[Y]ou can talk all you want about the difference between DDT being banned or “restricted”, but that’s really just semantics. And, you know this, but you continue to play games.

There is a wonderful kind of symmetry operating here. Your point seems to be that whatever the WHO did about DDT (although you don’t know of anything in particular), it must have been a ban, and it must have cost millions of lives. Right?
I suggest you rethink just who is “playing games.”

I dropped this thread a month ago because there are just so many hours in a day, and the subtopic of DDT “ban” baloney deserves a post of its own. The same is true for Tom’s comments on DDT and bald eagles. So — thanks to both of you, and I’ll get both of those subjects up top before too long.

Robert Gwadz of NIAID called it a “ban” that killed an estimated 20 millions children. http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/labs/aboutlabs/lmvr/internationalStudiesMalariaEntomologySection/ Here’s the link to the National Geographic article that quotes Dr. Gwadz and the 20 million children who died as a result of the DDT ban. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/text4.htmlSo, it’s not a “meme” when the chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Laboratory of Malaria and Vector Research tells others that the ban of DDT has killed millions of children, is it? And you’re a bright person.. you already know this.

Bruce

The impact is the same.

And, what about the reported “environmental impact? Not so much:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1173321
Bruce

US and European NGOs fought against use of DDT throughout the world (and continue to do so). Pressuring other countries to NOT use it. How? By threatening sanctions of export crops and external aid funding.

RE: thanking the rest of the world community for “severely restricting use to prevent resistance”. This was from an organization that was BEGGING to allow DDT use.

Guess you happened to miss the links above called, “How Good Intentions Can Kill”.

Bruce

For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before.

My question about whether you had reflected on your statement was directed at whether you cared that it was wrong. The WHO, as you now know, never banned DDT. You were mistaken, but that’s not a problem. You didn’t care that you had been wrong, and that is a problem
Now, I realize that this is an emotional issue for you. There has been an intense disinformation campaign aimed at spreading the “DDT ban killed millions” meme, and many people such as yourself have become deeply invested in defending it. To admit that the whole thing is a steaming crock is probably not possible for you now –but you might want to go back and do your research before digging yourself in any deeper.

Did you “reflect” on how DDT might get produced when the worlds major markets for the stuff have dried up due to bans in the developed world and continued pressure on other countries to not use it? How the inclusion of DDT to the Stockholm convention would mean the meager market that currently exists for DDT would completely evaporate?

Bruce

BTW: Check your logic.
What on earth would you “save” DDT FOR if not to prevent wide spread disease and death?

So, no, don’t try to imply that “preserving” use of DDT was some noble act or in some way beneficial. It wasn’t. Efforts to block use of DDT lead directly to millions of deaths.

Bruce

The effective ban in the US was used as a tool to force other countries to ban it’s use and force the WHO to ban it’s use

was not true?

The ban on agricultural uses of DDT halted or slowed the spread of resistance to the chemical among insects that carry disease. Because malaria-carrying mosquitoes remained vulnerable to some extent (not completely, though; even today every single malaria vector in Africa has some resistance to DDT) strategies using indoor residual spraying had a chance to work. If blanket spraying of crops had continued, DDT would very likely be useless in fighting malaria today. Preventing that outcome has been very beneficial indeed.

Countries using DDT had to ask for “exemptions” in order to use it to save their own people.

Malaria prevention programs were pressured by outside governments and NGOs to not use DDT. DDT is one of the agents listed in the famous 12 “POP” that many groups are STILL trying to ban… which is why the change in the WHO stance is so remarkable.
http://www.malaria.org/bateftddt.html

Clipped from the above link at malaria.org:
“Not long after DDT was removed from malaria control in South Africa in 1996, disease rates rocketed, particularly in northern KwaZulu Natal. A serious problem was that Anopheles funestus mosquitoes developed resistance to synthetic pyrethroids - the main alternative to DDT - making the switch an expensive and futile exercise. According to Rajendra Maharaj, head of vector control at the South African department of health, it is unlikely that A. funestus would ever have returned had DDT remained in use.”

One need only compare malaria rates in South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique to see the effect of banning DDT. Swaziland never halted DDT spraying and infection rates range between 2 and 4 per cent. A short distance over the border in South Africa, infection rates average about 40 per cent. In Mozambique, infection rates are over 80 per cent, owing in part to the collapse of the malaria control programme during that country’s war. The cash-strapped Mozambican government is now trying to control the disease by using pesticides that are four times as expensive as DDT.

DDT is now back in use in KwaZulu Natal and according to Jotham Mthembu, head of the malaria control programme at Jozini in KZN, conditions have improved. Gerhard Verdoorn of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the South African green group, has given his approval to the use of DDT and even trained sprayers. “DDT is used in tiny quantities and there is simply no prospect of any environmental damage arising from its use,” he says.

Malaria kills more than 1m people and afflicts more than 300m every year throughout the world.

Not only are people unable to work effectively when ill, causing enormous losses in productivity, but the disease also scares investors away because of the prospect of having one’s workforce - local and expatriate - ill and unable to work. Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Centre for International Development estimates that malaria destroys about 1 per cent of Africa’s wealth every year.”

The result? Millions of people died needlessly.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v6/n7/full/nm0700_729.html

Clipped from http://www.malaria.org/bateftddt.html

At the UNEP meetings this week, bureaucrats from the developed world are deciding the fate of many millions of people at risk from malaria in the developing world. Even if UNEP does not ban DDT for malaria use, it is certain to be “listed”, entailing onerous reporting requirements.

Last year the World Health Organisation said 23 countries used DDT for malaria control. Yet only 14 have asked for exemptions. Mexico and Colombia have stockpiles but the rest may be concerned that they will lose donor aid if they ask for exemptions to spray DDT for malaria control. Merely placing DDT on the UNEP list will make it more expensive, reduce its use and expose more people to malaria.

DDT is safe and cheap - and it saves lives.

So, again, how does your research tell you that the ban had beneficial effects?

Bruce

The effective ban in the US was used as a tool to force other countries to ban it’s use and force the WHO to ban it’s use.

When did the WHO ban use of DDT?