The DDT Dilemna

ResearchBlogging.orgThe insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenytrichloroethane) has been in the public mind ever since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published in 1962. Growing awareness of its environmental effects, persistence, biomagnification in food chains, and presence in humans (including in breast milk) led to severe restrictions being placed on its use, particularly in the developed world. However, its effectiveness against malaria-carrying mosquitoes led to the continued use of DDT in many areas of the world, including within residences. Now a new paper by Hidrik Bouwman, Henk van den Berg and Herik Kylin reviews the current state of knowledge about the risks vs. benefits of DDT.

The paper is an excellent example of the need to balance risks and benefits, rather than simplistically only looking at the harm that a chemical can do (or conversely, only looking at the benefits and ignoring potential harm).

The paper reviews recent information on human health effects of DDT exposure, and particularly epidemiological studies. It was noted that, of 22 epidemiological reviewed, 12 showed significant relationships between exposure to DDT (or its metabolite DDE) with conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, blood hormone levels, birth mass, a type of pancreatic cancer, and fertility. The authors also concluded that exposures are often high in areas where DDT is applied in dwellings, and breast milk levels often exceed tolerable daily intakes recommended by agencies such as WHO.

However, at the same time, the authors noted that malaria control measures, which include the use of DDT, significantly improve community health. As a result, an outright ban on DDT in tropical regions at this time would have greater negative consequences than continuing to use it.

While there may be a net benefit to using DDT, that doesn’t mean that the status quo should be maintained. It is important to look for ways to reduce human exposure to DDT, without sacrificing the benefits. For example, the authors note that commercial DDT includes two separate DDT isomers, one of which is endocrine-active, along with other components; it may be possible to eliminate the endocrine-active o,p’-DDT while still retaining its desired effects on mosquitoes. They also suggest that changes in how DDT is applied and the use of risk management strategies to reduce exposures to pregnant mothers, breast-feeding mothers, fetuses, babies and toddlers may reduce the adverse effects. As a long-term goal, developing a safer alternative to DDT would be worthwhile.

This paper is an example of the type of thought process used routinely by government agencies for a wide range of decisions. For example, a new medical drug may have side effects, but if it treats a much more serious condition then the benefits may outweigh the adverse effects, and the drug would be allowed for the treatment of the serious condition, unless a safer alternative is available. Even things like the vehicles we drive are subject to this sort of decision-making; we know that vehicles emit harmful pollutants (not to mention the adverse effects of car accidents, and the costs of vehicle infrastructure), but the generally accepted position is that the benefits of rapid transportation outweigh these adverse effects.

 
Bouwman, H., van den Berg, H., & Kylin, H. (2011). DDT and Malaria Prevention: Addressing the Paradox Environmental Health Perspectives DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1002127

7 Responses to The DDT Dilemna

  1. Nathan says:

    Interesting post. Though the ecological trickle down effects on top predators poses a significant danger to humans even if we aren’t made physically sick by DDT use. Now if a possibly improved version of DDT would resolve this issue not only the direct physical impact it would have on humans–then I could see a point in trying to create it. But just reducing or even eliminating it’s direct medical impact on humans is not enough, at least I don’t think so.

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ResearchBlogging.org and Frank Aldorf, Flipboard Science. Flipboard Science said: The DDT Dilemna http://bit.ly/fbW7RD […]

  3. I am not sure I would give governments the benefit of suggesting that they wisely balance risks and benefits. The risk aversion of the FDA in the United States when it comes to new drugs is one example.

  4. ashartus says:

    Jason, I actually agree – I never said that they “wisely” balance the risks and benefits, only that they need to (and generally do) consider both. Different agencies tend to err more to one side or the other, and they can be affected by political pressure, lobbying, etc. There are also still limitations in the data used in the decisions, as well as value judgments. The actual implementation of the process is still far from perfect, though improving.

  5. ashartus says:

    The comments by ‘amsd’ have been deleted, something I have not done before. I have no problem with people posting comments that disagree with me, but obscenity-ridden personal insults against me and other people commenting on the post cross the line.

  6. Cynthia Lipsius says:

    I was reading this article out of curiosity. My father had been exposed to DDT during WWII. He fought in the battle of Okinawa, and DDT had been sprayed on the island to reduce the flea, mosquito and fly populations. Troops had also been given cans of flea powder to sprinkle on themselves which contained DDT. I also read another article that stated DDT in the nevironment is still a concern in the Great Lakes region, where my father lived. He did develop type 2 diabetes when he was around 68, and had colon cancer. I was checking to see if there was a link to his illnesses and DDT. Apparently there’s a possible link to exposure and diabetes. There had been no previous history of this in my family at all, and no one else to this day.

  7. I don’t know whether it’s just me or if everybody else
    experiencing problems with your blog. It appears as if some of the written text in your posts are
    running off the screen. Can someone else please comment and let
    me know if this is happening to them too? This may be a problem with my internet browser because I’ve had this happen previously.
    Many thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: