Inhofe on DDT

I haven't listened to the hearing yet, (certainly think it's odd to have a SciFi writer testifying) but was just looking through some early Africa Fighting Malaria articles before bed, and Donald Roberts struck me as familiar, I came back here and saw this post was where I had recently read the name.

Is this the same Donald Roberts you're referring to in your post?
[here](http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm)
[and](http://www.malaria.org/ddtlancet.html) ?

I haven't read them in their entirety yet, but noticed (from the second link) this prediction turned out being spot-on: (rather unfortunately)

"Because of these multiple factors, the GMCS or Roll Back Malaria initiative, as formulated, will not stop progression of the ongoing global resurgence of malaria."

Are Crichton's views any less significant than Greenpeace's views on gm food. suppose it's ok if 3rd world people starve and die of malaria. one way or another they'll just get screwed by the green lobbies anyway.

thank you for the heads up.

Due to circumstances beyond my control I can't access TL's link to the Senate hearing. Assume it's the same Donald Roberts in the Lancet and before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (2004). In both pieces Roberts reinforces the notion of the de-facto DDT ban.

It occurred to me that Crichton's novelistic warnings regarding the global warming hoax and the DDT ban holocaust are of a piece with his previous novelistic warnings of the imminent Japanese domination of the global economy and the scourge of sexual harassment of males by their female supervisors at work. The man's got quite a track record.

Have a beer - yes, it's reasonable to note the similarities between the right's misuse of science (their DDT screeds) and the left's (their GM foods screeds). One of the shortcomings of the typical analyses one finds of junk science is that they tend not to recognize the extent to which both sides of the political spectrum do this.

Dr. Roberts sounds as if he were a third-grader reading a book report.

Anyway, I'm not sure I understand his angle. He's surely aware that the agricultural ban was probably GOOD for vector control, and DDT continued to be used in a public-health context for years afterwards. So what is he talking about? Is he just trying to spread FUD about environmentalists? Does he honestly believe DDT is some sort of panacea, and that its relentless application could eradicate malaria?

John Fleck: I almost completely agree with your post with the exception of "right's misuse of science (their DDT screeds)"

I'm not much for political analysis, but I wouldn't categorize misuse of science with respect to DDT as being a political right side thing. It seems to me the biggest proponent of DDT use (with regards to the US EPA ban in '72, the Stockholm Conv. proposed ban, various worldwide restrictions, etc...) has always been the medical community.

Now, if you had used another example, say "right's misuse of science (their embryonic SC research restrictions, abortion issues or wrt climate research, etc...)" then we'd be in better agreement. Maybe an "Ask Prometheus" might be in order here, then again they seem to tend to focus on U.S. specific politics/policies.

J F Beck: I'll have to listen to the hearing then. (wish they had a transcript up)

DDT is a "right" issue because it is how they attack what they believe to be a sacred cow of the the environmental left, Rachel Carson. It's as simple as that.

>Pinko Punko:

Pinko Punko: Honestly, I could hardly care less about politics than I do now. If any particular biologist wrote any book that might have influenced anybody, and if said book might have influenced policy decisions, and if said policy decisions might have had any influence on policy decisions in other countries(or the influence that is readily available for any person that might be curious, wrt to the RBI initiative or WHO), and if those policy decisions happened to in fact not be able to get the job done wrt to those decisions, (as we see currently) then I ask you; who is to blame?

My only (meager) suggestion is to get the job done. I could care less about trying to blame a political faction, placing blame is no way to solve a problem. I just don't think that the problem in question can/or should be ignored.

In this case, the answer seems to be a bit unintuitive, but there are tools that should be more readily available, unfortunately, this doesn't happen to be the case. Again, I could care less about who is to blame for this, I care about ~200 million or so kids that are infected and crying. The political slants are really just BS, the science allows us to look into what can be done, yet...

it is NOT being done.

I should probably retract "crying" as I cannot provide evidence of this. Suffering would have been a better description. And 200 million is likely rather a low-ball estimate. Probably only accurate for kids 3 years old and under.

Cytochrome,

If I thought for one minute that there were unjustifiable restrictions on DDT use in countries affected by malaria (and by unjustifiable I mean unjustifiable in terms of threats to human health) which were contributing to the burden of malaria I'd be the first one screaming for their repeal.

But I don't think there are - restricting DDT to house spraying and bed-nets is the best way of avoiding the development of DDT resistance.

