Pesticide

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a pesticide as "any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or lessening the damage of any pest". A pesticide may be a chemical substance, biological agent (such as a virus or bacteria), antimicrobial, disinfectant or device used against pests including insects, plant pathogens, weeds, mollusks, birds, mammals, fish, nematodes (roundworms) and microbes that compete with humans for food, destroy property, spread or are a vector for disease or are a nuisance. Many pesticides are poisonous to humans.

Types of Pesticides

Bactericides for the control of bacteria Fungicides for the control of fungi and oomycetes Herbicides for the control of weeds Insecticides for the control of insects - these can be Ovicides, Larvicides or Adulticides Miticides for the control of mites Molluscicides for the control of slugs and snails Nematicides for the control of nematodes Rodenticides for the control of rodents Virucides for the control of viruses

Pesticides can also be classed as synthetic pesticides or biological pesticides, although the distinction can sometimes blur. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. This movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficacy may be a result. Systemic insecticides which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers may kill needed pollinators.

History
Since before 2500 BC, humans have used pesticides to prevent damage to their crops. The first known pesticide was elemental sulfur dusting used in Sumeria about 4,500 years ago. By the 15th century, toxic chemicals such as arsenic, mercury and lead were being applied to crops to kill pests. In the 17th century, nicotine sulfate was extracted from tobacco leaves for use as an insecticide. The 19th century saw the introduction of two more natural pesticides, pyrethrum which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. In 1939, Paul Mller discovered that DDT was a very effective insecticide. It quickly became the most widely-used pesticide in the world. However, in the 1960s, it was discovered that DDT was preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing which

was a huge threat to biodiversity. Rachel Carson wrote the best-selling book Silent Spring about biological magnification. DDT is now banned in at least 86 countries, but it is still used in some developing nations to prevent malaria and other tropical diseases by killing mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Pesticide use has increased 50-fold since 1950, and 2.5 million tons of industrial pesticides are now used each year.

Regulation
In most countries, in order to sell or use a pesticide, it must be approved by a government agency. For example, in the United States, the EPA does so. Complex and costly studies must be conducted to indicate whether the material is effective against the intended pest and safe to use. During the registration process, a label is created which contains directions for the proper use of the material. Based on acute toxicity, pesticides are assigned to a Toxicity Class. Pesticide misuse is illegal in most countries. Some pesticides are considered too hazardous for sale to the general public and are designated restricted use pesticides. Only certified applicators, who have passed an exam, may purchase or supervise the application of restricted use pesticides. Records of sales and use are required to be maintained and may be audited by government agencies charged with the enforcement of pesticide regulations. "Read and follow label directions" is a phrase often quoted by extension agents, garden columnists and others teaching about pesticides. This is not merely good advice; it is the law, at least in the U.S. Similar laws exist in limited parts of the rest of the world. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) set up the current system of pesticide regulations. It was amended somewhat by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Its purpose is to make pesticide manufacture, distribution and use as safe as possible. The most important points for users to understand are these: it is a violation to apply any pesticide in a manner not in accordance with the label for that pesticide, and it is a crime to do so intentionally.

Effects of pesticide use

On the environment
Pesticides have been found to pollute virtually every lake, river and stream in the United States, according to the US Geological Survey Pesticide runoff has been found to be highly lethal to amphibians, according to a recent study by the University of Pittsburgh Pesticide impacts on aquatic systems are often studied using a hydrology transport model to study movement and fate of chemicals in rivers and streams. Pesticides are strongly implicated in pollinator decline, including through the mechanism of Colony Collapse Disorder The use of pesticides also decreases biodiversity in the soil. Not using them results in higher soil quality with the additional effect that more life in the soil allows for higher water retention. This helps increase yields for farms in drought years where there is less rain. For example, during drought years, organic farms have been found to have yields 20-40% higher than conventional farms.

On farmers

There have been many studies of farmers with the goal of determining the health effects of pesticide exposure. Research in Bangladesh suggests that many farmers' do not need to apply pesticide to their rice fields, but continue to do so only because the pesticide is paid for by the government. Organophosphate pesticides have increased in use, because they are less damaging to the environment and they are less persistent than organochlorine pesticides. These are associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. Additionally, many studies have indicated that pesticide exposure is associated with long-term health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, cancer, depression, neurologic deficits, miscarriages, and birth defects. Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurologic outcomes and cancer, perhaps the two most significant things resulting in organophosphate-exposed workers.

On consumers
A study published by the United States National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet. A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children before and after replacing their diet with organic food (food grown without synthetic pesticides). In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet .

Pesticide residues in food

The Pesticide Data Program, a program started by the United States Department of Agriculture is the largest tester of pesticide residues on food sold in the United States. It began in 1990, and has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides - with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent summary results are from the year 2005: * For example, on page 30 is comprehensive data on pesticides on fruits. Some example data: Percent of Samples with Detection s 98 88 87 50 Differen t Pesticid es Detecte d 33 47 31 3 Differe nt Residu es Detecte d 41 57 35 3

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable s Apples Lettuce Pears Orange Juice

Number of Samples Analyzed 774 743 741 186

Samples with Residues Detected 727 657 643 93

Total Residue Detection s 2,619 1,985 1,309 94

They were also able to test for multiple pesticides within a single sample and found that:

These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent compound and metabolite(s) combined], 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. - page 34. The Environmental Working Group used the results of nearly 43,000 tests for pesticides on produce collected by the USDA and the U.S. FDA between 2000 and 2004, to produce a ranking of 43 commonly eaten fruits & vegetables.

