Williams | 1

Tess Williams

Ms. Russell and Ms. Fillman

Sophomore Critical Thinking Paper

3 June 2019

DDT: The Pesticide that Can Save Lives

Introduction

In 1962, a book was published that sparked controversy all over America. Written by an

environmentalist named Rachel Carson, it was called ​Silent Spring​, and detailed how a popular

pesticide, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), had been causing negative effects on the

environment in the years since it had been formulated. Since the book induced widespread public

outrage, DDT was banned in most countries. However, the pesticide has been permitted for use

in countries that are battling malaria, which kills around 1 million people each year (Ross). DDT

still has a fairly negative reputation, and many environmental groups such as Beyond Pesticides

oppose its use in malaria-stricken countries due to environmental and health concerns

(Silberner). The World Health Organization (WHO) must continue its support of using indoor

residual spraying of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) as the primary defense

against malaria, because it is effective, easy to use, and inexpensive. In addition, the health risks

of DDT on humans have not yet been proven, and the consequences of malaria are worse than

the consequences of DDT.

DDT was first invented in 1874, and when its use as a pesticide, was discovered in 1939

(“DDT Regulatory History”), it quickly became a widely-used insecticide on farms and in

gardens and homes. It was also used against insects that carried diseases such as typhus and
 Williams | 2

malaria. Its use gradually spread to other countries as it grew in popularity (“DDT - A Brief

History and Status”). DDT was affordable and effective, and therefore “during the 30 years prior

to its cancellation, a total of approximately 1,350,000,000 pounds of DDT was used

domestically” (“DDT Regulatory History”). Soon after this, however, awareness of the harmful

effects of DDT on the environment and human health began to grow, due in part to Rachel

Carson’s ​Silent Spring​. Between 1967 and 1969, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

drastically reduced the areas in which DDT could be used, prohibiting it from several

agricultural and private uses. The EPA instituted several more reforms, including a ban on DDT

from all uses as a pesticide (“DDT Regulatory History”). Currently, by the guidelines set by the

Stockholm Convention in 2012, DDT is banned for all uses in all countries in accordance with

the convention except for those who are planning to use it for disease prevention and control

(“Stockholm Convention Continues”). WHO supports its use as one of the main chemicals used

as a defense against malaria in countries struggling with an outbreak of the disease (“WHO

Gives Indoor”).

The Efficiency of DDT in the Fight Against Malaria

DDT’s Effectiveness Against Vector Mosquitoes

DDT is used to combat malaria through indoor residual spraying, which is defined as the

application of long-lasting insecticides, in this case DDT, to the walls and roofs of indoor areas.

The insecticides will kill any vector mosquitoes, or mosquitoes that carry malaria, that land on

surfaces that have been properly treated. According to WHO, using indoor residual spraying on

the walls and roof of buildings has been proven to lower rates of malaria by as much as 90%. In

the past, DDT has been used in countries such as India to successfully lower cases of malaria in
 Williams | 3

stricken areas (“WHO Gives Indoor”). In addition, countries that have decreased usage of DDT

such as Sri Lanka, Swaziland, and Madagascar witnessed rapid increases in malaria cases shortly

after. Fortunately, these outbreaks were contained once DDT was implemented to stop the spread

of the disease (Roberts). As seen by these examples, DDT has been proven again and again to be

a pesticide that effectively decreases the amount of malaria in an area, thus saving thousands of

lives.

DDT is Easy to Use

Indoor residual spraying is relatively easy, so people in malaria-stricken areas do not

have to be undergo extensive training how to apply the DDT they are given. DDT needs to only

be sprayed on the walls and roofs of a building, meaning anyone can do it. This is less

complicated than alternative methods such as environmental management, in which the natural

environment is adapted to avoid breeding spots for mosquitoes (“Control Malaria Without”).

Environmental management is a process that must be taught to communities, and takes a

significantly larger amount of time and effort than indoor residual spraying does. Also, DDT

needs to be applied fewer times per year than other pesticides. For example, DDT needs to be

applied once per 6 months. Other pesticides need to be sprayed 2-3 times per 6 months (Walker).

