Benefits of DDT in the Battle Against Malaria, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Malaria is a parasitic, mosquito-borne disease that affects more than 300 million people annually. The disease causes chills, fever, and other flu-like symptoms, which, if left untreated, could cause death. In fact, more than one million people in 2008 died of Malaria; most of the victims were young children in sub-Saharan Africa (Center for Disease control and Prevention, 2010). DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is a synthetic pesticide often recommended and used in the effort to combat Malaria. However, recent research has shown that the use of DDT may be harmful to humans, and has suggested alternative methods for the fight against Malaria. This paper will examine the impact of Malaria in terms of health, mortality, and economics. It will further examine how DDT is used to combat Malaria. The paper will argue that although the use of DDT carries risks of toxicity, it remains the most beneficial method to control Malaria.

Significance of Malaria

Nearly 1,500 cases of Malaria are reported in the United States annually. The majority of these cases are found in travelers who return from visits to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Malaria has been eradicated in the U.S. since the 1950s, but the three most prevalent mosquito species responsible for transmitting the disease are still thriving within the country’s borders. This means that the disease could be reintroduced in the U.S. (Center for Disease control and Prevention, 2010). More than half the world’s population live in areas where the risk of Malaria transmission are heightened. In addition, 98 percent of global Malaria deaths are found in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Nearly 90 percent of reported Malaria deaths occur in Africa. In fact, Malaria is the second leading cause of death in Africa; HIV/AIDS being the first. The disease-carrying mosquitoes thrive in the tropical conditions found in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. High rainfall and dependably high temperatures are ideal conditions for mosquitoes.

Poorer countries are often hit hardest with the disease. Victims of the disease in these under developed tropical and subtropical areas of the world include young children and pregnant women. Young children often have not developed immunity to the disease and the immunity in pregnant women have decreased as the result of their pregnancy (Center for Disease control and Prevention, 2010). Costs associated with Malaria are staggering and affect individuals, communities, and nations. Research has shown that an intimate connection exists between Malaria and poverty. Gallup & Sachs (2001) found that countries where Malaria is an intensive risk reported income levels of only 33 percent to that of countries without Malaria. This was true even if the Malaria-infested country was not in Africa. The authors indicate that Malaria is not a consequence of poverty; rather, poverty is a consequence of the disease. Because the disease is geographically specific, it tends to target areas where the Malaria mosquito vectors can thrive. These areas are tropical and subtropical regions. Efforts to eliminate the disease from tropical areas have been largely unsuccessful; however, the disease has been effectively eradicated from subtropical regions and islands (Gallup & Sachs, 2001). Furthermore, the areas where Malaria has been successfully controlled showed an economic growth within five years of the eradication. In fact, Malaria-infested countries showed growth of income per capita to be roughly 0.4 percent annually, whereas growth in countries without Malaria has been 2.3 percent. The authors attribute these numbers to the region’s economic policy, tropical location, and life expectancy. Countries where Malaria thrived showed a population growth of less than 1.3 percent annually. Countries where Malaria was successfully eradicated showed a population growth of more than 0.3 percent annually (Gallup & Sachs, 2001).

Malaria also has an adverse economic effect on labor. A prime example is found in the building of the Panama Canal. French workers were unable to complete the Canal due to a Malaria outbreak which claimed the lives of more than 20,000 people over the course of nine years. The American efforts to complete the Canal were only successful after the Malaria outbreak was brought under control (Gallup & Sachs, 2001). Various methods have been administered to control the spread of Malaria in tropical regions of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa; however, few have been successful.

Impact of DDT

To date, the most successful methods to control the spread of Malaria have been through the use of labor. For instance, the elimination of mosquito breeding sites in areas of Brazil and in African mines has been largely successful. The eliminations consisted of monitoring all open water sources in heavy populated areas and drainage of wetlands. Although these methods have been successful, it has never been sustained for long periods of time, nor has it been utilized in large areas (Gallup & Sachs, 2001). As an alternative, many countries have propagated the use of pesticides to curb the spread of Malaria. One such pesticide is DDT.

First manufactured in 1873, the pesticide has been used to successfully control the spread of disease through insects. DDT was hugely popular in the U.S. for use on crops to control agricultural pests such as corn earworms and potato beetles. However, during the 1970s the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of DDT on crops, stating adverse environmental health effects as the reason. Since then, DDT is no longer used in the U.S. However, because the pesticide has been effective in controlling the spread of Malaria, it is still used in various tropical regions worldwide (Sewrey, 2010). Although the pesticide has been proven effective in the control of Malaria, recent studies have shown that people who are exposed to DDT in their homes suffer serious health consequences. As a result, American and South African scientists conclude that DDT should only be used as a last resort in an effort to combat Malaria. Such a suggestion has been met with mixed criticism. In 2006 the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed the use of DDT and former President George W. Bush launched the Malaria Initiative which supported the use of DDT.

