DDT risk assessments.

Two recent articles in EHP (1,2) and the latest Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry toxicologic profile for DDT (3) make repeated references to DDT risks. These statements of risk, like so many others, are one-sided and give no consideration to colossal increases in diseases previously controlled with DDT. Behind disease statistics are grievous human tragedies, as with the case of a little girl who died of an infection that could have been prevented if her house had been sprayed with DDT. She lived in a village in the Andes and was 8 years old in 1998 when she died of bartonellosis. Bartonellosis was previously controlled through malaria housespray programs, but without DDT, the disease returned. One-sided and narrowly focused risk assessments form the bedrock of anti-DDT advocacy (4,5), but advocacy for global elimination of DDT through United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) treaty negotiations failed (6). Countries can continue using DDT for disease control, and DDT is not listed for global elimination. This outcome was possible only through efforts of hundreds of scientists on behalf of hundreds of millions of people at risk of illness and death from malaria (7). Environmental activists who still want DDT eliminated and who are surprised by the lack of cost-effective alternatives should understand that global vilification of DDT eliminated almost all research on public health insecticides. Lack of research support persists and contrasts sharply with the richness of funds for research on adverse health effects of DDT; 29 major projects are presently funded by the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) (3). The evidence of DDT efficacy in controlling diseases is irrefutable. In just 3 years, house spraying in Guyana reduced maternal and infant mortalities by 56% and 39%, respectively, and reduced malaria cases by 99% (8). Similar evidence from other geographic areas persuaded delegates to UNEP treaty negotiations that DDT is still needed. Yet, and in spite of all contrary evidence, the UN program to phase out DDT is unabated (9,10). The current “phase-out” program by the World Health Organization’s Roll Back Malaria initiative and the Global Environment Facility (Washington, DC) includes no publicized disease control performance standards and does not include appropriate on-site studies or tests to determine, under varying epidemiologic and environmental conditions, that DDT alternatives will provide adequate and sustained protection of rural populations. After years of successful efforts, the modus operandi of DDT elimination remains the same: apply political and economic pressures, convince country politicians that DDT is not needed, pass laws banning its use, and let impoverished rural populations quietly suffer spiraling increases in disease rates (11,12). Even short-term commitments of funds for purchasing the more expensive and less effective DDT alternatives are a continuation of past practices: in the end, disease rates will increase. The Andean girl’s death is one of millions of preventable deaths that occurred as national and international regulations, trade barriers, international policies, and UN resolutions were applied to stop public health uses of DDT (13). With absolute certainty, the best measures of success in the anti-DDT campaign are increases in disease and death from malaria, leishmaniasis, bartonellosis, dengue fever, and dengue hemorrhagic fever. We can add to this list the renewed threat that urban yellow fever will once again ravage populations of the Americas. Even this emerging threat is linked to past failures to continue appropriate public health uses of DDT. The Andean girl’s unrecognized but precious stake in the DDT issue was her life, now lost. How many millions more must die because of hypothetical risks from minute quantities of DDT sprayed on internal house walls?