Dangers of pesticides
Pesticides can present danger to consumers, bystanders, or workers during manufacture, transport, or during and after use . There is concern that pesticides used to control pests on food crops are dangerous to the consumer. These concerns are one reason for the organic food movement. Many food crops, including fruits and vegetables, contain pesticide residues after being washed or peeled (see Pesticide residues in food, above). Residues, permitted by US government safety standards, are limited to tolerance levels that are considered safe, based on average daily consumption of these foods by adults and children. Tolerance levels are obtained using scientific risk assessments that pesticide manufacturers are required to produce by conducting toxicological studies, exposure modelling and residue studies before a particular pesticide can be registered, however, the effects are tested for single pesticides, and there is no information on possible synergistic effects of exposure to multiple pesticide traces in the air, food and water . The remaining exposure routes, in particular pesticide drift, are potentially significant to the general public . Risk of exposure to pesticide applicators, or other workers in the field after pesticide application, may also be significant and is regulated as part of the pesticide registration process. Children have been found to be especially susceptible to the harmful effects of pesticides. A number of research studies have found higher instances of brain cancer, leukemia and birth defects in children with early exposure to pesticides, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Peer-reviewed studies now suggest neurotoxic effects on developing animals from organophosphate pesticides at legally-tolerable levels, including fewer nerve cells, smaller birth weights, and lower cognitive scores. The EPA finished a 10 year review of the organophosphate pesticides following the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, but did little to account for developmental neurotoxic effects, drawing strong criticism from within the agency and from outside researchers. Besides human health risks, pesticides also pose dangers to the environment . Nontarget organisms can be severely impacted. In some cases, where a pest insect has some controls from a beneficial predator or parasite, an insecticide application can kill both pest and beneficial populations. The beneficial organism almost always takes longer to recover than the pest. A study comparing biological pest control and use of pyrethroid insectide for diamondback moths, a major cabbage family insect pest, showed that the insecticide application created a rebounded pest population due to loss of insect predators, whereas the biocontrol did not show the same effect. Likewise pesticides sprays in an effort to control adult mosquitoes, may temporarily

depress mosquito populations, however they may result in a larger population in the long run by damaging the natural controlling factors . Pesticides inflict extremely widespread damage to biota, and many countries have acted to discourage pesticide usage through their Biodiversity Action Plans. Misuse of pesticides can also cause pollinator decline, which can adversely affect food crops. An early discovery relating to pesticide use, is that pests may eventually evolve to become resistant to chemicals. When sprayed with pesticides, many pests will initially be very susceptible. However, not all pests are killed, and some with slight variations in their genetic make-up are resistant and therefore survive. Through natural selection, the pests may eventually become very resistant to the pesticide. Farmers may resort to increased use of pesticides, exacerbating the problem . 'Persistent Organic Pollutants' (POPs) are one of the lesser-known environmental issues raised as result of using pesticides. POPs may continue to poison non-target organisms in the environment and increase risk to humans by disruption in the endocrine system, cancer, infertility and mutagenic effects, although very little is currently known about these chronic effects. Many of the chemicals used in pesticides are persistent soil contaminants, whose impact may endure for decades, and adversely affect soil conservation . A new study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, has discovered a 70% increase in the risk of developing Parkinsons disease for people exposed to even low levels of pesticides.

Managing pest resistance

Pest resistance to a pesticide is commonly managed through pesticide rotation or tankmixing with other pesticides. Rotation involves alternating among pesticide classes with different modes of action to delay the onset of or mitigate existing pest resistance. Different pesticide classes may be active on different pest sites of action. The U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA or USEPA) designates different classes of fungicides, herbicides and insecticides. Pesticide manufacturers may, on product labeling, require that no more than a specified number of consecutive applications of a pesticide class be made before alternating to a different pesticide class. This manufacturer requirement is intended to extend the useful life of a product. Tankmixing pesticides is the combination of two or more pesticides with different modes of action. This practice may improve individual pesticide application results in addition to the benefit of delaying the onset of or mitigating existing pest resistance.

Continuing development of pesticides

Pesticides are often very cost-effective for farmers. Pesticide safety education and pesticide applicator regulation are designed to protect the public from pesticide misuse, but do not eliminate all misuse. Reducing the use of pesticides and replacing high risk pesticides is the ultimate solution to reducing risks placed on our society from pesticide use. For over 30 years, there has been a trend in the United States and in many other parts of the world to use pesticides in combination with alternative pest controls. This use of integrated pest management (IPM) is now commonplace in

US agriculture. With pesticide regulations that now put a higher priority on reducing the risks of pesticides in our food supply and emphasize environmental protection, old pesticides are being phased out in favor of new reduced risk pesticides. Many of these reduced risk pesticides include biological and botanical derivatives and alternatives. As a result, older, more hazardous, pesticides are being phased out and replaced with pest controls that reduce these health and environmental risks. Chemical engineers continually develop new pesticides to produce enhancements over previous generations of products. In addition, applicators are being encouraged to consider alternative controls and adopt methods that reduce the use of chemical pesticides. This process is on-going and is not an immediate solution to the risks of pesticide use. In 2006, the World Health Organization suggested the resumption of the limited use of DDT to fight malaria. They called for the use of DDT to coat the inside walls of houses in areas where mosquitoes are prevalent. Dr. Arata Kochi, WHO's malaria chief, said ,"One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT."

Pesticide use maps in the US

The US Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment Program published a 1997 Pesticide Use Maps which shows estimates of pesticide type and intensity of pesticide use by business of mass food production.

Trivia
In the Roald Dahl book James and the Giant Peach the word 'pesticide' is used to refer to an insect committing suicide.

See also

Agrichemicals DDT Endangered arthropod List of environmental health hazards Pesticide misuse Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Integrated Pest Management Nonpoint source pollution Pesticide poisoning Soil contamination Temik Daminozide or Alar Pesticide toxicity to bees Transgenic maize Bt corn

Protectant Non-pesticide management Water pollution Organophosphate

References Further reading

Books

Greene, Stanley A.; Pohanish, Richard P. (editors) (2005). Sittig's Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals. SciTech Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-8155-15162. Hamilton, Denis; Crossley, Stephen (editors) (2004). Pesticide residues in food and drinking water. J. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-48991-3. Hond, Frank et.al. (2003). Pesticides: problems, improvements, alternatives. Blackwell Science. ISBN 0-632-05659-2. Kegley, Susan E.; Wise, Laura J. (1998). Pesticides in fruits and vegetables. University Science Books. ISBN 0-935702-46-6. Miller, G. Tyler Jr. (2002). Living in the Environment (12th Ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. ISBN 0-534-37697-5 Watson, David H. (editor) (2004). Pesticide, veterinary and other residues in food. Woodhead Publishing. ISBN 1-85573-734-5. Ware, George W.; Whitacre, David M. (2004). Pesticide Book. Meister Publishing Co. ISBN 1-892829-11-8.