The ease with which DDT can be applied makes it even more effective against malaria, because

a greater amount of people will have access to solutions for disease control. If other methods

such as environmental management were used as the primary defense against malaria, fewer

people in stricken areas would be able to implement these life-saving solutions, because they

might not have the knowledge required to do so.

DDT is Cost Efficient

 Williams | 4

DDT is cheaper than many other methods of controlling malaria. In 1998-’99, the cost of

spraying DDT on a house for 6 months was $1.50 to $3.00 per 6 months. The cost of spraying

Malathion, the next cheapest chemical, was $3.20 to $6.40 (Walker). Also, countries and relief

efforts don’t have to pay for education, because DDT is simple and easy to apply. Costs of DDT

have been rising (Walker), but if DDT is more widely used, it will be less expensive. This makes

DDT even more accessible, and third-world countries already suffering from poverty will have to

pay less for malaria control.

Health Concerns About DDT Are Incomplete

Weak Correlations Between DDT and Health Effects

While studies have been conducted on the effects of DDT on human health, the data in

most studies only showed weak correlations at most between the two. For example, there was no

evidence linking DDT to cancer, liver problems, respiratory issues, ocular impairment, etc.

Additionally, some changes seen were determined to be inconsequential. In one study, DDT was

found to cause liver problems in animals, but tests on humans only resulted in “mild liver

alterations of no clinical significance.”. Nearly all studies came up with results of this kind, so

concerns about the health risks of DDT are largely unsupported. Despite the tests already

conducted, much more information needs to be collected in order to provide accurate conclusions

about the health risks of DDT. The data that exists on the effects of the pesticide on humans is

limited, and in most cases, inconclusive (“US Department of”). The results that do exist are not

enough to definitively declare DDT a significant risk to public health. No generalized claims

about DDT should be made until the scientific community has more information on the issue.
 Williams | 5

Flaws Within Several Studies Done on DDT

Some studies have found conclusive evidence linking DDT to reproductive issues in

humans, such as problems with pregnancies, fertility, and the duration of lactation. Additionally,

immediate side effects such as alleviated heart rate, tremors, and convulsions have been

recorded. However, the sample group of these studies consisted mostly of workers or volunteers

who had been exposed to high or moderate amounts of DDT (“US Department of”). However,

people who live in homes that have been sprayed with DDT will most likely be exposed to lower

amounts, so may not encounter these effects as severely. Also, many of the studies were

conducted on animals, and some significant effects were seen, most notably increased rates of

cancer. However, testing on animals isn’t proof that humans will react the same way (Ross).

Every species has their own tolerance to different chemicals. Thus far, there has been no

evidence linking exposure to DDT to higher rates of cancer in humans (“US Department of”).

Again, there is limited data on this topic, and the information that exists is not enough to

categorize DDT as a definite carcinogen. This shows that claims about the carcinogenic effects

of DDT have very little support behind them.

In addition, some of the studies conducted were flawed in their procedures. Some studies

used smaller-than-average study groups. Furthermore, many studies done were inconclusive

because other chemicals could have contaminated the samples of DDT (“US Department of”).

So, some test results might not be entirely accurate, casting more doubt on the danger of DDT.

DDT is Still a Solution to a Deadly Disease

The consequences of malaria are much worse than any consequences that might arise due

to the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying. Malaria kills thousands of people each year
 Williams | 6

(Ross), most of them children under five years old. Additionally, children who have recovered

from malaria have been seen to develop “physical and mental impairment” (“The Reality of”).

There is no evidence to support a correlation between DDT and death (“US Department of”).

Since indoor residual spraying does not pose a fatal risk to humans, and it can be used to combat

a disease with alarming death rates, it must be used without question. So, even if DDT causes

slight health effects, it will still be saving the lives of many people, especially children. Malaria

also disproportionately affects areas in severe poverty (“WHO Gives Indoor”). Many epidemic

zones are located in third-world African countries, which makes the eradication of the disease all

the more difficult. These countries struggle to pay for the costs of controlling such an outbreak,

and need an inexpensive solution to the issue. Paying for malaria control also slows economic

growth in affected countries, because it consumes federal money which could be put to use in

other areas, such as the economy. This hinders the government’s ability to eradicate poverty in

their country (“The Reality of”). These areas would greatly benefit from the use of DDT, which

has already been shown to be effective and relatively inexpensive. DDT would prevent

governments from having to spend much more money on the malaria crisis than is needed.

