Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and Environmental Law

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is part of the chlorinated hydrocarbon group that caused a major rift in the United States ecosystems from 1939 when it was discovered as an insecticide (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). DDT can be found not just in human products but also in nature. As Rehmeyer (2006) had stated, "An 85-yar-old vial of oil from a whaling ship has revealed that a mysterious group of organic chemicals resembling human-made compounds are naturally produced in the sea." Rehmeyer (2006) stated that these organic compounds "structurally resemble the pesticide DDT..." and that "symbiotic bacteria in oceanic sponges, for example, produce chemicals similar to DDT ... that deter fungal growth." After DDT was discovered, a well-known insecticide was used to eliminate many pests such as bedbugs, malaria-carrying mosquitoes, insects that were carrying the typhus, and pests that were damaging agricultural lands. It was used as a household spray onto crops to deter insects. DDT is a very useful as an insecticide however; it also damages the environment and has a long resident time (Rehmeyer, 2006). In order for one to appreciate the true power that DDT has, they must understand the history of the insecticide, the impact that it has had on the environment and the possible negative effects it had on people, and understand that it has saved many lives in the past. It is only then can one understand the reasons for its return and the potential effects on both the environment and people.

The long journey for DDT began in 1874 when it was first developed in the United States (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). It took awhile before the true potential of this compound was discovered. It was Paul Mueller in 1939 that had revealed how DDT was a great insecticide and that it could be used to combat various insect problems, especially from the agriculture perspective (History of POP's, 2007). This was an astonishing discovery that earned him a Nobel Prize in 1948 (History of POP's, 2000). By the time the First World War had ended, the disease typhus had devastating effects on the troops when over five million of them had died from it (History of POP's, 2000). They learned from how many deaths typhus had caused, and when they had heard about the effectiveness of DDT, it began being produced in large amounts and used during the Second World War (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). This new insecticide had become very popular and by the time DDT was banned in 1973, the United States had already used approximately 1,350,000,000 pounds (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). However, the bad effects of the DDT began to show up in many places resulting in the banning of this insecticide.

It took about nine years for any regulations to begin appearing. One of the first ones was "in 1957, as a matter of policy, the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), prohibited the spraying of DDT in specific protective strips around aquatic areas on lands under its jurisdiction" (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). Within a year, the USDA began to discontinue the use of DDT (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). They were able to reduce the use of DDT being sprayed over a 20-year period "...from 4.9 million acres in 1957 to just over 100,000 acres in 1967..." (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). This was improvement however, the use of this insecticide did not end just as the ban was instated, after all, DDT was still being used in other parts of the United States and globally.

It was not until the publishing of Rachel Carson's book Silent Springs in 1962 that the seriousness of the hazards that DDT has on the environment and the human body truly realized (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). As Michael Fry states in the Glausiusz (2007) article "Carson may have underestimated the impact of DDT on birds..." Many scientists believed as Rachel Carson that DDT was harmful to the environment, but Rachel Carson was the one that had saved the birds.

It was not until 1964 that "the Secretary of the interior issued a directive stating that the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons on interior lands should be avoided unless no other substitutes were available" (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became responsible for all the regulations of pesticides on December 2, 1970 and they halted all federal registration of products that contained DDT on January 1971 (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). While the EPA had a major part in discontinuing the use of DDT, there were still problems that existed that required the use of the insecticide. For example, the Douglas-fir tussock moth took over in the Northwest (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). In addition, there are cases of malaria now showing up around the world requiring the reintroduction and use of DDT (DDT Regulatory History, 2007). Because there is little proof that DDT can have harmful effects on people, it is still being argued whether it can be used around the home in some countries however; the evidence of bad effects on the environment is over powering.

The insecticide DDT is again showing up in the world today and is having the same harmful effects as it did in the past. As Slater (2008a) states: "Decades-old deposits of DDT-contaminated ice are melting in the Western Antarctica Peninsula, causing the pesticide, which has been restricted since 1970, to migrate back into the food chain. Researchers estimate that as much as 8.8 pounds of DDT are being released into the Antarctic each year through glacial melt. Their theory explained why Adélie penguins continue to have the same DDT levels in their bodies that they had 30 years ago" (p. 24). For the most part problems that arisen from the use of DDT 30 years ago could occur once again. Not only evidence of the effects is being once again felt on wildlife, humans could possibly be experiencing the effects of DDT as well.

Rachel Carson said, "That DDT could cause liver and breast cancer..." (Pearce, 2007, 59), her predictions may not be too far off. There are studies that are being done, one that could show why we may not be done with the leftover effects of DDT, and why Carson felt that the health of humans were in peril. These studies are looking into the relationship between the increase of diabetes and the usage of DDT (Brown, 2008). The interesting aspect of DDT is that diabetes is now showing up in Asia and Africa where there is less meat consumption and less obesity problems (Brown, 2008). Even though Carson had stated "that DDT could cause liver and breast cancer..." Pearce (2007) was against the notion, of DDT causing liver and breast cancer, and stated, "There is still no evidence of that, where as the evidence that it saves lived by banishing malaria is irrefutable." The effects of DDT are a huge problem and unfortunately are still being faced today. However, the dispute of whether there is enough evidence to say that DDT causes any harm to people is still going on. After all Pearce was right saying that where we are lacking evidence that shows DDT's harm on humans, but we have more than enough proof showing that it has saved lives.