Journal Articles

Walter A. Alarcon, et.al. (July 2005). "Acute Illnesses Associated With Pesticide Exposure at Schools". Journal of the American Medical Association 294 455465.

News

Janofsky, Michael "E.P.A. Recommends Limits on Thousands of Uses of Pesticides". New York Times, Retrieved on 2006-08-24. Janofsky, Michael "Unions Say E.P.A. Bends to Political Pressure". New York Times, Retrieved on 2006-08-24. Jocelyn Kaiser (June 2005). "Endocrine Disrupters Trigger Fertility Problems in Multiple Generations". Science 308 1391-1392. Jocelyn Kaiser (May 2005). "House Would Foil Human Pesticide Studies". Science 308 1234. Paul Webster (Dec 2004). "Study Finds Heavy Contamination Across Vast Russian Arctic". Science 306 1875.

Erik Stokstad (Nov 2004). "EPA Criticized for Study of Child Pesticide Exposure". Science 306 961. Laura Helmuth (Nov 2000). "Pesticide Causes Parkinson's in Rats". Science 290 1068. David Adam (Nov 2000). "Pesticide use linked to Parkinson's disease". Nature 408 125.

External links

article on pesticides from the UK National Pesticide Information Center information about pesticide-related topics. Center for Disease Control - Pesticides NIH encyclopedia pages with general recommendations regarding risks due to Pesticides and emergency treatment of Insecticide exposure Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa - Has municipal pesticide bylaw statistics for Canada and Fact Sheets Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides - Resource on pesticide hazards and alternatives Beyond Pesticides, founded in 1981 as the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides - Source of information on pesticide hazards, least-toxic practices and products, and on pesticide issues. Website has Daily News Blog relating to pesticides. National Pesticide Forum- Annual grassroots conference on pesticide policy, science, regulation and activism. a list of [[EPA] pesticide labels for pesticides by trade name] Common bactericides Common virucides Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding pesticides Compendium of Pesticide Common Names - Maintained by Alan Wood UK Pesticide Safety Directorate Durango Software - Provides risk assessment tools for pesticide use The Pollution in Newborns - From the Environmental Working Group The Pesticide Education Network, Ottawa Canada Pesticide Action Network UK Aims to minimize pesticide use. Banish Pesticides from Your Garden Article on pesticide dangers and alternatives. Compilation of multiple regulatory databases into a web-accessible form US trade association representing the crop protection and pest control industry A dossier on dangers of pesticides by the French NGO MDRGF. MDRGF is a partner NGO of PAN Europe Pesticides and Food - Pesticide Residue Limits in Food Pesticide Residues in Food - Data and Summary reports from the USDA on pesticide residues in food sold in the United States. (NPIC) Objective, science-based

Pesticides: Use, Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools (pdf) from the United States General Accounting Office Letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson (pdf) - From Unions representing 9,000 scientists (May 24, 2006) Streaming online video about efforts to reduce pesticide use in rice in Bangladesh. Windows Media Player , Real Player Reptile Amphibian & Pesticide (RAP) Database

Pesticide regulatory authorities

US EPA UK Pesticides Safety Directorate European Commission pesticide information

ar:

Wikipedia, the This article

free is

encyclopedia licensed under

2001-2006 Wikipedia the GNU Free

contributors (Disclaimer) Documentation License.

Last updated on Wednesday April 04, 2007 at 09:33:28 PDT (GMT -0700) View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

Agrichemical
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cite

This

Source

Agrichemical (or agrochemical), a contraction of agricultural chemical, is a generic term for the various chemical products used in agriculture. In most cases, agrichemical refers to the broad range of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, but it may also include synthetic fertilizers, hormones and other chemical growth agents, and concentrated stores of raw animal manure. Most agrichemicals are toxic, and all agrichemicals in bulk storage pose significant environmental and/or health risks, particularly in the event of accidental spills. In many countries, access to and use of agrichemicals is highly regulated. Governmentissued permits for purchase and use of approved agrichemicals may be required, and significant penalties can result from misuse, including improper storage resulting in spillage. On farms, proper storage facilities and labelling, emergency clean-up equipment and procedures, and safety equipment and procedures for handling, application and disposal are specific areas of concern, often subject to mandatory standards and regulations. Usually, the regulations are carried out through the registration process.

Wikipedia, This Last

the

free is on

encyclopedia licensed Saturday

2001-2006 the 24, GNU 2007

Wikipedia

contributors

(Disclaimer) License. -0800)

article updated

under February

Free Documentation at 19:38:19 PST (GMT

View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

DDT
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

For other uses: see DDT (disambiguation). DDT

Systematic name Chemical formula Density Melting point Boiling point CAS number SMILES
Chemical infobox

4,4'-(2,2,2-trichloroethane1,1-diyl)bis(chlorobenzene) C14H9Cl5

Molecular mass 354.49 g/mol 1.6 g/cm 106.5 C 260 C [50-29-3]

ClC(Cl)(Cl)C(C1=CC=C(Cl) C=C1)C2=CC=C(Cl)C=C2

DDT or Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane is the first modern pesticide and is arguably the best known organic pesticide. It was developed early in World War II, and initially used with great effect to combat mosquitoes spreading malaria, typhus, and other insect-borne human diseases among both military and civilian populations, and as an agricultural insecticide. The Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Mller of Geigy Pharmaceutical in Switzerland was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948 "for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods. In 1962, American biologist Rachel Carson published the book Silent Spring, which alleged that DDT caused cancer and harmed bird reproduction by thinning egg shells. This followed the principles of biological magnification, killing higher level organisms like the birds. The book resulted in a large public outcry which eventually led to the insecticide being banned for agricultural use in the USA, and was one of the signature events in the birth of the environmental movement. DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide, but its use in disease vector control continues to this day in some parts of the world.

