Mexico will ban the use of DDT within 10 years, according to a plan released last week by the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (a NAFTA construct).
However, as I have written previously, an article published in the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Environmental Perspectives (1196;104(6):584-588), presented data indicating that the Mexican DDT ban will do more harm to public health than good.
The lessons from the Environmental Health Perspectives article are:
- DDT use equals less malaria in Mexico; and
- DDT ban equals more malaria in Mexico.
Also, as I have written previously, a recent report in Nature indicated that about 2 million people die from malaria annually worldwide. Yet, no convincing data exists that links DDT to human health effects.
The "scientific" argument against DDT use is that:
- DDT is associated with reproductive problems in birds (Let's see... birds vs. people...);
- DDT does not breakdown and persists in the environment (And we should be worried about this because this persistence causes what human health effects?); and
- DDT accumulates up the food chain (As with #2: no harm, no foul).
Until a viable alternative to DDT is developed and implemented, does it really make sense to ban DDT and sacrifice millions of lives every year?
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1996 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.