The World Health Organization (WHO) has reversed a 30-year policy by endorsing the use of DDT for malaria control.
DDT has been banned globally for every use except fighting disease because of its environmental impacts and fears for human health.
A potent insecticide, DDT fell into disrepute with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring just over 40 years ago.
The book showed that widespread, indiscriminate use of DDT and related compounds was killing wildlife over vast tracts of North America and western Europe.
As it turned out, Carsen's Slient Spring was accused by many to be a fraud, but that did not stop banning the use of the chemical. Millions have paid the price with their lives.
The WHO is moving to do the right thing:
WHO says there is no health risk, and DDT should rank with bednets and drugs as a tool for combating malaria, which kills more than one million each year.
"The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment," said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.
Teams of sprayers typically visit endemic areas once a year, spraying the chemical on the inside walls of houses; mosquitoes landing there absorb it and die.
The key is that only residences are sprayed, not businesses or public spaces. Mosquitoes bite when the victim is asleep. As such, there is little reason to believe that DDT would make it into exports, in particular, into food exports. But that is what some people fear. Actually, they fear the hysteria that would follow:
A consortium of national exporters that include dealers in fish and agricultural exports have opposed the spraying of DDT, saying it would likely lead to the ban of Uganda's exports.
"The markets in developed countries where these exports are sold all have very strict guidelines on DDT and products contaminated by DDT. In most cases, any trace of DDT contamination would lead to immediate destruction and banning of the product. The impact on the economy would be devastating," said a statement from the group.
Simon Kaheru, the corporate responsibility manager of British American Tobacco Uganda, who read the statement of the 52-member group, said the environmental impact study on re-introduction and use of DDT for malaria vector control in Uganda does not answer several questions such as how DDT would enter the human food chain.
No one is interested in the answer to the question. Consider that 40% of Uganda's food exports, mostly fish, goes the European Union.
Is the EU likely to overreact? It's not even a question. The EU is already telling Uganda it plans to overreact:
If Uganda is to use DDT for malaria control, it is advisable to do so under strictly controlled circumstances. The country would also have to set up a parallel system to monitor foodstuffs for the presence of DDT. This would ensure that any contamination of foodstuffs is detected and corrective measures taken. However, these measures may not be sufficient to allay the fears of individual consumers of Uganda's food products in the EU. [emphasis added]
The EU would therefore urge Government to consider the wider implications of the use of DDT before a decision is taken.
Remember, DDT is not directly dangerous to humans:
There are no substantial scientific studies so far which prove that DDT is particularly toxic to humans or other primates, compared to other widely-used pesticides. DDT can be applied directly to clothes and used in soap, with no demonstrated ill effects. Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.
That is not to say it is good for you -- in large doses, it has deleterious effects (though one study had volunteers consume 35mg of DDT daily for two years, and they were fine). But the microtraces that might be detected in Ugandan fish as a result of transfer from the sprayed home of a fishworker are not dangerous.
So what is the basis for the EU reaction? Hysterics and nothing else. DDT was banned because of its ecological impact. Tiny traces of DDT in Ugandan food products (assuming there are any, and that is a huge assumption) simply cannot have an ecological impact in Europe. It won't have a direct impact on the health of the consumer. But the EU is predicting consumers will agitate to ban Ugandan imports, and the EU is not suggesting that it will try to educate the consumer.
So ignorant EU consumers are fearful. The environmental lobby will amplify those fears. The EU is fearful of the environmental lobby. Uganda is fearful of the actions that the EU will take because of those fears.
The only fear not being summed up here is a fear of the impact of malaria:
Malaria causes about 350-500 million infections in humans and approximately 1.3-3 million deaths annually - this represents at least one death every 30 seconds. The vast majority of cases occur in children under the age of 5 years, and pregnant women are also vulnerable. The death rate is expected to double in the next twenty years. Precise statistics are unknown because many cases occur in rural areas where people do not have access to hospitals and/or the means to afford health care. Consequently, many cases are undocumented.
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 85-90% of malaria fatalities, but it is also prevalent in northern South America and South and Southeast Asia.
The disease has been associated with major negative economic effects on regions where it is widespread. There has been demonstration of developmental impairments in children who have suffered episodes of severe malaria. A comparison of average per capita GDP in 1995, adjusted to give parity of purchasing power, between malarious and non-malarious countries demonstrate a five-fold difference (US$1,526 versus US$8,268). Moreover, in countries where malaria is common, average per capita GDP has risen (between 1965 and 1990) only 0.4% per year, compared to 2.4% per year in other countries. In its entirely, the economic impact of malaria has been estimated to cost Africa US$12 billion every year.
Symptoms of malaria include fever, shivering, arthralgia (joint pain), vomiting, anemia caused by hemolysis, hemoglobinuria, and convulsions. There may be the feeling of tingling in the skin, particularly with malaria caused by P. falciparum. Consequences of infection with malaria include coma and death if untreated-young children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable. Splenomegaly (enlarged spleen), severe headache, cerebral ischemia [blood supply restriction] and hemoglobinuria with renal failure may occur.
Of course, malaria never occurs in Europe, so who cares? But if today someone showed that DDT could prevent or treat HIV/AIDS, tomorrow every public fountain in Europe would be spraying the stuff.
