The Slab - Malaria Diplomats negotiating a treaty on persistent pollutants in Geneva next week are being lobbied by two opposing groups of scientists over the continued use of DDT to fight malaria. Environment groups are calling for DDT to be phased out of use and banned by due to concerns about its persistence and ability to bioaccumulate in fish, wildlife and people.
Bag X, PotchefstroomSouth Africa. Copyright notice Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright.
All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged for example,? Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives? Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
See " DDT Paradox: This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background The debate regarding dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DDT in malaria prevention and human health is polarized and can be classified into three positions: Objective We attempted to arrive at a synthesis by matching a series of questions on the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying IRS with literature and insights, and to identify options and opportunities.
Discussion Overall, community health is significantly improved through all available malaria control measures, which include IRS with DDT. Yes, because it has saved many lives.
Recent publications have increasingly raised concerns about the health implications of DDT. Are inhabitants and applicators exposed?
Yes, and to high levels. Should DDT be used? The evidence of adverse human health effects due to DDT is mounting. However, under certain circumstances, malaria control using DDT cannot yet be halted. At the very least, it is now time to invoke precaution. Precautionary actions could include use and exposure reduction.
Conclusions There are situations where DDT will provide the best achievable health benefit, but maintaining that DDT is safe ignores the cumulative indications of many studies.
In such situations, addressing the paradox from a centrist-DDT position and invoking precaution will help design choices for healthier lives. The debate is polarized and could be characterized by three viewpoints that are at odds over fundamental and pragmatic issues: The centrist-DDT point of view adopts an approach that pragmatically accepts the current need for DDT to combat malaria transmission using indoor residual spraying IRS but at the same time recognizes the risks inherent in using a toxic chemical in the immediate residential environment of millions of people.
The continued use of DDT is strongly qualified by an urgent call from the Stockholm Convention for alternative chemicals, products, and strategies.
Even if eventually human health effects are found to be caused by DDT, these effects would be far less than those caused by malaria Africa Fighting Malaria ; Roberts et al. This is a simplistic outlay of the current gradient of the debate—there will undoubtedly be other ways of characterizing it—but, in broad terms, these statements reflect different views of common considerations.
Objectives Our objective in this commentary was to match a series of questions on the use of DDT in IRS with the literature, experiences, and insights that may not be published in scientific articles or that may not always be recognized when considering the health implications. We attempted to arrive at a synthesis and to place it along the gradient outlined above.
We identified some options and opportunities to achieve safe and effective malaria control. This residual coating prevents malaria transmission as a spatial repellent or contact irritant or by killing mosquitoes indicating more than one mode of actioneffectively preventing or interrupting transmission Grieco et al.
For more than six decades, DDT used in IRS for malaria control has protected the lives of millions of people and prevented the suffering of millions more across the globe [estimated from Knipling and Mabaso et al. DDT is a chemical specifically made and used to kill living things—its toxicity is indicated on all labels.
With multiple modes of action, it is particularly effective against insects and was used in large quantities in agriculture and public health [ World Health Organization WHO ]. However, the biological activity of DDT is not limited to insect biochemical systems. Over decades, DDT has been associated with effects, as have countless other chemicals, on a number of noninsect biological systems, including humans Eskenazi et al.
End points such as those associated with endocrine disruption Longnecker et al. Since the publication of the Pine River Statement, more studies on human health effects have been published; some of these have been from developing countries. One report did not investigate specific outcomes.
Combined with the Pine River Statement and other assessments e.BIOETHICS, ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL ethics, Environmental Sciences, MEDICINE, PUBLIC, Public Policy Abstract While DDT is known to have toxic effects on both the environment and humans, it is also the most effective, cost efficient way of fighting malaria in countries in Africa.
Diplomats negotiating a treaty on persistent pollutants in Geneva next week are being lobbied by two opposing groups of scientists over the continued use of DDT to. Question 4: Did the EPA make the right decision when it banned DDT?
Yes because DDT had more disadvantages in America than benefits.
America no longer faced a malaria problem, lives would not be a cost if DDT was banned. A Dilemma. In , Thirteen of these countries use DDT.
There are 11 other chemicals recommended by WHO for use in IRS, including bendiocarb, malathion, lambda-cyhalothrin, and alphacypermethrin. This creates an ethical dilemma. Are the benefits of using insecticides as a method for reducing malaria greater than the consequences of.
Jan 18, · Barnhoorn et al. () found DDT in fish, and Marchand et al. () and Barnhoorn et al. () found indications of endocrine disruption in fish, all in the same major river that flows through a DDT-sprayed (IRS) region of South Africa, but both investigations were unable to establish that DDT .
Diplomats negotiating a treaty on persistent pollutants in Geneva next week are being lobbied by two opposing groups of scientists over the continued use of DDT to.