Pesticides Save Lives
by Paul Driessen

Last year, malaria sent more African children to shallow graves than any other infectious disease -- three times as many as HIV/AIDS, according to UNICEF. Year after year, this silent, vicious executioner infects 400 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, kills up to 2 million (half of them children), leaves tens of thousands with permanent brain damage, and costs the region $12 billion in lost economic production. It sickens 100 million more in Asian and Latin American nations.

"From colonial times until the 1940s, malaria was the American disease," says Dr. Robert Desowitz, professor of tropical medicine at the University of North Carolina. At the dawn of the twentieth century, it thrived from New York to Florida, from North Carolina to California. Up to 7 million Americans were stricken by it every year until the mid-1920s, and 3,900 died in 1936. For centuries, it struck down people of all ages in England, Holland, Italy and other parts of Europe.

But by the early 1950s, it was gone, and all but forgotten. How was this possible?

We used DDT, window screens and other measures to gradually eradicate the malaria parasite from its human and insect hosts. Today, we still spray pesticides (mostly by airplanes) to control mosquitoes and the West Nile virus that some carry.

But we apply a vastly different standard when it comes to poor developing countries that are still wracked by malaria.

Indeed, these human rights champions' own institutions and allies -- the European Union, World Health Organization, World Bank, U.S. Agency for International Development, UNICEF and dozens of ideological environmental groups like Greenpeace, Beyond Pesticides and the Natural Resource Defense Council -- are at the forefront of lethal campaigns and policies. They prevent the most malaria-ridden nations from using the same insecticides that help make us disease-free, healthy and prosperous. For this, they are all but canonized by the "corporate social responsibility" and "sustainable development" industry.

These organizations will not support, advocate, fund or permit the use of pesticides in any anti-malaria programs. And amid all their interminable accusations and deliberations, the human rights champions never even mention this deadly human-rights abuse.

In February, the EU charge' d'affaires to Uganda warned that the country's export of fish, flowers and cereals to Europe could be disrupted if it used DDT to reduce a malaria epidemic that kills up to 100,000 Ugandans every year. "Guy Rijcken's vile threat is an abuse of his authority and a serious human-rights violation," said Congress of Racial Equality international affairs director Cyril Boynes, Jr. "No country faced with a health crisis of this magnitude should have wealthy, healthy Europeans telling it the lives of its citizens must come second" to conjectural health and environmental concerns.

Meanwhile, Canada gave Ethiopia US$1.5 million toward a "national implementation plan" to eliminate persistent organic pollutants, including DDT. This impoverished African nation grieves over nearly 150,000 malaria deaths a year (including 95,000 children) -- meaning the value of this "inducement" to comply with the Stockholm Convention is US$10 per dead Ethiopian.

Prime Minister Paul Martin might have been "visibly shaken" by tsunami damage in Sri Lanka. But he seems little perturbed by policies that prolong the suffering and death from a readily preventable disease, in the name of addressing absurd fears that spraying DDT on African huts might somehow harm polar bears. This is particularly egregious in view of the fact that both Canada and the USA sprayed hundreds millions of pounds directly into the environment over a 20-period, primarily for agricultural and forest management purposes -- with no harm to polar bears.

USAID insists that DDT "would be considered" for malaria control programs, but only if a full environmental impact assessment demonstrates that DDT "is the only effective alternative" and "could be used safely" under strict WHO protocols (which reflect all these agencies' exaggerated concern about pesticides). USAID says it cannot support pesticides that are banned in the United States, even in epidemic areas, and claims insecticide-treated nets are just as effective as DDT.

But mosquito net programs have not proven nearly as effective in controlling malaria as spraying houses with DDT, Desowitz and Professor Donald Roberts of the US Uniformed Health Services University point out. South Africa slashed its malaria rates by 80% in just 18 months by spraying the walls and eaves of traditional mud and thatch huts twice a year with small amounts of DDT -- and then by 93% within three years, by augmenting this with new artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) drugs. No bed net program comes close.

Ecuador has cut its malaria rates by 60% by using DDT -- while Bolivia, which bowed to international pressure and banned the pesticide's use, has seen malaria increase by 80% since 1993, notes Dr. Silvia Pasquier of Bolivia's St. Thomas Aquinas College.

USAID is now helping farmers increase the production of artemisia plants, with the goal of producing 20 million to 40 million pediatric doses of ACT by 2006. This is a welcome development. But it's not enough.

500 million people get malaria every year, and an 80-93% reduction in disease and death rates is clearly possible. Why should these impoverished countries have to settle for less -- and accept far more needless deaths every year -- when we certainly would not?

Moreover, says University of Ottawa infectious disease expert Dr. Amir Attaran, for many years now USAID has not spent "one dime for any actual effort, either pesticides, bed nets or drugs." Incredibly, it spends some 85% of its annual US$80 million malaria budget on mostly US-based consultants, notes an exhaustive analysis by Africa Fighting Malaria's Dr. Roger Bate. Their meetings, educational materials, exhortations to use bed nets and assertions of "progress" in the war on malaria have done little to promote actual improvements.

A recent WHO-UNICEF report echoes this illusory progress. In reality, according to Attaran, Bate and others, since the "Roll Back Malaria" campaign was launched in 1998, global malaria disease and death rates have actually increased by nearly 10 percent. One shudders to think what lack of progress would look like.

Of course, all chemicals have side effects, and risks must be balanced against clear benefits. One important class of chemicals causes anemia and fatigue, increased risk of infection, nausea, diarrhea, hair loss, and even fetal defects and fertility problems. But we use them anyway -- and any chemo-phobic activist who tried to get these powerful chemicals banned would be tarred and feathered by the cancer patients whose survival depends on them.

Today, U.S. and other international bureaucrats prohibit malaria workers from using pesticides. And the unnecessary, unfathomable, unconscionable death toll continues to mount. It's time to see this for what it actually is -- a human rights atrocity of vast proportions. Only World War II killed more people than malaria has since 1972, when EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus ignored the findings of his own scientific panel, banned DDT in the United States and began this tragedy.

It's time to say, Enough!

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com)

Email the Editor