MYTH: DDT is not harmful and its ban has resulted in Africans dying of malaria and African nations going into large amounts debt

 

Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environment, in a raw exercise of arbitrary power in 1972 the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT, and it has continued to be banned in most of the world. Since then, more than 50 million people have died from malaria. (Phyllis Schlafly, “The Myth of DDT versus the Reality of Malaria in Africa,” Town Hall, 6/20/05)

 

DDT is cheap, easy to use, long lasting, does the job, and could save literally millions of African, Asian and Central American lives every year. Wealthy countries like the United States can afford alternate anti-mosquito repellents that you and I can buy at any supermarket, but the epidemic of malaria in poor countries makes anything other than DDT impractical. (Schlafly)

 

The U.S. Agency for International Development and World Bank anti-DDT policy that saves mosquitoes instead of humans has stymied African countries' economic growth and is now forcing U.S. taxpayers to bail out a mountain of bad debt. When will Americans wake up to the high costs of junk environmentalism? (Schlafly)

  

REALITY

Malaria is the biggest killer of children in the world. The Mercury, a South African newspaper, wrote a very comprehensive article about the ravages of malaria on the African continent. More children die every day from malaria than the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. A child dies every 30 seconds from the disease. Couple this staggering fact with the number of people who die of AIDS and you have some very scary numbers. Important to keep in mind, too, is the fact that people with AIDS are more apt to die from diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, etc. because of their compromised immune systems.

One of the main reasons that each person who resides in a rich, developed country should be ashamed for these horrendous malaria death tolls is because malaria is a completely preventable and curable disease. Steps have been taken to lessen the impact of this disease, such as getting more medicines to the hardest hit areas and supplying communities with mosquito-repellent nets to put over their beds at night. The Mercury article cited above indicates that only 1-2% of the population in malaria-prone areas use one of these nets. The nets each cost about $2—not a lot of money by American standards but a significant cost to most Africans. Carrying out some of the math from above, it is estimated that 1 million children die from malaria each year. $2 million worth of mosquito nets could save 1 million lives. The daily budget deficit of the federal government of the United States is a little under $1 billion and only helps the fat cats of this country. A lot more could be done to help eradicate the malaria problem in Africa.

What should not be done, however is returning to the utilization of DDT in order to control the mosquito population and stop the proliferation of malaria. Consider some of the facts about DDT—1) DDT is a close relative of Agent Orange, the chemical used during the Vietnam War by the United States in order to kill vegetation and reveal to locations of the enemy. In the years following the War, veterans and some Vietnamese have experienced a host of dangerous and undesirable effects, including cancer and birth deformities in off-spring; 2) DDT is fat-soluble, meaning that it stays in the body longer and is able to accumulate over time; and 3) the US does not use DDT and yet we want other countries to expose their populations to it. It is very important for developed nations, who themselves faced the threat of malaria at various times in the past, to fight this fight. But spraying a relative of dioxin all over the African continent is not the way. Would Americans want this for their own children?

The United States should help poor, third-world nations get out of their bottomless amounts of debt they have amassed over the years from loans granted by international organizations, such as the World Bank and the IMF, to help them fight poverty. Did malaria cause this debt? No. Sadly, the fact of the matter in regards to the malaria epidemic is that the vast majority of its victims are children under age 5. These are not “productive” members of society. Contrasting this with the HIV/AIDS crisis, which strikes and kills adult people in their prime working stage of life, makes it easy to see which disease causes the bigger drain on the productivity of communities. A decrease in productivity means a decrease in wealth and a decrease in the ability for governments to cover their debts. Throw in a corrupt government and the problem gets even worse.

It would be so easy if one could spray DDT over the continent of Africa and make the continent’s poverty and debts go away. You can’t. To suggest that you can is irresponsible and irrational, trademarks of conservative thinking.