Donald Roberts - The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History

The Excellent Powder

DDT's Political and Scientific History

Donald Roberts & Richard Tren
with Roger Bate & Jennifer Zambone

2010 Donald Roberts, Richard Tren, Roger Bate, & Jennifer

Zambone

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the authors.

This edition published by

Dog Ear Publishing

4010 W. 86th Street, Ste H

Indianapolis, IN 46268

www.dogearpublishing.net

ISBN: 978-160844-376-5

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Printed in the United States of America

"We have discovered many preventives against tropical diseases, and often against the onslaught of insects of all kinds, from lice to mosquitoes and back again. The excellent DDT powder which had been fully experimented with and found to yield astonishing results will henceforth be used on a great scale by the British forces in Burma and by the American and Australian forces in the Pacific and India in all theatres."

Sir Winston Churchill, September 28, 1944 (emphasis added).

List of Figures

Preface

Modern medicine continues to deliver on its promise of conquest over infectious diseases, yet old infectious diseases continue to rebound and expand in the poorer countries of the world. In our medical arsenal, we have the tools to identify and prevent threats and to treat many health problems we fail to prevent. Possessing these tools, however, will not protect us if we refuse to deploy them, putting ideological and political barriers blindly in the way of the most effective controls. This book discusses one such example of this problemthe environmental crusade that began in the 1960s against the use of DDT and other insecticides in vector control (the preventive measures directed against insects that transmit diseases to humans). Over time, this crusade has shaped the actions of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the agencies and organizations that follow its advice, allowing preventable diseases such as malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis to infect and kill millions.

DDT is unique in its power to cheaply, effectively, and safely protect poor people in poor countries against diseases. Indeed, because some environmentalists worried about population growth and precisely because of DDT's effectiveness, they became fixated on eliminating it. DDT allowed poor people in developing countries, and the children of poor people, to survive. Leading environmentalists of the time, such as Paul Ehrlich, author of the best-selling book, The Population Bomb , railed against growth in human populations and the use of DDT for disease control because they believed that "every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations."1 Opposition to DDT, as prescribed by Paul Ehrlich, was a means to stop "exported death control."2 In 1970, Science magazine published a paper by self-described ecologist, George Woodwell, whose work we discuss in detail in this book, which offered a solution to his characterizations of environmental pollution: "Fewer people, unpopular but increasing restrictions on technology (making it more and more expensive)."3 His approach represented a consensus view, of the major stakeholders within the environmental movement. European nations and the United States used insecticides to rid themselves of diseases and then pulled up the ladder, denying Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans the benefits of those same insecticides. As a result of these and other environmentalist attacks, DDT was removed from malaria-control programs, costs of malaria control skyrocketed, and the health and welfare of poor people in poor countries plummeted.

1 Hardin, G., "Stalking the wild taboo." http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/hardin.html (accessed Apr. 11, 2009).

Over time, DDT elimination became a global phenomenon. A modern version of this phenomenon and the overwhelming dominance of environmental advocacy over public health was on display at the negotiations of the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (of which DDT is one). These negotiations took place over several years ending in 2003. In chapter 7 we present statistics on the composition of those attending the negotiations. The magnitude and inequity of anti-insecticide advocacy compared to representation of the legitimate public health concerns in preserving the use of DDT in developing countries was staggering.

WHO initially supported DDT for malaria control. In 1968, Ehrlich complained, "the World Health Organization... refuses to give up DDT for malaria control, claiming that hundreds of millions are doomed without it."4 History has shown that WHO was correct. Yet despite the comprehensive evidence of the efficacy of public-health insecticides, the anti-DDT crusade won. In the face of anti-DDT political pressure, WHO acquiesced and DDT was largely abandoned. Diseases reemerged and millions died.

2 Ehrlich, P.R., The Population Bomb (Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books, 1971), 15.

3 Woodwell, G.M., "Effects of pollution on the structure and physiology of ecosystems." Science , 20 April 1970, 168:429-433

4 Ehrlich, The Population Bomb , 125.

This book describes some of the ecological and epidemiological principles underlying the public-health use of DDT, a unique chemical with unique actions. No other insecticide matches DDT's broad spectrum of chemical actions or its cost-effectiveness for disease control. The use of DDT in indoor residual spray programs (the spraying of insecticide on the inside walls of houses) produces enormous benefits. When WHO and donors pressured countries to stop their spray programs, enormous increases in disease and loss of life occurred. This book does not simply contrast the public-health benefits of DDT with the rising rates of disease when DDT is not used, however. It also explores how DDT opponents base their opposition on ideology and false claims about DDT's harms to human health and the environment as opposed to truths about the very real, very demonstrable benefits of its use for malaria control.

Another barrier to DDT use was biologist and writer Rachel Carson's crusade against the use of insecticides, which was taken up in the late 1960s and early 1970s by many ecologists and eventually led to the politicized decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban DDT. Even today, the ban is propagandized as a major win for the environment and a major loss for the insecticide industry. However, a victory for the environmental movement was not a victory over big insecticide companies. According to Max Sobelman, president of DDT manufacturer Montrose Chemical Corporation, who was intimately involved in defending the use of DDT in the 1970s,

DDT... is an easy mark. It is a $20 million per year business spread over 4 companiesnot big business by any current yardstick. DDT is not protected by patents. It is being manufactured because there is a demand... DDT's biggest boosters and users are the agencies most concerned with human health: The U.S. Public Health Service and the World Health Organization. Between them they buy about 60% of the country's output for world-wide malaria control. Another 20% is for export, and only 20% is used in the U.S.