Debunking Several Arguments Against the Use of DDT

DDT has been shown to have negative effects on the environment. It is toxic to several

animals and hinders reproduction rates of birds. It has a very high half-life, so stays in the

environment for significantly long amounts of time (“DDT General Fact”). However, indoor

residual spraying will use DDT inside, not outside. Small amounts will also be used (Roberts et

al). This limits the amounts of DDT that will actually make it into the environment. Any DDT

that does make it into the ecosystem may have some effects. However, the possible effects on the
 Williams | 7

environment are not dramatic enough to consider stopping usage of DDT, which has been shown

to save thousands of lives per year. Additionally, some varieties of vector mosquitoes have

developed immunities to DDT. However, this immunity is not widespread enough that DDT use

should be stopped. DDT should be used wherever it will be effective in saving lives (Roberts et

al).

Conclusion

DDT has been a controversial pesticide for years, due to its impact on the environment

and suspected effects on human health. DDT is currently banned in most countries for these

reasons. However, it also has the ability to decrease levels of malaria, one of the deadliest

diseases in today’s world. Indoor residual spraying of DDT has been shown to be one of the most

effective and inexpensive solutions in reducing rates of malaria, therefore saving lives. There is

simply not enough evidence to prove that DDT is problematic enough to warrant the ban of its

use in malaria-stricken countries. WHO is correct in its support of this pesticide. DDT, if

properly used, can save the lives of millions of suffering people, and it must be used to do so.
 Williams | 8

Works Cited

Control Malaria without DDT! There Are More Options than Currently Used. Pestizid

Aktions-Netzwerk. Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk Germany,

www.pan-germany.org/download/ddt/Control_malaria_without_DDT.pdf. Accessed 28

May 2019.

"DDT - A Brief History and Status." EPA, 11 Aug. 2017,

www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status. Accessed

28 May 2019.

"DDT (General Fact Sheet)." National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University,

EPA, 1999, npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019.

"DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975)." ​U​S Environmental Protection Agency, 14

Sept. 2016, archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/ddt-regulatory-history-brief-survey-1975.html.

Accessed 28 May 2019.

The Reality of Malaria​. ​Unicef,​ www.unicef.org/health/files/health_africamalaria.pdf. Accessed

16 May 2019.

Roberts, D R, et al. "DDT House Spraying and Re-Emerging Malaria." ​Research Library Prep​.

ProQuest​,

search.proquest.com/researchlibraryprep/docview/199023821/496253DBC5964C94PQ/6

?accountid=1151. Accessed 16 May 2019. Originally published in ​The Lancet,​ vol. 356,

no. 9226, 22 July 2000.

 Williams | 9

Ross, Gilbert. "Risks and Benefits of DDT." ​The Lancet​,

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67722-7/fulltext. Accessed

16 May 2019. Originally published in ​The Lancet,​ vol. 366, no. 9499, 19 Nov. 2005.

Silberner, Joanne. "WHO Backs Use of DDT Against Malaria." ​NPR,​ 15 Sept. 2006,

www-editor.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944. Accessed 28 May 2019.

"Stockholm Convention Continues to Allow DDT Use for Disease Vector Control." POPS,

Stockholm Convention, 2008,

chm.pops.int/Implementation/DDT/DDTRelatedArticles/SCallowsDDTusefordiseasevect

orcontrol/tabid/2998/ Default.aspx. Accessed 28 May 2019.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ​Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and

DDD.​ Government Publishing Office, Sept. 2002. ​Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry,​ www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp35.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2019.

Walker, K. "Cost-Comparison of DDT and Alternative Insecticides for Malaria Control."

Medical and Veterinary Entomology.​ ​Wiley Online Library,​

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00262.x?sid=nlm%3Apubme

d. Accessed 16 May 2019. Originally published in ​Medical and Veterinary Entomology​,

vol. 14, no. 4, Dec. 2000.

"WHO Gives Indoor Use of DDT a Clean Bill of Health for Controlling Malaria." ​World Health

Organization,​ 15 Sept. 2006, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/.

Accessed 14 May 2019.