I agree more needs to be done but, as I've pointed out before, malaria was virtually wiped out in North America and Europe before DDT was ever used as an insecticide.

What is required to control malaria is a reasonable level of public health funding and a moderately effective government agency.

The West can and should help with the first - including helping with DDT programs where they're the most appropriate strategy - the developing world really has to take responsibility for the second requirement.

Ian: Thanks for your comment, I apologize for the the post you were responding to, IMO mine seemed to try to appeal to emotion too much, and I prefer to not 'cheat' my arguments that way. (although that might be a bit ridiculous in this case, as empathy was what attracted my interest to this topic)

"If I thought for one minute that there were unjustifiable restrictions on DDT use in countries affected by malaria (and by unjustifiable I mean unjustifiable in terms of threats to human health) which were contributing to the burden of malaria I'd be the first one screaming for their repeal."

EU (Ag. imports threats), WHO RBI, Ugandan govt, Ugandan Ministry of Health. (this situation is but one of many examples, yet I offer it since recent media attention has been given to it) Scream at will.

"I agree more needs to be done but, as I've pointed out before, malaria was virtually wiped out in North America and Europe before DDT was ever used as an insecticide."

This is not even wrong. I am honestly at a loss as to how you can conclude this. Try looking into the history of the US CDC and where it came from. [This] (http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/eradication_us.htm) might be a good start.

"The West can and should help with the first - including helping with DDT programs where they're the most appropriate strategy - the developing world really has to take responsibility for the second requirement."

I agree with your comments on the first, with the caveat that considering cost/effectiveness,
there are only a handful of regions where DDT isn't the most appropriate strategy. The evidence has been in plain sight for ~50 years.

As far as the second, if you take interest in the Uganda example I provided and read around a bit, I imagine you might see why I offer no agreement or rebuttal.

>This is not even wrong. I am honestly at a loss as to how you can conclude this.

Look further at the very site you reference.

Specifically, take a look at the sequence of maps showing areas where malaria was present.

By 1935 - 4 years before the insecticide effect of DDT was discovered - DDT was eliminated from most of Texas and Florida; the Tennessee Valley, the mid-west; and most of the Atlantic states north of Georgia.

This South African site states:

1940's US:

>Large-scale spraying with DDT of breeding areas in the US but probably contributed little to the final disappearance of malaria because competent vectors still remain. There are still occasional outbreaks of malaria in the US, associated with infected people coming back from malaria areas.

http://www.museums.org.za/bio/apicomplexa/history_of_malaria.htm

History of malaria in Spain:

At the turn of the 20th century, malaria was considered the biggest single health risk by the Spanish authorities, and an estimated 800,000 people had malaria in Spain , with some 4,000 dying every year. This concern led to the passing of the Cambó Law in 1918, which gave legal backing to the already strong trend of wetland drainage since the mid-19th century. The law was often ineffective as it allowed for wetlands to be converted into rice fields, though it was responsible for the destruction of much of Spain 's wetland surface area until its repeal in the early 1980's.

Along with drainage, one of the most effective controls was the release in 1921 of a fish called 'gambusia' or mosquitofish, incidentally probably now the most widespread freshwater fish in the world. This little fish is a voracious devourer of mosquito larva and rapidly took to Iberian waters. Improvements in housing, public health and sanitation, and a falling rural population all helped to cut back the parasite, though the Civil War meant a temporary halt to its retreat. Four years after it finished, in 1943, a final serious outbreak hit the country with 400,000 people affected and 1,250 deaths, but by the end of the forties it had been effectively controlled and restricted to a few pockets, with the use of DDT from 1947 onwards delivering the coup de grace .

http://www.iberianature.com/material/malaria.html

From the Wikipedia article on malaria:

Efforts to eradicate malaria by eliminating mosquitos have been successful in some areas. Malaria was once common in the United States and southern Europe, but the draining of wetland breeding grounds and better sanitation, in conjunction with the monitoring and treatment of infected humans, eliminated it from affluent regions. Malaria was eliminated from the northern parts of the USA in the early twentieth century, and the use of the pesticide DDT during the 1950s eliminated it from the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria

The same article notes that the current total international aid budget for malaria control is only US$1-200 million per year.

Add another zero to that figure and we might start to see some progress - regardless of whether DDT is employed more widely or not.

In the absence of additional funding I doubt that fewer restrictions on DDT use will have much effect at all.

Ian: "Look further at the very site you reference.

Specifically, take a look at the sequence of maps showing areas where malaria was present."

