Sunday, March 27, 2005
Fighting Malaria Fighters
The The Belmont Club has some excellent reporting on the "stealth battles" between those who want to save lives by fighting Malaria and those who oppose them. Let me admit to stacking the rhetorical deck by that statement. I think there is overwhelming evidence that DDT remains the single most effective method for reducing malaria disease and death rates, which have risen dramatically since the use of DDT was largely abandoned. DDT does not harm humans; it can be applied effectively, economically, and safely. Malaria (and Dengue Fever, which is also controllable by DDT) does kill humans - by the millions, while disabling many more. I say "stealth" because most people don't even know of the issue and because the DDT opponents claim there is not a formal ban, while covering their informal actions under the cloak of environmental resposibility.
This The Belmont Club : Mal Aire post provides considerable background on the "informal banning " of DDT. Note this quote from a Ugnandan official : " DDT is a dangerous organic pollutant. If the government wants to use it in Uganda, it must first seek the sanction of fellow members of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POP), which we ratified in July 2004. ... DDT was outlawed 50 years ago - it seems we are being taken back to the dark ages."
In fact, the Stockholm Convention does not require "sanction" for user nations, nor was DDT "banned'. Indeed, an effort was mounted to ban DDT as a "POP", but it failed. The nuances are in the article, but the impact of the informal ban or pressure is clear.
The second post, The Belmont Club : Mal Aire 2 , continues the discussion of DDT and Malaria and presents a recent e-mail from Dr. D.R. Roberts addressing the informal ban of DDT. Dr. Roberts co-authored this 2000 Lancet paper on Re-emerging Malaria as part of the effort to preclude a world ban of DDT as a POP (Persistent Organic Pollutant). While the formal ban was avoided, the informal pressure continued. Some key excerpts from Robert's e-mail :
"In years after 1969 there was progressive environmentalist pressure to stop uses of DDT in public health programs. In the end, organizational structures of many fine malaria control programs were eliminated, spraying was stopped, and malaria rates started to increase. As a result, malaria rates are now about where they were in the early 1940s. These relationships can be demonstrated with quantitative data for many malaria endemic countries. ....
For DDT in particular, WHO has a document calling for countries to phase DDT out of their control programs. So, in my opinion, WHO is actually driven by an environmentalist's agenda, not a malaria control agenda.
Scientists around the world fought to get an exemption in the POPs treaty, for continued use of DDT in malaria control programs. Even with the exemption, developing countries are under increasing pressure from WHO, UNEP, USAID and others to stop all uses of DDT. Of course, when confronted, they claim no opposition to use of DDT. You have to judge from their actions, not their words. Incredibly, the loss of human life and human health seems to have no weight at all in these global transactions!"
Indeed!
This The Belmont Club : Mal Aire post provides considerable background on the "informal banning " of DDT. Note this quote from a Ugnandan official : " DDT is a dangerous organic pollutant. If the government wants to use it in Uganda, it must first seek the sanction of fellow members of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POP), which we ratified in July 2004. ... DDT was outlawed 50 years ago - it seems we are being taken back to the dark ages."
In fact, the Stockholm Convention does not require "sanction" for user nations, nor was DDT "banned'. Indeed, an effort was mounted to ban DDT as a "POP", but it failed. The nuances are in the article, but the impact of the informal ban or pressure is clear.
The second post, The Belmont Club : Mal Aire 2 , continues the discussion of DDT and Malaria and presents a recent e-mail from Dr. D.R. Roberts addressing the informal ban of DDT. Dr. Roberts co-authored this 2000 Lancet paper on Re-emerging Malaria as part of the effort to preclude a world ban of DDT as a POP (Persistent Organic Pollutant). While the formal ban was avoided, the informal pressure continued. Some key excerpts from Robert's e-mail :
"In years after 1969 there was progressive environmentalist pressure to stop uses of DDT in public health programs. In the end, organizational structures of many fine malaria control programs were eliminated, spraying was stopped, and malaria rates started to increase. As a result, malaria rates are now about where they were in the early 1940s. These relationships can be demonstrated with quantitative data for many malaria endemic countries. ....
For DDT in particular, WHO has a document calling for countries to phase DDT out of their control programs. So, in my opinion, WHO is actually driven by an environmentalist's agenda, not a malaria control agenda.
Scientists around the world fought to get an exemption in the POPs treaty, for continued use of DDT in malaria control programs. Even with the exemption, developing countries are under increasing pressure from WHO, UNEP, USAID and others to stop all uses of DDT. Of course, when confronted, they claim no opposition to use of DDT. You have to judge from their actions, not their words. Incredibly, the loss of human life and human health seems to have no weight at all in these global transactions!"
Indeed!