Properties
DDT is a highly hydrophobic, colorless, crystalline solid with a weak, chemical odor. It is nearly insoluble in water but has a good solubility in most organic solvents, fats, and oils. It is moderately toxic, with a rat LD50 of 113 mg/kg. DDT is created by the reaction of trichloroethanal (C2HCl3O) with chlorobenzene (C6H5Cl). Trade or other names for DDT include Anofex, Cesarex, Chlorophenothane, Dedelo, p,p-DDT, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, Dinocide, Didimac, Digmar, ENT

1506, Genitox, Guesapon, Guesarol, Gexarex, Gyron, Hildit, Ixodex, Kopsol, Neocid, OMS 16, Micro DDT 75, Pentachlorin, Rukseam, R50 and Zerdane. In addition to the p,p isomer pictured in this article, the o,p isomer, in which one of the chlorine atoms is shifted around the benzene ring, is also known. When necessary to distinguish between them, these two compounds are sometimes abbreviated "ppDDT" and "opDDT", respectively. DDT has potent insecticidal properties; it kills by opening sodium ion channels in insect neurons, causing the neuron to fire spontaneously. This leads to spasms and eventual death. Insects with certain mutations in their sodium channel gene may be resistant to DDT and other similar insecticides. DDT resistance is also conferred by up-regulation of genes expressing cytochrome P450 in some insect species.

History
DDT was first synthesized in 1874 by Othmar Zeidler, but its insecticidal properties were not discovered until 1939, by the Swiss scientist Paul Hermann Mller, who was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his efforts. DDT is the best-known of a number of chlorine-containing pesticides used in the 1940s and 1950s. It was used extensively during World War II by Allied troops in Europe and the Pacific as well as certain civilian populations to control insect typhus and malaria vectors (nearly eliminating typhus as a result). Civilian suppression used a spray on interior walls, which kills mosquitoes that rest on the wall after feeding to digest their meal; resistant strains are repelled from the area. Entire cities in Italy were dusted to control the typhus carried by lice. DDT also sharply reduced the incidence of biting midges in Great Britain, and was used extensively as an agricultural insecticide after 1945. DDT contributed to the final eradication of malaria in Europe and North America, although malaria had already been eliminated from much of the developed world in the early 20th century through the use of a range of public health measures and generally increasing health and living standards. "Malaria's decline in the United States and Europe in the late 1800s was due mainly to draining swamps and removing mill ponds". Even in countries without these advances, it was critical in their eradication of the disease. "Malaria was eradicated from Brazil and Egypt, largely due to extensive DDT spraying." In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. Though this program was initially highly successful worldwide (reducing mortality rates from 192 per 100,000 to a low of 7 per 100,000), resistance emerged in many insect populations over time. DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not pursued at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties, with the result that mortality rates in the area were never reduced to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the resurgence of the disease as a result of microbe resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Doubts about DDT's environmental effects grew out of direct personal observations, usually involving a marked reduction in bird life, later supplemented by scientific investigation. The first recorded group effort against the chemical involved several

citizens, including one or more scientists, in Nassau County, NY. Their unsuccessful struggle to have DDT regulated was reported in the New York Times in 1957, and thereby came to the attention of the popular naturalist-author, Rachel Carson. New Yorker editor William Shawn urged her to write a piece on the subject, which developed into her famous 1962 bestseller. Despite the uproar surrounding Silent Spring, DDT remained in use. A few years later, Carol Yannacone witnessed a fish kill at Yaphank Ponds following spraying by the Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission. She convinced her husband Victor Yannacone, an attorney, to sue; their suit resulted in a local ban on DDT. Scientist Charles Wurster, a professor at nearby State University of New York at Stony Brook had earlier, in New Hampshire, noticed that the use of DDT on elms killed birds without saving trees. A Bellport school teacher, Art Cooley, meanwhile was observing the decline of ospreys and other large birds around the Carmans River, and he too correctly suspected a DDT connectionthe specific effect being extremely thin and fragile shells that prevent reproduction. The Yannacones joined forces with Wurster and Cooley to form the EDF in 1967, and launched a wider campaign against DDT. Their efforts eventually led to the US ban, and a spectacular recovery in once-endangered osprey and eagle populations. In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most developed countries, and DDT was replaced in most antimalarial uses by less persistent, and more expensive, alternative insecticides. DDT was first banned from use in Norway and Sweden in 1970, but was not banned in the United Kingdom until 1984. As of 2006, DDT continues to be used in other (primarily tropical) countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are serious health problems. Use of DDT in public health to control mosquitoes is primarily done inside buildings and through inclusion in household products and selective spraying; this greatly reduces environmental damage compared to the earlier widespread use of DDT in agriculture. It also reduces the risk of resistance to DDT. This use only requires a small fraction of that previously used in agriculture; for the whole country of Guyana, covering an area of 215,000 km, the required amount is roughly equal to the amount of DDT that might previously have been used to spray 4 km of cotton during a single growing season. The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004, calls for the elimination of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, barring health crises. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. However, a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives for controlling malaria, so public health use of DDT is exempt from the ban until such alternatives are developed. Malaria Foundation International states: The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. 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. In September 2006, almost 30 years after it phased out widespread indoor spraying of DDT, the World Health Organization has announced that DDT will be used as one of the three main tools against malaria. WHO is hence recommending indoor residual spraying (IRS) in epidemic areas, as well as in places with constant and high malaria transmission. The USAID subsequently announced that it would fund the use of DDT.