The pesticide is sprayed in homes and other populated buildings to kill Malaria-carrying mosquitoes (Cone, 2009). The use of DDT has been favored over other pesticides because of its relatively low cost and long residual action (Roberts, 2002). However, despite the benefits associated with DDT, several studies have implicated that the pesticide is harmful to people. Some of the human effects of DDT include reduced fertility, breast cancer, diabetes, genital birth defects, and damage to developing brains (Cone, 2009). The United Nations Environment Programme reported that nearly 4,000 tons of DDT was sprayed in Africa and Asia in 2007. More than 80 grams of DDT is sprayed in South African homes annually (Cone, 2009). Scientists are concerned about the health effects of DDT because the pesticide remains active for decades and it tends to accumulate in body tissue. The U.S. banned the use of DDT in 1972 because the pesticide built up in the food chain and almost eliminated bald eagles and pelicans. However, it is important to note that this reaction occurred because crops nationwide were heavily doused with DDT in an effort to kill agricultural pests (Cone, 2009). Although DDT today is sprayed on walls inside homes, it is administered in significantly smaller doses.  Ecuador has increased use of DDT inside homes and has reported a 61 percent reduction in Malaria over the course of four years. Yet, other South American countries that have implemented the use of DDT have reported a reemergence of the disease (Roberts, Laughlin, Hsheih, & Legters, 1997). Roberts et al. (1997) reported that the countries which showed an increase in Malaria combined DDT with other pesticides. In addition, smaller amounts of DDT are effective in protecting large amounts of people. For instance, in 1993, South American countries used roughly 1,172.077 tons of DDT. Although this may seem like a large amount, it is less than six percent of DDT used in the U.S. in 1968. This is also enough to cover 1,692 houses and protect nearly 8,460 people (Roberts, Laughlin, Hsheih, & Legters, 1997).

Position Statement

DDT is beneficial as a Malaria control method, despite the risks of toxicity associated with it. Roberts et al. (1997) have shown that when the use of DDT declined, Malaria incidence increased. The authors argue that the use of DDT should be continued until the negative effects of DDT outweigh the benefits associated with the pesticide. DDT is shown to remain active for years after it was initially sprayed. In addition, DDT is significantly cheaper than the use of other pesticides. In fact, it costs only $1.44 to spray one house for one year (Roberts, Laughlin, Hsheih, & Legters, 1997). In addition, the use of DDT is the most effective method to decrease the spread of Malaria. DDT alternatives cost more and have to be reapplied through the course of a year. Also, based on the information presented above, Malaria outbreaks have an adverse effect on a country’s economy. If DDT alternatives are to be used in countries that are already considered to be poor, it would add additional financial stress to those countries. As a result, many of the poorer nations who are not able to afford DDT alternatives are forced to abandon house-spray programs. This will eventually lead to an increase in Malaria (Roberts, To Control Malaria, We Need DDT!, 2002). Studies have shown that although DDT consumption can have an adverse effect on a person’s health that is only true if DDT is consumed in large doses. The pesticide has no odor or taste (African American Environmentalist Association, 2007).

DDT is required to combat the spread of Malaria. Risks associated with DDT are far less than the positive effect the pesticide has on the control of Malaria. Until a more affordable and more effective method can be found to curb the spread of Malaria, DDT remains the only viable option. After all, it was successful in eradicating Malaria in the U.S. Similar strategies should be just as effective in other countries.

Works Cited

African American Environmentalist Association. (2007, August 16). DDT. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.aaenvironment.com: http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm

Center for Disease control and Prevention. (2010, February 8). Malaria. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from www.cdc.gov: http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/

Cone, M. (2009, May 4). Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria? Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria

Gallup, J. L., & Sachs, J. D. (2001). The Economic Burden of Malaria. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 64(1).

Roberts, D. R. (2002). To Control Malaria, We Need DDT! 21st Science and Technology Magazine.

Roberts, D. R., Laughlin, L. L., Hsheih, P., & Legters, L. J. (1997). DDT, Global Strategies, and a Malaria Control Crisis in South America. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 3(3), 295-302.

Sewrey, D. B. (2010). Pesticides. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Cruising Chemistry: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/pest1.html