Despite the effects, that DDT had on the environment there were many good effects that it had on the lives of many people. DDT managed to kill off most of the mosquitoes that were carrying malaria and it killed off most of the insects that were carrying typhus. In the elimination of these carriers of deadly illnesses, it had saved many lives. It also had helped to eliminate most of the bedbug problems that the U.S. had; of which had been brought over by the European colonists (Schardt, 2007, p. 18). Even though bedbugs were a nuisance, they did not cause any real harm because they did not carry any disease. However, it was the mosquito's that carried malaria that were one of the insects that had caused most of deaths.

During World War I deaths from malaria became common however, it was not until World War II before there was a way to control disease carrying insects. Pearce (2007) stated:"The insects passed on malaria parasites while gorging on human blood as their victims slept. Afterwards, they settled on bedroom walls to digest the blood. Spraying those walls with DDT every six months had been shown to repel or kill most of them."

It took awhile but the use of DDT worked, many countries were able to gain control of malaria, and this resulted in many lives being saved. The proof of this accomplishment is shown that, "by 1961 hospital admissions for malaria had fallen by 90 per cent, and global death rates had fallen by around 95 per cent" (Pearce, 2007). Despite the effects of DDT, there are huge factors that caused it to come back. After all, it was very effective and the fact that it had saved so many people's lives in the past made it a desirable choice as an insecticide.

DDT is making a comeback in some countries that are being devastated by malaria again (Mandavilli, 2007). This is possible because the World Health Organization (WHO) has always supported the use of DDT because it is less costly of an insecticide and very successful (Mandavilli, 2007). This is due to medications for people in some places of the world such as Africa are not affordable for the treatment of malaria. Schapira (2006) stated: "Indoor residual spraying is an effective intervention, provided a programme infrastructure can be set up and maintained to include trained sprayers, supervisors, managers, stocks, equipment, and vehicles, that roads allow access to every village at the right time at least once a year, and the insecticide are not diverted to agriculture." What Schapira is saying is that as long as there is a controlled application of the insecticide DDT, there should be no real problem with it being used and it should not cause any harm to the environment. Now that the epidemic of malaria has been wreaking havoc on Africa, the need for some way to stop it is becoming more and more urgent (Larsen, 2009). Even though there are drugs that are used to treat malaria, it seems that other options are better because they are effective in eliminating the cause rather than treat the effect (Larsen, 2009). Even though DDT is an option, it is not the only one because there is also the use of nets that are draped over the bed and these nets actually have insecticide inside its threads (Schapira, 2006). Mandavilli (2007) said that the "USAID representatives say that, when used properly, the chemical poses little risk to the environment or to human health." Mandavilli (2007) also agrees with Admiral Tim Ziemer that "until we find that it is hazardous...it's unconscionable not to use something that can save lives."

DDT had an incredible journey. It was useful at times but not so useful at others. It had many ill effects on the environment and yet it had a beneficial impact in the effort of saving lives around the world. As stated previously, DDT could be used indoors to help repel mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects from entering the homes. Until we have proof that DDT is a carcinogen, the cause of diabetes, or even the cause of other negative effects on the human body, we should not ignore the positives that it has on lives, especially when it can save millions from suffering horrible diseases and dying.

Sources:

(2000, Jul. 6 ). In History of POPs Discovery, Use and Ban. (chap. History of DDT)

Retrieved Feb. 22, 2009, from http://www.chem.unep.ch/gpa_trial/04histo.htm#ddt

(2007, Sep. 21 ). In DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975) . Retrieved Feb. 22,

2009, from http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/02.htm

Brown, P. (2008, September 18). Trouble in store. New Scientist, 199(2673), 36-39.

Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

DDT: A Symbol Gone Awry. (2005, December). Scientific American, Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Glausiusz, J. (2007, November). Can a maligned pesticide save lives?. Discover, 28(11), 34-36. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Kubasek, N. K., & G. Silverman. (2008) Environmental Science. (Ed. 6). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Larsen, K.. (2009, Feb. 22). Is DDT Making a Comeback?. OnEarth Magazine 1-7. Retrieved Feb. 22, 2009, from http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/75346.

Mandavilli, A. (2007, January). DDT is Back. Discover, 28(1), 43-43. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Pearce, F. (2007, October 6). How the world let malaria off the hook. New Scientist, 196(2624), 58-59. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Rehmeyer, J. (2006, October 28). A Whale's Tale. Science News, 170(18), 278-278. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Schapira, A. (2006, December 16). DDT: a polluted debate in malaria control. Lancet, 368(9553), 2111-2113. Retrieved March 8, 2009, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69812-7

Schardt, H. (2007, February). DON'T LET THE BEDBUGS BITE. National Wildlife,45(2), 18-19. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Slater, D. (2008a, September). AS THE WORLD WARMS. Sierra, 93(5), 24-24. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Slater, D. (2008b, July). Songbird Swan Song. Sierra, 93(4), 29-29. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.