DDT

Does anyone else find the recent calls to use DDT in the Third World to eradicate malaria disturbing? Yes, it's terrible that so many people die of malaria. But is DDT really the answer? Even liberals are falling into this trap. See Nicholas Kristof's column in the Times today. (Quite a day for Times columinists!!) He argues that since other anti-malarial campaigns are generally underfunded and ineffective, that we should turn to the very effective DDT to get rid of mosquitoes. He claims that the US and other rich countries are siding with mosquitoes over the world's poor.

It's not that simple. Third World ecosystems are severely stressed and in danger of complete collapse. To further undermine those ecosystems with the widespread use of DDT would hasten that collapse and thus the collapse of those very societies we are trying to save from malaria. Rather than give up on other programs to eliminate malaria, including recognizing that too many people live in terrible conditions near stagnant water, shouldn't we work harder to come up with different solutions that would help people and ecosystems. Kristof's says that Vietnam has largely eliminated malaria without the use of DDT. What did they do? Can it be copied around the world.

It sounds to me as if social commentators, politicians, and planners need to step back, take a deep breath, and reread Silent Spring.