The U.S. ban on the use of DDT

In 1962, Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was published. The book argued that PCBs and pesticides, especially DDT, were poisoning both wildlife and the environment and also endangering human health. Public reaction to Silent Spring launched the modern environmental movement in the United States, and DDT became a prime target of the growing anti-chemical and anti-pesticide movements during the 1960s. In fact, Carson devoted a page of the book to thoughtful consideration of the relationship between DDT and malarial mosquitoes, but with cognizance of the development of resistance in the mosquito, concluding: It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity." Some of Carson's conclusions were called into question because a number of studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning. However, more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE., but not all experts accept those claims. Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically that eggshell thinness remains 10-12 percent thinner than pre-DDT thicknesses. There was significant public controversy surrounding the book. Charles Wurster, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was quoted in the Seattle Times of 5 October, 1969, as saying: "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT." During the late 1960s, pressure grew within the United States to effect a ban on DDT. In January 1971, the U.S. District Court of Appeals ordered William Ruckelshaus, the EPA's first Administrator, to begin the de-registration procedure for DDT. Initially, after a six-month review process, Ruckelshaus rejected an outright ban, citing studies from the EPA's internal staff stating that DDT was not an imminent danger to human health and wildlife. However, the findings of these staff members were criticized, as they were performed mostly by economic entomologists inherited from the United States Department of Agriculture, whom many environmentalists felt were biased towards agribusiness and tended to minimize concerns about human health and wildlife. The decision not to ban thus created public controversy. The EPA held seven months of hearings in 1971-1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced a ban on virtually all uses of DDT in the U.S., where it was classified as an EPA Toxicity Class II substance. The 1970s ban in the U.S. took place amid a climate of public mistrust of the scientific and industrial community, following such fiascoes as Agent Orange and use of the hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES). In addition, the placement of the bald eagle on the endangered species list was also a strong factor leading to its being banned in the United States. The overuse of DDT was claimed to be a major factor in the bald eagle population decline - a claim that has fallen into dispute. The ban has subsequently been vigorously criticized by pro-DDT advocates, including Steven Milloy, Roger Bate and Richard Tren, whose critiques draw on the work of entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a witness at the hearings who stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims that DDT posed a threat to human health. They report that, at the end of the hearings, hearing examiner Edmund Sweeney

ruled that the scientific evidence provided no basis for banning DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus reviewed evidence collected during the agency's hearings as well as reports prepared by two DDT study groups (the Hilton and Mark Commissions) that had come to the opposite conclusion. Milloy and Edwards claimed that Ruckelshaus did not actually attend any of the EPA commission's hearings, and (citing unnamed aides) that he did not read any transcripts of the hearings. Ruckelshaus overturned Sweeney's ruling, arguing that the pesticide was "a warning that man may be exposing himself to a substance that may ultimately have a serious effect on his health."

Criticism of a supposed international ban

One popular controversy involves claims that restrictions on the use of DDT in vector control, imposed by various national governments, donor countries and international aid agencies, in response to pressure from environmentalists, has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. Claims of this kind commonly include reference to a ban on DDT (although it is still in use in malaria control) and refer specifically to the 1972 US ban, with the implication that this constituted a worldwide ban, and to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. This international ban is supposed to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths according to Nicholas Kristof. In the fiction novel State of Fear:, popular author Michael Crichton states through the character John Kenner: Since the supposed ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler. However, this claim is countered by the fact that insects were becoming tolerant of DDT at the time that it was banned. One of the claims is that the ban shows a lack of compassion for sufferers in the Third World: treatments were used long enough to eliminate insect-borne diseases in the West, but now that it is only needed in poorer nations in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, it has been banned. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, argues that the epidemic of malaria in Africa not only takes the lives of 2 million people a year, but leaves those who survive malaria unable to contribute to the economy while sick and more vulnerable to subsequent diseases that might kill them. Many African resources are tied up with the sick or expended in caring for them, leaving the world's poorest countries even poorer. However, DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides. On the other hand, environmental groups have been strongly criticized for trying to ban all use of DDT. Many environmentalist groups fought against the public health exception of DDT in the 2001 Stockholm Convention, against the objections of third world governments and many malaria researchers. "Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility and over 300 other environmental organizations advocated for a total DDT ban, starting as early as 2007 in some cases. An article in Nature Medicine at this time strongly objected to what would have been a de facto ban and stated: "Environmentalists in rich, developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace,

Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT for being "a current source of significant injury to...humans.

Criticism of limiting DDT use

The pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria asserts that USAID and some other international donor organizations have refused to fund public health DDT programs. Similarly, Roger Bate of AFM asserts that many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants, and that Belize and Bolivia have gone on record to say that they gave in to pressure on this issue from the US Agency for International Development. Many African nations want to use DDT to control malaria and save lives, but they have been told their agricultural exports may not be accepted if spraying was "widespread. The general thesis of DDT supporters is that the alternatives to DDT are generally more expensive, more toxic to humans and not always as effective at controlling malaria and insect-borne diseases, and that the petrochemical companies which patent those alternatives push(ed) for DDT's ban simply for their own profits; DDT had entered the public domain, their patented insecticides have not. DDT supporters argue that some DDT detractors fear that any use of DDT will lead to overuse, they therefore often blur the use of agricultural spraying with in-home spraying in a disingenuous effort to muddy the science involved. DDT critics have responded that the use of DDT as an herbicide has led to reduced bird populations and that it threatens biodiversity. While raising important questions about how the West deals with health crises in the Third World, the core of the argument is controversial. Although the publication of Silent Spring undoubtedly influenced the U.S. ban on DDT in 1972, the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. Indeed, Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied AntiMalaria campaign, observed that eradication programs had to be wary of relying on DDT for too long as "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years." Furthermore, the application of DDT that proved most troubling to environmentalists (and indeed, health officials) was in agriculture. Even as anti-malaria programs were reducing their usage of DDT, producers of cotton and other cash crops were spraying ever increasing amounts of the pesticide, further limiting DDT's overall effectiveness. As noted above, El Salvador actually saw its cases of malaria increase during years of high DDT usage. USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted. However, USAID "favored" DDT alternatives in its funding: Contrary to popular belief, USAID does not "ban" the use of DDT in its malaria control programs. From a purely technical point of view in terms of effective methods of addressing malaria, USAID and others have not seen DDT as a high priority component of malaria programs for practical reasons. In many cases, indoor residual spraying of DDT, or any other insecticide, is not cost-

effective and is very difficult to maintain. In most countries in Africa where USAID provides support to malaria control programs, it has been judged more cost-effective and appropriate to put US government funds into preventing malaria through insecticide-treated nets, which are every bit as effective in preventing malaria and more feasible in countries that do not have existing, strong indoor spraying programs.

