Health Costs And Benefits Of DDT Use - Research Paper Example

Health Costs And Benefits Of DDT Use Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, commonly known as DDT is a pesticide that was discovered back in 1939 by a lifesaving scientist, Paul Muller, and has been in wide application in many parts of the world especially in African countries and Asia in the control and prevention of Malaria. Malaria is a serious life-threatening Mosquito-borne disease largely found in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and partially in Middle East and parts of Europe; Malaria is the leading cause of death among children and the disease causes a great harm to development. It is estimated that Malaria alone claims nearly a million lives around the world in a year and this death toll is very unbearable due to both the human misery and the economic burden it yields, and more so because it can be avoided (Bate et al). DDT has been very effective in controlling Malaria in those places where it has been in use and this led to the launch of Malaria eradication programs by WHO using DDT through Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) programs. For instance, the replacement of DDT with alternative chemicals for IRS in South Africa resulted to increased cases of deaths from Malaria, but a reintroduction of the pesticide halted and reversed the epidemic thus proving the effectiveness of DDT for IRS. However, given the human health and environmental risks associated with DDT, its continual use is untenable, but there are situations where DDT will provide the best achievable health benefits and invoking precaution through a centrist position will help design safer alternatives to the control and prevention of Malaria (Bouwman). The use of DDT to control Malaria has been a much contentious issue in recent times especially due to health concerns and ethical considerations (Bate et al); a considerable amount of research has revealed a number of human health risks and environmental risks associated with the continuous application of the pesticide in the control and treatment of Malaria. The debate surrounding DDT can be broken down into three factions, the anti-DDT, Centrist-DDT and Pro-DDT; the anti-DDT position supports a complete ban of the pesticide due to the human and environmental health risks while the Pro-DDT support the continual application of DDT given the seriousness of the Malaria scourge, the human misery and economic implications of Malaria deaths. The Centrist position recognizes both the health costs and benefits of DDT because it practically accepts the current need for DDT to combat Malaria transmission but also recognizes the health risk of using a toxic chemical of that nature in the homes of families. Consequently, whereas DDT has ever since been banned in most parts of the world due to the recognized human health and environmental risks, it is still in use in some parts of the world because it provides the best achievable health benefits; this raises the paradox that has been recognized by the centrist position. It is undeniable that Malaria is a deadly scourge that requires urgent control to flee the Malaria zones from its debilitating effects, and primary Malaria prevention tools known to date are long lasting insecticidal nets and Indoor Residual Spraying (Dasgupta). The fight against Malaria is a global concern that led to the global framework for coordinated action against Malaria in 1998 in which the World Health Organization recommended a much proactive use of IRS in the control of Malaria transmission. DDT is the most effective insecticide for IRS programs especially due to its high insecticidal activity, low severe toxicity to mammals, affordability, wide spectrum, and long duration of activity. It is estimated that over 1.25 billion people live in Malaria prevalent areas, and the annual economic losses resulting from Malaria death cases nearly exceed $69 billion, in addition to great human misery associated with such losses. Sub-Saharan Africa countries such as Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia suffer the highest levels of the global economic impact of Malaria losses; for instance, over 93% of the population in Uganda is at risk from Malaria. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that the incidence of Malaria in the country has been on an upwards trend from about 5 million cases reported in 1997 to about 16.5 million cases reported in 2003. In this regard, such Sub-Saharan countries with a high Malaria incidence rates are more likely to gain considerably from proper, responsible use of DDT in Malaria control; successful IRS programs using DDT in countries such as South Africa have shown that when used properly, DDT is highly effective at controlling Malaria transmission. There is no doubt that DDT has led to greater heights of success in the control and prevention of Malaria especially in countries with high malaria incidence rates, and up to date, these countries still depend on the pesticide in their IRS programs. Yet DDT has been a controversial pesticide due to its perceived myriad human health and environmental effects that many countries have had to ban its use in response to these concerns to avert deadly ramifications. However, it should be noted that the Malaria scourge is real especially in Sub-Saharan Africa countries with high malaria incidence rates, and a complete ban of the pesticide is not feasible presently, especially in the absence of equally effective alternatives to Malaria control. More so, alternatives to DDT in IRS programs have been found to be successful in a limited number of cases while remaining highly ineffective in Malaria prone areas such as in Sub-Saharan Africa countries with the highest Malaria incidence rates. In addition, alternatives to DDT in IRS programs are often troubled with insecticide resistance, and are highly expensive for most African countries with highly constrained healthcare budgets that barely reach a meager 3 euros per person. South Africa once suffered greatly from pyrethroid resistant A funestus mosquitoes that led to the increase in Malaria from about 4117 cases in 1995 to 27238 cases in 1999 when it replaced DDT with the more expensive Pyrethroid insecticides in 1996 and was forced to revert to DDT use. In view of the South African case, it is quite evident that despite being the wealthiest and the most scientifically advanced country in Africa that has the least incidence of malaria, South Africa was unable to do without DDT; this incidence proves incontrovertibly that the super endemic and impoverished countries in Sub-Saharan Africa cannot avoid DDT entirely. According to a group of scientists in the US and South Africa, the use of DDT should be considerably reduced because people are exposed in their homes to great amounts of the pesticide that could be catastrophic causing serious health risks (Cone). In addition, these findings confirm the alleged fears that DDT could cause several human health effects such as reduced fertility, breast cancer, among others, while its metabolite DDE could potentially blocks male hormones. The scientists expressed worrisome concerns concerning the health of exposed children and adults given the long action life of DDT not only in the environment but also in the body, and on future generations. Consistent with these findings, a 2007 survey conducted in Limpopo, South Africa on male fertility established that men exposed to DDT have low volume of semen in addition to low sperm counts due to high levels of the pesticide in their bodies. DDT accumulates in body tissues, especially breast milk and remains in the environment for decades endangering wild life and wild species; on one end, abandoning its use implies letting people to die from Malaria, but on the other hand, it is quite unethical to continue using the pesticide while ignoring its human health and environmental effects. Therefore, these scientists recommend a limited use of DDT as a last resort rather than the first line of defense in the control and prevention of Malaria in those areas where alternative options are not feasible, but with time, safer alternatives should be tested and if successful, DDT should permanently be phased out. DDT is designed specifically to kill living things and its toxicity is clearly unquestionable as indicated on all labels, but the biological activity of the pesticide does not only affect the biochemical systems of the insects alone; like other toxic chemicals, DDT affects a host of other non-insect biological systems including wildlife and humans. For instance, the chemical has been associated with human health risks such as endocrine disruption, effects on neurological and behavior development, childhood growth, cancer and alteration of enzyme function. Findings in the Pine River Statement after a review of studies release more od between 2003 and 2008 assert that DDT is responsible for adverse health outcomes including breast cancer, diabetes, low semen quality, impaired neurodevelopment in children, in addition to spontaneous abortion. Supporting these findings, is literature review of studies published in 2009 that revealed close associations between DDT and DDE with effects on type 2 Diabetes, blood hormones, infant birth weight, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and low sperm quality. In this regard, the evidence of the adverse health effects associated with DDT continue to arise with subsequent research findings, and the least that can be done in response to these rising health concerns is invocation of precaution on the use of the pesticide in Malaria control. The intention of using DDT is clearly to protecting lives, but harming lives in the process is not an option and measures to reduce exposure should be taken, in addition to developing safer and effective alternatives to the pesticide in the control and prevention of Malaria transmission in all affected areas around the world. The debate concerning the use of DDT can only be put to rest through the centrist position that advocates for a limited use of the pesticide in the present while invoking stringent precautionary measures and regulations, but moving forwards to establish much safer but equally effective alternatives to DDT in the control and prevention of Malaria transmission. Any argument to the proposition that the alleged DDT-associated health burden is not equitable to the cumulative impacts of Malaria including morbidity and mortality is both logically and ethically unsound. Therefore, to this effect, the considerable evidence of a DDT-associated health risks should not be ignored even if the projected health benefits in terms of reduced malaria mortality and morbidity outweigh the perceived health risks because doing so ignores the rights of people to safer environments (Yang). Ethical considerations should be taken into account in the control and prevention of Malaria, even in cases where the use of DDT cannot be avoided such as in the Sub-Saharan Africa countries that experience the highest incidence rates of the disease. Overall, DDT is, on one hand, an effective solution to the control and prevention of Malaria transmission because it saves millions of lives that would otherwise be at a high risk of Malaria mortality and morbidity. On the other hand, this pesticide is not safe because it results to catastrophic human health and environmental effects especially due to its high toxicity and long lasting action time, but again, IRS with DDT remains the only viable option for Malaria control and preservation in some places. Ultimately, the continual use of DDT in the control and treatment of Malaria transmission is untenable given the human health and environmental consequences associated with DDT, but a complete ban of the pesticide is equally unforeseeable presently because, there are situations where DDT will provide the best achievable health benefits. A considerable body of knowledge in recent publications indicates the effectiveness of the pesticide in controlling Malaria transmission, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa countries with high Malaria incidence rates, thereby alleviating the risk of this deadly scourge, economic costs and human suffering. Similarly, subsequent publications expose the mounting evidence of the catastrophic DDT-associated human health and environmental consequences that cannot be ignored in the global control and prevention of Malaria transmission. However, invoking precaution through a centrist position will help design safer alternatives to the control and prevention of Malaria, while limiting the use of DDT in IRS programs in isolated situations as a last resort rather than the primary mode of defense against the deadly Malaria epidemic globally. Works Cited Bouwman, Hindrik et al. “DDT and Malaria Prevention: Addressing the Paradox- Environmental health perspectives. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 2011. Web. 25th June 2013 Cone, Maria. “Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?” Scientificamerican.com. 2009. Web. 25th June 2013 Dasgupta, Susmista. “Health Costs and Benefits of DDT Use in Malaria Control and Prevention”. Blogs.worldbank.org. 2012. Web. 25th June 2013 Bate, Roger et.al. “Considerations for the Use of DDT in Malaria Control”. Aei.org. 2004. Web. 25th June 2013 Yang, Sara. “Unprecedented use of DDT to combat malaria concerns experts”. Berkeley.edu. 2009. Web. 25th June 2013 Read More