I really hate it when people refer to green extremists as "environmentalists." It makes it sound as if center-right libertarians don't care about this cool little planet, and it ain't so.

Courtesy of David Linden comes this interesting essay that attempts to restore Rachel Carson's reputation with respect to the DDT/malaria issue. It makes me sigh a little, though: once again, the Far Left and the Hard Right (or vice versa, if you like) are talking past each other. Dang.

The author of the piece, Aaron Swartz, discusses at length the development of DDT-resistant strains of malaria, but doesn't talk about the fact that agricultural use of DDT has been much more responsible for this effect, rather than the indoor spraying used for disease control.

One of Swartz' most interesting passages deals with early attempts by anti-malaria activist Robert Bate and his colleagues to use the DDT issue as a weapon against the environmental movement:

Perhaps the most vocal group [. . .] is Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM). Founded in 2000 by Roger Bate, an economist at various right-wing think tanks, AFM has run a major PR campaign to push the pro-DDT story, publishing scores of op-eds and appearing in dozens of articles each year. Bate and his partner Richard Tren even published a book laying out their alternate history of DDT: When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story.

A funding pitch uncovered by blogger Eli Rabbett shows Bate's thinking when he first started the project. "The environmental movement has been successful in most of its campaigns as it has been 'politically correct,'" he explained (Tobacco Archives, 09/9 . What the anti-environmental movement needs is something with "the correct blend of political correctness (...oppressed blacks) and arguments (eco-imperialism [is] undermining their future)." That something, Bate proposed, was DDT.

In an interview, Bate said that his motivation had changed after years of working on the issue of malaria. "I think my position has mellowed, perhaps with age," he told Extra!. "[I have] gone from being probably historically anti-environmental to being very much pro-combating malaria now."

I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that some people have used strict restrictions on DDT use as an tool against the green extremists. After all, activists on both sides use whatever they can in terms of imagery to put forward their own points of view. Both sides try to "market" themselves, no?

And I'm not sure that everyone who thinks DDT should be used more widely now is simply trying to save Western money that might otherwise be spent on medications and mosquito nets. The fact is, over a million people a year is too many to lose to an old disease: this should be a solvable issue, if we were all to quit taking swipes at one another for a few minutes and focus.

DDT has to be part of the international toolkit in fighting malaria, and its use has to be monitored by people who don't have an axe to grind: people who are interested in truth rather than scoring political points in either direction.

"You're using junk science!"

"I know you are, but what data am I using?"

I wonder how many people really do want to solve the problem. Despite Swartz' spirited—and probably necessary—defense of Rachel Carson's place in history, I'm not sure he's on fire about the malaria problem itself. He notes that AFM claims not to have taken money from tobacco companies, but seems skeptical about that claim, probably due to articles by Bate such as this one. And yet, tobacco farmers in Malawi tend to oppose the use of DDT, even when it's limited to indoor spraying:

At a time when countries are anxiously waiting for Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACT), a new malaria drug yet to hit the market, government is on the other hand encouraging the use of Dichrolo Diphenil Trichroloethane (DDT) in the country to try minimise the figures of children that are dying from the disease, but there are divisions in the use of the chemical because some quarters blame DDT as being non bio-degradable and a source of pollution.

Tobacco bodies such as Tobacco Association of Malawi (TAMA) are against the use of DDT in wiping out malaria saying it would compromise with the quality and purity of the countries greatest forex earner, tobacco leaf.

Director of Preventive Health Services Dr. Habib Somanje defends government decision to use DDT to destroy malaria, arguing that it (DDT) shall only be used in indoor sprays.

Somanje observes that DDT can reduce malaria drastically as it sticks to walls for many weeks, thereby curbing malaria and saving the lives of children.

The attempt to line people up into opposing camps (tobacco companies must be allied with the right, as must proponents of DDT) muddies the water. It doesn't help.

Uganda's Director General of Health Services wrote an editorial for WSJ this past summer on how DDT—when used for malaria control only, rather than in agriculture—is a critical component in a comprehensive malaria prevention and treatment plan, and what he calls "African independence in the realm of disease control":

DDT lasts longer, costs less and is more effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes than Icon. It functions as spatial repellent to keep mosquitoes out of homes, as an irritant to prevent them from biting, and as a toxic agent to kill those that land. The repellency effect works without physical contact. And because we will never use the chemical in agriculture, DDT also makes mosquitoes less likely to develop resistance.

The U.S. banned DDT in 1972, spurred on by environmentalist Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. Many countries in Europe and around the world followed suit. But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs.

We are trying to do precisely this. In addition to distributing nearly three million long-lasting insecticidal nets and 25 million doses of effective anti-malarial drugs, we will expand our indoor spraying operations to four more districts this year, where we will protect tens of thousands of Ugandans from malaria's deadly scourge. We are committed to storing, transporting and using DDT properly in these programs, in accord with Stockholm Convention, WHO, European Union and U.S. Agency for International Development guidelines. We are working with these organizations and to ensure support from our communities, and to ensure that our agricultural trade is not jeopardized.

Although Uganda's National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us. The EU has acknowledged our right to use DDT, but some consumer and agricultural groups repeat myths and lies about the chemical. They should instead help us use it strictly to control malaria.

(My emphasis.)

And here's National Geographic on the history of malaria in Africa:

In much of the deep tropics malaria persisted stubbornly. Financing for the effort eventually withered, and the eradication program was abandoned in 1969. In many nations, this coincided with a decrease in foreign aid, with political instability and burgeoning poverty, and with overburdened public health services.

In several places where malaria had been on the brink of extinction, including both Sri Lanka and India, the disease came roaring back. And in much of sub-Saharan Africa, malaria eradication never really got started. The WHO program largely bypassed the continent, and smaller scale efforts made little headway.

Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse—not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."

This is a problem that should be solved by Africans, with the assistance of the West. The solutions must be driven by Africans, and the tools applied should not be limited by ideology or preconceived notions—on either side.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:00 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1451 words, total size 10 kb.