Environmental impact
Overall, DDT concentrates in biological systems (particularly in body fat), it is a toxicant across a certain range of phyla, and it biomagnifies up the food chain, reaching its greatest concentrations in higher animals such as humans. DDT is a persistent organic pollutant with a reported half life of between 2-15 years, and is immobile in most soils. Its half life is 56 days in lake water and approximately 28 days in river water. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic and anaerobic). These processes generally occur slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene) and DDD (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethane), which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties. These products together are known as total DDT. In the United States, human blood and fat tissue samples collected in the early 1970s showed detectable levels in all samples. A later study of blood samples collected in the later half of the 1970s showed that blood levels were declining further, but DDT or metabolites were still seen in a very high proportion of the samples. Biomonitoring conducted by the CDC as recently as 2002 shows that more than half of subjects tested had detectable levels of DDT or metabolites in their blood. DDT is an organochlorine. Some organochlorines have been shown to have weak estrogenic activity; that is, they are chemically similar enough to estrogen to trigger hormonal responses in contaminated animals. This hormonal-mimicking activity has been observed when DDT is used in laboratory studies involving mice and rats as test subjects, but available epidemiological evidence does not indicate that these effects have occurred in humans as a result of DDT exposure. DDT and its metabolic products magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals than other animals sharing the same environment. In particular, DDT has been cited as a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption thereby impairing egg-shell quality. In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect. DDT is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations. By the 1950s, in some cases, doses of DDT and other insecticides had to be doubled or tripled as resistant insect strains evolved. In addition, evidence began to grow that the chemical had a tendency to become more concentrated at higher levels in the food chain.

Effects on human health

Conflicting Studies

DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program and "moderately hazardous" by WHO. It is not considered to be highly toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap. Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning. The EPA, in 1987, classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on "Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE." Regarding the Human Carcinogenicity Data, they stated...". The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results. Three studies reported that tissue levels of DDT and DDE were higher in cancer victims than in those dying of other diseases (Casarett et al., 1968; Dacre and Jennings, 1970; Wasserman et al., 1976). In other studies no such relationship was seen (Maier-Bode, 1960; Robinson et al., 1965; Hoffman et al., 1967). Studies of occupationally exposed workers and volunteers have been of insufficient duration to be useful in assessment of the carcinogenicity of DDT to humans.". A recent study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley suggests children who have been exposed to DDT while in the womb have a greater chance to experience development problems. Direct studies have not found a link between DDT and breast cancer in humans. Some evidence suggests a link between DDT and breast cancer in humans. For example, diminishing rates of breast cancer in Israel have paralleled a precipitous decline in environmental contamination with DDT and benzene hexachloride. Dr. Mary Wolf published a 1993 article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute indicating a statistically significant correlation between DDT metabolites in the blood and the risks of developing breast cancer in the general population. Others have disputed this research. In one 1969 study, 24 cynomolgus monkeys and rhesus monkeys fed 20 mg/kg of DDT for 130 months were compared to a control group of 17 monkeys. The study demonstrated "clear evidence of hepatic and CNS toxicity following long-term DDT administration." Although the exposed group developed two malignancies and three benign tumors, compared to zero in the control group, statistically this is still "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates". A study of 692 women, half of them control subjects, over a period of twenty years established no correlation between serum DDE and breast cancer. DDE is a metabolite of DDT, and correlates with DDT exposure. A study examined 35 workers exposed to 600 times the average DDT exposure levels over a period of 9 to 19 years. No elevated cancer risk was observed. In another study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other adverse effects were observed. A review article in The Lancet concludes:

''Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria. ... DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit. Future perspectives: Although acute toxic effects are scarce, toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation. The research focus on human reproduction and development seems to be appropriate. DDT could be an effective public-health intervention that is cheap, longlasting, and effective. However, various toxiceffects that would be difficult to detect without specific study might exist and could result in substantial morbidity or mortality. Responsible use of DDT should include research programmes that would detect the most plausible forms of toxic effects as well as the documentation of benefits attributable specifically to DDT. Although this viewpoint amounts to a platitude if applied to malaria research in Africa, the research question here could be sufficiently focused and compelling, so that governments and funding agencies recognise the need to include research on all infant mortality when DDT is to be used.
In humans, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning. Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people. Subclinical and subtle functional changes have not been meticulously sought until the past few decades. Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 5570 years in Costa Rica. Although DDT or DDE concentrations were not determined in this study, they probably were very high. Although extensively studied, there is no convincing evidence that DDT or its metabolite DDE increase human cancer risk. Mainly on the basis of animal data, DDT is classified as a possible carcinogen (class 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program. Breast cancer has been examined most closely for an association with p, p'-DDE. In a study in 1993, 37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11.8 g/L) than controls (7.7 g/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association. However, large epidemiological studies and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses failed to confirm the association. With detailed work history of chemical manufacturing workers to estimate DDT exposure, a nested case-control study reported occupational DDT exposure associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk. A weak association of selfreported DDT use with pancreatic cancer was reported in another case-control study. A report indicated a higher standardised mortality ratio for pancreatic cancer in outdoor workers with a history of DDT exposure of less than 3 years, but

the standardised mortality ratio of DDT workers with exposure of 3 years or more was not significantly raised.