Done. Looks like ~78,600 infections in 1940. Smaller than years previously, not exactly hyperendemic, but by no stretch of the imagination "virtually wiped out." I'll reiterate, *not even wrong*.

I can't seem to access the South African link right now, but the quote is mere speculation, and the logic is faulty.

Anyway, we're in agreement wrt to funding increases being necessary, but it's getting late here and I'll have to get back to you on this.

Ian Gould said "...and by unjustifiable I mean unjustifiable in terms of threats to human health..."
follow by"But I don't think there are - restricting DDT to house spraying and bed-nets is the best way of avoiding the development of DDT resistance."
So when you talk about unjustifiable risks to human health you aren't talking about them living with DDT in their house, but yourself and the grain that you eat. The West got rid of malaria first by massive draining of wetlands and spraying oil into standing water followed later by spraying DDT. Africa and Asia will never be rid of Malaria because they will never be allowed to drain enough wetlands or be able to afford biodegrading insecticides that need to be resprayed every year (DDT's persistence is a plus).
Never mind DDT has never been found to be a danger to human health (about as dangerous as cell phones) and that DDE (what DDT turns into) has been found (about as significantly as the Lancet Iraq study) to reduce women's chances of developing breast cancer.

>So when you talk about unjustifiable risks to human health you aren't talking about them living with DDT in their house, but yourself and the grain that you eat.

Residual DDT exposure is an acceptable risk IF THE ALTERNATIVE IS GETTING MALARIA.

Argh, just saw a typo in my previous post.

Ian: #16, I don't think you understand jet's post. Consider the current example of Uganda, the European Union has threatened to ban Ugandan food imports if they decide to use DDT for IRS. (there might be additional qualifications needed there, not sure) Probably wouldn't be good for the Ugandan economy which already attributes a 1.6% loss of GDP per year due to malaria, no?

"Consider the current example of Uganda, the European Union has threatened to ban Ugandan food imports if they decide to use DDT for IRS."
Unless they implement testing of the DDT levels in the exported food; to which the New Rightwing Armchair Malaria Fighters allege that the cost of such equipment is prohibitive. I don't know, I imagine a few grad students with an HPLC could do it, but I'm sure these Concerned Citizens wouldn't be up to donating one. Nevertheless, Uganda is not alone in this; why the other day, a local restaurant right here in the Land of the Free was fined for spraying some unGodly pesticide in the kitchen. How like the left wing nanny government to assume that the customers wouldn't be perfectly happy to unknowingly digest an unknown level of some toxin in their food.

z: "I don't know, I imagine a few grad students with an HPLC could do it" To monitor an entire country's exports? That's quite an imagination. :)

I'm not sure what the monitoring costs would be, but these were not the EU's only 'demands'.
I think the most ridiculous (in terms of public health) statement by the EU was, "Such measures would also address DDT-related health concerns of consumers both in Uganda and in export destinations" (when referring to the residual monitoring)

Also, the 1.6% figure might be high, I just ran across an estimate of 1.2%.

cs, you think consumers are concerned about DDT in their food? Please explain.

cs,
The EU be ridiculous? Come on.I think the most ridiculous (in terms of public health) statement by the EU was, "Such measures would also address DDT-related health concerns of consumers both in Uganda and in export destinations" (when referring to the residual monitoring)You mean it might be ridiculous to think Ugandans are worried that DDT might be in their grain while they are spraying down their houses with it? The EU doesn't give two shits about DDT in Ugandan grain, only EU grain, and that statement is just pretty words trying to show they care, they really really care about Ugandans.Anyways, great quote.

"cs, you think consumers are concerned about DDT in their food? Please explain."

Tim: I do, in both Uganda and European Union countries. Uganda also has problems with other ridiculous concerns, witch hunts (literally, not figuratively) are still common.

The part I find ridiculous is the EU expressing concern about easing Ugandan fears about DDT risks posed due to food residues from IRS **after** urging them not to use it. (this is not to say that this public doesn't have these concerns, probably in part due to local and international environmental groups, US and European bans, some local lawmakers, etc...) We know that upwards of 95 per cent of the Ugandan population is at risk for malaria, but what risks do trace amounts of DDT on food pose to the population? I'd like to see an estimate.

Anyone here have any idea? .001 per cent risk for superficial acral fibromyxoma or something?

IMO, just because the fears be might be there, doesn't mean they are anymore valid than being afraid of the dark. The EU should know better.