3 ms·

DDT is still legally used to the quantity of 4000+ tons a years. I fail to understand how it was "banned", as it's still widely used in countries like India and

DDT is still legally used to the quantity of 4000+ tons a years. I fail to understand how it was "banned", as it's still widely used in countries like India and several African countries. What actually happened was a bunch of guidelines were established for its use, which any sovereign nation can ignore with little consequences. The fact that the west decided to outright ban the stuff isn't that big of a deal given the fact that there aren't terribly many Malaria deaths in the United States or Norway. And those restrictions were put in place for good reason: For DDT to be effective in wide areas (rather than targeted spraying indoors) you essentially need something potent enough to disrupt the entire Entomological portion of the eco-system, which works its way up to small mammals, which can eventually impact certain key predators. One infamous example this occurred in Borneo in the 1950s. The WHO responded to a malaria outbreak on the island by spraying DDT. It abated the malaria problem but completely disrupted insect life which lead to numerous problems culminating in roofs collapsing from an overpopulation of thatch-eating caterpillars, along with killing of mammalian predators that ate lizards (which ate DDT-laden insects). This caused an overpopulation of rats which started spreading typhoid and plague. The rat problem was ultimately solved by airdropping cats.

patio11 17y ago
which any sovereign nation can ignore with little consequences This is contrary to fact, because a) African nations are dependent on foreign aid, and donor organizations both will not fund DDT and will quietly threaten other funding if you choose to spray it and b) the prospect of African agricultural exports being barred due to "contamination" by DDT residues acts as another de-facto ban on DDT, since it threatens crippling economic sanctions for using it. (Oddly enough, the crop most often at "risk" is tobacco -- because God forbid your cigarettes have harmful chemicals in them. There is an absolutely priceless quote from a chemist saying that he's be more concerned that you got nicotine in his DDT than getting DDT in your nicotine.) Sources: http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-tobbacco-industry-unhappy-with.html http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-tobbac...
- spamizbad 17y ago
  Is there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their violations of DDT use? India shirks WHO regulations like crazy (including but not limited to those pertaining to DDT) but received billions in aid during 90s, before they were a nuclear power. And it certainly hasn't slowed down their position in global trade. Heck, their human slavery problem furrowed lots of brows but never amounted to any sanctions that I'm aware of. What I'm trying to say here is if the hammer is going to come down on your country, it's likely doing things waaaay worse than revamping its ecosystem with pesticides.
  - patio11 17y ago
    s there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their violations of DDT use? Yes. Many nations have been told, in so many words, that if they continue spraying DDT they can go find health funding elsewhere. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?pagewa... The above article cites Mexico, South Africa, Belize, and "[m]any African scientists and health officials" as having been pressured in this manner.
    - spamizbad 17y ago
      That quote pertains to acquiring funding exclusively for programs that will use DDT, and basically says that donors will be reluctant to fund something that involves spraying DDT. Unless the only people who bother to give any money to these programs are misinformed bleeding-heart environmentalists, I'm not sure how much of a barrier that is. Nothing is stopping say, the Cato Institute from starting a DDT spraying initiative to fight malaria.
- dangrover 17y ago
  Interestingly enough, bedbugs are making a resurgence too because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedbug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedbug
travisp 17y ago
It's not banned, but strongly discouraged by the Western world that already got rid of malaria via DDT. According to the NYT, DDT isn't being used in many countries that could use it, with deadly consequences. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-ne... From the NYT: But various factors, chiefly the persistence of DDT's toxic image in the West and the disproportionate weight that American decisions carry worldwide, have conspired to make it essentially unavailable to most malarial nations. With the exception of South Africa and a few others, African countries depend heavily on donors to pay for malaria control. But at the moment, there is only one country in the world getting donor money to finance the use of DDT: Eritrea, which gets money for its program from the World Bank with the understanding that it will look for alternatives. Major donors, including the United States Agency for International Development, or Usaid, have not financed any use of DDT, and global health institutions like W.H.O. and its malaria program, Roll Back Malaria, actively discourage countries from using it.

patio11 17y ago

which any sovereign nation can ignore with little consequences This is contrary to fact, because a) African nations are dependent on foreign aid, and donor organizations both will not fund DDT and will quietly threaten other funding if you choose to spray it and b) the prospect of African agricultural exports being barred due to "contamination" by DDT residues acts as another de-facto ban on DDT, since it threatens crippling economic sanctions for using it. (Oddly enough, the crop most often at "risk" is tobacco -- because God forbid your cigarettes have harmful chemicals in them. There is an absolutely priceless quote from a chemist saying that he's be more concerned that you got nicotine in his DDT than getting DDT in your nicotine.) Sources: http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-tobbacco-industry-unhappy-with.html http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-tobbac...

spamizbad 17y ago
Is there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their violations of DDT use? India shirks WHO regulations like crazy (including but not limited to those pertaining to DDT) but received billions in aid during 90s, before they were a nuclear power. And it certainly hasn't slowed down their position in global trade. Heck, their human slavery problem furrowed lots of brows but never amounted to any sanctions that I'm aware of. What I'm trying to say here is if the hammer is going to come down on your country, it's likely doing things waaaay worse than revamping its ecosystem with pesticides.
- patio11 17y ago
  s there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their violations of DDT use? Yes. Many nations have been told, in so many words, that if they continue spraying DDT they can go find health funding elsewhere. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?pagewa... The above article cites Mexico, South Africa, Belize, and "[m]any African scientists and health officials" as having been pressured in this manner.
  - spamizbad 17y ago
    That quote pertains to acquiring funding exclusively for programs that will use DDT, and basically says that donors will be reluctant to fund something that involves spraying DDT. Unless the only people who bother to give any money to these programs are misinformed bleeding-heart environmentalists, I'm not sure how much of a barrier that is. Nothing is stopping say, the Cato Institute from starting a DDT spraying initiative to fight malaria.
dangrover 17y ago
Interestingly enough, bedbugs are making a resurgence too because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedbug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedbug

travisp 17y ago

It's not banned, but strongly discouraged by the Western world that already got rid of malaria via DDT. According to the NYT, DDT isn't being used in many countries that could use it, with deadly consequences. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-ne... From the NYT: But various factors, chiefly the persistence of DDT's toxic image in the West and the disproportionate weight that American decisions carry worldwide, have conspired to make it essentially unavailable to most malarial nations. With the exception of South Africa and a few others, African countries depend heavily on donors to pay for malaria control. But at the moment, there is only one country in the world getting donor money to finance the use of DDT: Eritrea, which gets money for its program from the World Bank with the understanding that it will look for alternatives. Major donors, including the United States Agency for International Development, or Usaid, have not financed any use of DDT, and global health institutions like W.H.O. and its malaria program, Roll Back Malaria, actively discourage countries from using it.