The central claim of the above article, that DDT was theoretically estimated to cause more pregnancy and infant deaths than it saves, has been criticized by using actual data from countries with malaria, for example with data from Guyana, where in 2 to 3 years DDT caused near elimination of malaria and halved maternal deaths and reduced infant deaths by 39%. This criticism is disputed by the authors of the original study who state "We do not believe that causality has been demonstrated for the relationship between dichlordiphenylethylene (DDE) and shorter period of lactation or preterm birth. However, we think the evidence is sufficiently strong that the possibility of causality cannot be dismissed and testing this hypothesis will require data from appropriately designed studies in areas where dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is used.". A 2006 study finds that even low-level concentrations of DDT in serum from the umbilical cord at birth were associated with a decrease in cognitive skills at 4 years of age.

Effectiveness against Malaria

Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that around 1 million people die of malaria and malaria-related illness every year. About 90% of these deaths occur in Africa, mostly to children under the age of 5. The economic ramifications include costs of health care, working days lost due to sickness, days lost in education, decreased productivity due to brain damage from cerebral malaria, and loss of investment and tourism. In some countries with a heavy malaria burden, the disease may account for as much as 40% of public health expenditure, 30-50% of inpatient admissions, and up to 50% of outpatient visits. Economists believe that malaria is responsible for a "growth penalty" of up to 1.3% per year in some African countries, which when compounded over time, leads to large differences in poverty between different nations. Malaria has been found to cause cognitive impairments, especially in children. It causes widespread anemia during a period of rapid brain development and also direct brain damage from cerebral malaria to which children are more vulnerable. Most prior use of DDT was in agriculture. The controlled usage of DDT continues to this day for the purposes of public health and, to a lesser extent, agriculture. The U.S. has continued to use DDT under the conditions of the 1972 ban. Current use for disease control requires only a small fraction of the amounts previously used, and at these levels the pesticide is much less likely to cause environmental problems. Residual house spraying involves the treatment of all interior walls and ceilings with insecticide, and is particularly effective against mosquitoes, which favour indoor resting before or after feeding. Advocated as the mainstay of malaria eradication programmes in the late 1950s and 1960s, DDT remains a major component of control programmes in southern African states, though many countries have abandoned or curtailed their spraying activities. Swaziland, Mozambique and Ecuador are examples of countries that have very successfully reduced malaria infestations with DDT. Indeed, the problems facing health officials in their fight against malaria neither begin nor end with DDT. Experts tie the spread of malaria to numerous factors, including the resistance of the malaria microbe itself to the drugs traditionally used to treat the illness and a chronic lack of funds in the countries worst hit by malaria. The growth of resistance to DDT and the fear that DDT may be harmful both to humans and insects led to the U.N., donor countries and various national

governments restricting or curtailing the use of DDT in vector control. At the same time, use of DDT as an agricultural insecticide was often unrestricted, and restrictions were often evaded, especially in developing countries where malaria is rife, so that resistance continued to grow. This has generated two related controversies. The first, involving debate among professionals working on malaria control, concerns the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement here is relatively small. Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether. The debate focuses on the relative merits of DDT and alternative pesticides as well as complementary use of interior wall spraying and insecticide-treated bednets. Since the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of its anti-malaria division, the WHO has shifted its position in this controversy, from primary reliance on bednets to a policy more favorable to DDT. Until an announcement made on 16 September 2006, the policy had recommended indoor spraying of insecticides in areas of seasonal or episodic transmission of malaria, but a new policy also advocates it where continuous, intense transmission of the disease causes the most deaths.

Overall Effectiveness of DDT

A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal argues that the campaign against malaria is failing, that funding of malaria control should therefore be increased, and that use of DDT should be considered since DDT has "a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions. One insecticide supply company states on its website: DDT is still one of the first and most commonly used insecticides for residual spraying, because of its low cost, high effectiveness, persistence and relative safety to humans. [...] In the past several years, we supplied DDT 75% WDP to Madagascar, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, South Africa, Namibia, Solomon Island, Papua New Guinea, Algeria, Thailand, and Myanmar for Malaria Control project, and won a good reputation from WHO and relevant countries' government. In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before. Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria infection rate to 3,000 by 2004. A recent study notes, "DDT and Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An. subpictus has been found resistant. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective. Uganda also began permitting the use of DDT in anti-malarial efforts, despite a threat that its agricultural exports to Europe could be banned if they were contaminated with DDT. The Ugandan government has stated that it cannot achieve

its development goals without first eliminating malaria. The GDP shows a striking correlation between malaria and poverty, where malaria is estimated to reduce per capita growth by 1.3 percent per annum. Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years. Other mosquito-borne diseases are also on the rise. Until the 1970s, DDT was used to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito from most tropical regions of the Americas. The reinvasion of Aedes aegypti since has brought devastating outbreaks of dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and a renewed threat of urban yellow fever.

Mosquito resistance against DDT

In some areas DDT has lost much of its effectiveness, especially in areas such as India where outdoor transmission is the predominant form. According to one article by V.P. Sharma, "The declining effectiveness of DDT is a result of several factors which frequently operate in tandem. The first and the most important factor is vector resistance to DDT. All populations of the main vector, An. culicifacies have become resistant to DDT." In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission. One old study that attempts to quantify the lives saved due to banning agricultural use of DDT, and thereby the spread of DDT resistance, has been published in the scientific literature: "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria." According to a pesticide industry newsletter, DDT is obsolete for malarial prevention in India not only owing to concerns over its toxicity, but because it has largely lost its effectiveness. Use of DDT for agricultural purposes was banned in India in 1989, and its use for anti-malarial purposes has been declining. Use of DDT in urban areas of India has halted completely. Food supplies and eggshells of large predator birds still show high DDT levels. Parasitology journal articles confirm that malarial vector mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT and HCH in most parts of India. Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used in India. One study concludes "The overall results of the study revealed that DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor. Advocates for using DDT against malaria states that "Limited use of DDT for public health has continued to be effective in areas where it is used inside homes. As DDT's chief property is repellency, mosquitoes often avoid the DDT treated homes altogether. In so doing, they avoid the exposure that promotes resistance as well. DDT resistance exists in West Africa and in other malarial areas, such as India. Isolated occurrences of DDT resistance have occurred in South Africa, and South Africa continues to monitor for resistance. As the various Departments of Health that use it carefully control DDT use, it is unlikely that resistance will emerge as a major problem.

