples who have attended all five international negotiating sessions over the last two years. Many POPs used in tropical and temperate countries end up in the Arctic, contaminating the food web and subsequently Inuit and other indigenous peoples who eat traditional food.
When used to control malaria, DDT saves the lives of thousands of people every year. While phasing out the use of DDT is an objective of the international negotiations, nobody supports a ban that puts lives at risk. When this issue surfaced in negotiations in 1999, Canadian indigenous peoples said they would refuse to be party to an agreement that threatened the health of others, notwithstanding the threat of POPs to their own health.
The view of Northern indigenous peoples is also the fundamental position of all countries participating in the negotiations and all non-governmental organizations observing the debate. Any phase-out of DDT will be conditional upon the availability of cost-effective alternatives.
Mr. Attaran’s contention that Canada refuses to help finance the convention including development of alternatives to DDT is demonstrably untrue. The Minister of Finance announced $20 million in his February budget for exactly this purpose. Canada was the first nation to provide such support and is effectively advocating additional financial and technical assistance to developing countries and "economies in transition" (the old Soviet bloc).
A global POPs convention will not be finalized and ratified unless both developing and developed countries conclude that it helps them. There is no alternative to a "win-win" convention, notwithstanding Dr. Attaran’s view from Harvard University. (Sheila Watt-Cloutier, President, Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Canada), Robert Charlie, Council for Yukon First Nations, and John Crump, Executive Director, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee)
9) Attaran, A. and R. Maharaj. Doctoring malaria, badly: The global campaign to ban DDT. British Medical Journal. V 321, 2 December 2000.
Liroff, Rich. Commentary: Reduction and elimination of DDT should proceed slowly. British Medical Journal. V 321, 2 December 2000.
PANNA summary: Attaran and Maharaj argue that attempts to ban DDT are not only naïve, but unethical. DDT is the cheapest and the most effective method of vector control, and no other method has come close—integrated vector management is still being tested and has never been used successfully in a nation-wide program, and other insecticides are often more expensive, less effective, and run into problems of vector resistance. While DDT may be hazardous to human health, there have been no conclusive studies to that effect. The authors find the precautionary principle ridiculous in this instance—removing the best malaria-fighting chemical because it might be carcinogenic, and thereby allowing malaria to spread and take more lives hardly seems cautious. (Center for International Development, Harvard University: amir_attaran@harvard.edu, South Africa Department of Health, Communicable Disease Control)
Liroff’s response addresses the fears of a medical establishment that he feels is unreasonably frightened of the Stockholm Convention. The convention does not ban DDT outright, but provides for its continued use where necessary, and eventual phase out. Liroff cites the US National Academy of Sciences and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reports to the effect that DDT has adverse effects on the immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems, and that exposure to DDT at certain crucial stages of fetal and/or child development could lead to consequences later in life. While the global burden of malaria is a serious problem, especially on the poorest nations, some countries such as Mexico have had a great deal of success in moving to alternatives, and so it is not unreasonable to expect that a move away from DDT could not only protect human and environmental health but also improve the effectiveness of malaria control. The POPs convention needs to ensure that DDT is still available and affordable to countries that need it, and that supplies are tightly monitored so they cannot be used illegally for agriculture. (World Wildlife Fund, Alternatives to Malaria Project)
(no abstract available)
10) Roberts, D.R.; S. Manguin, and J. Mouchet. DDT house spraying and re-emerging malaria. Lancet 2000; 356: 330-332.
Smith, A. G. How toxic is DDT? Lancet, 22 July 2000. Commentary Volume 356, Number 9226.
PANNA summary: Roberts et.al. highlight the many accomplishments of DDT in malaria control over the last 55 years. A worldwide ban on DDT that would require malaria-endemic nations to reduce house spraying programs, and in turn lead to an increased malaria burden in those countries. Especially now as malaria is on the rise again and re-invading areas where it had previously been eradicated, the authors recommend that “the global response to burgeoning malaria rates should allow for DDT residual house spraying where it is known to be effective and necessary.”
In response to the Roberts, Manguin, and Mouchet article, Smith surveys studies of DDT’s effects on human health and notes that considering the great quantities of DDT that have been used and the depth that the chemical has been studied, relatively few incidences of adverse effects on humans have been found. However, “the perceived rather than the calculated risks from DDT use are an important consideration in maintaining public confidence.” For this reason, Smith advises that DDT use continue to be tightly controlled and effects closely monitored.
(no abstract available)
11) Attaran, A.; D.R. Roberts, C.F. Curtis, and W.L. Kilama. Balancing risks on the backs of the poor. Nature Medicine 2000 Jul; 6(7): 729-31. http://www.malaria.org/attarannaturemed.html
PANNA summary: Attaran, Roberts, et al are quite forceful in presenting their case as to why the Stockholm Convention and "First World Environmentalists" should not continue with their campaign to "reduce and/or eliminate" the use of DDT for malaria control. They argue that studies of the harmful effects of DDT on humans and the environment either are inconclusive, haven’t been replicated, or were due to large scale agricultural use of DDT in the past, while DDT’s effectiveness as a tool for malaria control is undeniable and backed by decades of experience. Environmentalists in industrialized countries have the luxury of placing environmental concerns above poverty alleviation, while developing countries do not have the same luxury. Malaria is one of the major factors keeping underdeveloped nations in poverty, and environmentalists’ attempts to take DDT, the most powerful and effective weapon in the arsenal, away from those nations for their own environmental concerns amounts to eco-imperialism.
Abstract: Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Attaran et al. explain that the scientific literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks. (Center for International Development, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachussetts 02138, USA amir_attaran@harvard.edu)
12) Raloff, Janet. The case for DDT: What do you do when a dreaded an environmental pollutant saves lives? Science News, Vol. 158, No. 1, July 1, 2000, p. 12. http://www.sciencenews.org/20000701/bob8.asp
PANNA summary: Raloff summarizes recent findings and arguments around the push to ban DDT, citing Roberts and Liroff, among others. She finds that arguments for continued use of DDT are very strong—although our eventual goal should be elimination, it would be disastrous to abandon DDT prematurely, and it should be brought back in areas where its decreased use has caused malaria infection rates to surge, especially in Latin America. It would, however, be unwise to rely on only one tool, and so many scientists advocate increased research into the development of new methods as well.
(no abstract available)
13) Curtis, C.F. and J.D. Lines. Should DDT be banned by international treaty? Parasitology Today 2000 Mar; 16(3): 119-21.
Abstract: The insecticide DDT has been an effective and affordable means of malaria control in many countries, but pressure for its use to be banned is mounting. Here, Chris Curtis and Jo Lines take a critical look at evidence that links house spraying by DDT with harm to the environment and human health, and stress the need for resources for alternatives to DDT to be made available to countries that would be affected by a DDT ban. (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK WC1E 7HT. chris.curtis@lshtm.ac.uk)
14) Roberts, D.R. DDT and the global threat of reemerging malaria. Pesticide Safety News, vol. 3 no. 4, December 1999. http://www.icps.it/english/bollettino/psn99/990404.htm
Liroff, R. Balancing risks of DDT and malaria in the global POPs treaty. Pesticide Safety News, vol 4, no 2, June 2000. http://www.icps.it/English/Bollettino/Index-boll.htm
PANNA summary: Roberts argues that DDT has not been convincingly linked to public health problems, and that pressure not to use DDT for malaria control are unwarranted and irresponsible. He challenges the use of Mexico as a model for controlling malaria without DDT, saying that "only time will tell" whether the alternative approaches adopted by the country will be successful in the long run. He highlights data from several countries in South America showing a link between falling DDT use and rising incidence of malaria.
Liroff responds to Roberts’ arguments with information on the current status of the international negotiations on POPs and the case for phasing out DDT. He identifies ways to strengthen malaria control programs, and h argues that the implementation of an effective integrated strategy of malaria control combined with DDT rollbacks would be a "win-win" situation.
(no abstract available)