Alternatives to DDT
There are some insecticide alternatives to DDT. One agent that is being used as a substitute is methoxychlor. Vietnam is often mentioned as a country that has seen a

continued decline in malaria cases after involuntarily switching from DDT to other insecticides in 1991. However, Thailand, another Southeast Asian nation, has continued to use DDT and has a much smaller malaria rate despite similar climate conditions. The insecticide alternatives are generally more expensive, which limits their use in poor nations and in situations where anti-malarial efforts are already underfunded. In Mexico, however, the use of a range of effective and affordable chemical and nonchemical strategies against malaria has been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production voluntarily, due to lack of demand. Furthermore, while the increased numbers of malaria victims since DDT usage fell out of favor would, at first glance, suggest a 1:1 correlation, many other factors are known to have contributed to the rise in cases. Actual data on the cost-effectiveness of DDT versus other insecticides and/or means of fighting malaria is, in fact, lacking. One complicating factor is that the relative costs of various measures vary, depending on geographical location and ease of access, the habits of the particular mosquitoes prevalent in each area, the degrees of resistance to various pesticides exhibited by the mosquitoes, the habits and compliance of the population, among other factors. A review of fourteen studies on the subject in sub-Saharan Africa, covering insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxis or intermittent treatment for pregnant women, a hypothetical vaccine, and changing the first line drug for treatment, found decision making limited by the gross lack of information on the costs and effects of many interventions, the very small number of cost-effectiveness analyses available, the lack of evidence on the costs and effects of packages of measures, and the problems in generalizing or comparing studies that relate to specific settings and use different methodologies and outcome measures. The two cost-effectiveness estimates of DDT residual spraying examined were not found to provide an accurate estimate of the costeffectiveness of DDT spraying; furthermore, the resulting estimates may not be good predictors of cost-effectiveness in current programmes. However, a study in Thailand found the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying ($1.87 US) to be 21% greater than the cost per case prevented of lambdacyhalothrin-treated nets ($1.54 US), at very least casting some doubt on the unexamined assumption that DDT was the most cost-effective measure to use in all cases. The director of Mexico's malaria control program finds similar results, declaring that it is 25% cheaper for Mexico to spray a house with synthetic pyrethroids than with DDT. However, another study in South Africa found generally lower costs for DDT spraying than for impregnated nets. A more effective way of measuring cost-effectiveness or efficacy of malarial control would not only measure the cost in dollars of the project, as well as the number of people saved, but would also take into account the negative aspects of insecticide use on human health and ecological damage. One preliminary study regarding the effect of DDT found that it is likely the detriment to human health approaches or exceeds the beneficial reductions in malarial cases, except perhaps in malarial epidemic situations. It is similar to the earlier mentioned study regarding estimated theoretical infant mortality caused by DDT and subject to the criticism also mentioned earlier. A study in the Solomon Islands found that impregnated bednets cannot easily replace DDT spraying without substantial increase in incidence, but impregnated nets do permit a substantial reduction in the amount of DDT spraying.

A comparison of four successful programs against malaria in Brazil, India, Eritrea, and Vietnam does not endorse any single strategy but instead states "Common success factors included conducive country conditions, a targeted technical approach using a package of effective tools, data-driven decision-making, active leadership at all levels of government, involvement of communities, decentralized implementation and control of finances, skilled technical and managerial capacity at national and subnational levels, hands-on technical and programmatic support from partner agencies, and sufficient and flexible financing. Before DDT, malaria was successfully eradicated or controlled in several tropical areas by removing or poisoning the breeding grounds of the mosquitoes or the aquatic habitats of the larva stages, for example by filling or applying oil to places with standing water. These methods have seen little application in Africa for more than half a century.

See also

pesticides poisons Agent Orange

References

Bailey, R. (12 June 2002). Silent Spring at 40: Rachel Carsons classic is not aging well, Reason Online, Lundholm, C. E. (1997) DDE-induced eggshell thinning in birds: Effects of p, p'DDE on the calcium and prostaglandin metabolism of the eggshell gland. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Endocrinology 118 (2), 113-128. Risebrough, R. W. (1998). Endocrine Disrupters and Bald Eagles: A Response Roberts, D. R. (2004) Testimony, United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations

External links
Toxicity

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: ToxFAQs for DDT, DDE and DDD CDC ATSDR DDT toxicity reference list (PDF) EXTOXNET: Pesticide Information ProfilesDDT Oregon State University EXTOXNET DDT toxicity reference list Scorecard: The Pollution Information SiteDDT 100 things you should know about DDT

Environmental impact

Microbial Degradation of Pesticides DDT and its Derivatives - Environmental Aspects Aerobic pathway of DDT metabolization Anaerobic pathway of DDT metabolization Pesticide residues in food 2000 : DDT Pesticide residues in food1984 Environmental Fate Evaluation of DDT, Chlordane and Lindane EPA : Pesticides and Public Health World Health Organization Lifts Ban on DDT: Not a Threat

Articles in political magazines

DDT, Eggshells, and Me Article from Reason magazine DDT: The Bald Eagle Lie Article from FrontPageMag.com

Malaria and DDT

"If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer", a Washington Post column by entomologist May Berenbaum WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria The current position of the World Health Organisation "The Mosquito Killer", a New Yorker article about Fred Soper by Malcolm Gladwell 'Andrew Spielman, Harvard School of Public Health, discusses environmentally friendly control of Malaria and uses of DDT Freeview video provided by the Vega Science Trust The DDT ban myth Malaria and the DDT Story Malaria and DDT Putting Myths to Bed The Kill Malarial Mosquitoes NOW! coalition, a project of the international NGO Africa Fighting Malaria DDT Ban Myth Bingo Nets for fighting malaria

Chemical
Wikipedia, This Last the free is on encyclopedia licensed Tuesday 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer) License. -0700)

article updated

under the GNU April 03, 2007 at

Free Documentation 17:18:19 PDT (GMT

View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation