Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Malaria, DDT, and Desperation in Uganda
WITH MALARIA sapping so much life and potential, Uganda has been driven to spray the interior of homes with DDT. The insecticide, made infamous by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring,'' has long been banned in the United States for wildlife devastation; among other consequences, it made bald eagles' eggs too thin for their young to survive. But malaria here in Uganda is so intense, top officials have answered local and international DDT critics by saying, as Vice President Gilbert Bukenya put it, "You can start with my house. Those shouting against it are shouting ignorance. They are simply not informed.''
DDT makes me shudder. But the issue arouses great passion in sub-Saharan Africa, where access to the best drugs is woeful, and where simple home protections, such as window screens, are lacking.
Uganda, a nation of 30 million people, had an estimated 10.6 million cases of malaria in 2006, according to the World Health Organization, with 70,000 to 110,000 deaths a year, according to government and university researchers. The disease seriously hampers economic development.
At ground zero of malaria control, Abwang Bernard is so persuasive, he might get permission to spray from even Carson herself. Bernard directs malaria control in the Mbarara region. With his 6-year old son sitting by him during a 90-minute interview, there was no doubt that taking care of villagers was his chief concern.
"Why do we sit around looking for the impact on things we cannot see when we have the problem we can see right now?'' Bernard said. "We have 5-year-old children dying. Many people have four episodes of malaria a year. They miss weeks and weeks of work. They cannot feed their families. Why not protect them for their future?
"I understand the environmental arguments, but sometimes they cry so much fear, their arguments become inhuman to the people. It's almost like they want the people to perish for the animals. No chemical has no side effects. But let us first reduce infant mortality. That is the environment I care about right now.''
The government this month announced a goal of having an insecticide-treated mosquito bed net in 85 percent of households and spraying the interior of all homes in the most hard-hit of districts.
According to UNICEF, just 10 percent of 5-year-olds live in a house with an insecticide-treated net. Bernard praised the goal but was highly skeptical that it would work.
"It is part of the strategy but only a part,'' Bernard said. "Nets work when you use them right, but let's be practical here. Only so many people can get under one net, and in lots of houses, the net goes to the head of the household. So if you have only one net, it goes to you, Derrick. Your kids are still getting bit by the mosquitoes.''
Bernard said many families do not use nets because they feel claustrophobic or they stifle ventilation. The Harvard University disease researchers whom I accompanied here were told that frustrated families turn their nets into fishing nets, volleyball nets, and even wedding dresses. "Before people really start using nets,'' Bernard said, "the government is first going to have to demystify them.''
Bernard was also skeptical of new national goals for nets and malaria-fighting drugs because the economic downturn months ago slashed his home spraying schedule. He is the sprayer, but the families have to purchase the insecticide. The government says the poor may spend up to 34 percent of household income on malaria treatment.
"A year ago last quarter I sprayed indoors in 50 homes,'' Bernard said. "This past quarter, I sprayed five. In 2001, we had a big international donation and we sprayed 50 homes in a day. If we could spray the homes to get malaria under control, then maybe the nets and drugs will help. If the environmentalists want to help us, they need to come here to see the total picture.''
14 Comments so far
Show AllThis is reality. Environmentalism is for rich countries. Anyone that would condemn a Ugandan for using DDT to protect his children, his family and his country is no better than a terrorist.
Indeed, desperate people don't care about another's judgment or condemnation. It is also cruel to put another in desperation, especially to gain something you do not really even need. If you do not want them to use DDT, provide them with a better alternative. Otherwise, they will just flip you the bird. And can you blame them?
...provide them with a better alternative? What africa needs yesterday is to BE LEFT ALONE to find its solutions and pace. Predators naturally come under the covers of help. Africa ignores this primitive but enduring truth at its peril.
The UN, WTO,G8(aka 8 gangters), ICC, IMF,WB,WTO,WHO, Human Right Orgnizations, CNN, BBC, VOA etc etc are all tools the West uses at appropriate times to further their control and exploit of other peoples resources. We all are indeed in a box
There IS a BETTER alternative.
Mosquito netting. Very very cheap, simple to use, and effective. Used all over the world in tropical countries where mosquitoes are a big problem.
The article is very very biased. He only provides the (weak) arguments of those who want to spray DDT.
Infectious diseases indeed require effective prevention and treatment. However, the issue of not using DDT is not just about saving birds' eggs. It is about human health prevention.
DDT is suspected of being a potent endocrine disruptor and carcinogen. A baby girl may not contract malaria, but she may develop breast cancer at age 30 because of DDT exposure.
The books Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber, Our Stolen Future by Theo Colbourn et al , and The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Devra Lee Davis are good titles on this subject.
Ermm. No.
This is reality:
"and where simple home protections, such as window screens, are lacking."
Instead of spending money on DDT, there are other things the money can be spent on. Mosquito netting, which is freaking cheap. Window screens for houses. Etc.
But then, since mosquito netting is so freaking cheap, there is little profit there for corporations.
"Anyone that would condemn a Ugandan for using DDT to protect his children, his family and his country is no better than a terrorist."
Anyone that would say this does not understand the problem, and has clearly never lived in country with lots of mosquitoes.
This is the same excuse Republicans use when they say we must drill baby drill, and shave off that mountain for the coal. We must burn more fossil fuels to keep growing. Even though other types of solutions exist. 'We are desperate,' they say, and we cannot 'afford' other solutions, and desperate people like Republicans and neocons "don't care about other's judgement or condemnation, they will just flip you the bird." Typical Republican shite, though obviously not exclusive to that mob.
There may or may not be short-term advantages to using something as toxic as DDT, but there are long-term consequences. Illness is not a modern invention. It has been in nature all along, and in the past, kept human populations in check. Many children died, and most people did not lead long lives; as they do now, thanks to modern technology and medicine.
Science has made the current population boom possible, and yes, that includes DDT. And we do not want to go back to the old ways of many children dying and most people dying young. But to do this, and still have a pleasant, viable planet, there must be other ways of providing protection from illness. And there must be family planning so that the health of the biosphere is maintained in equilibrium for life.
Right now, the biosphere is in trouble, due to overpopulation and overconsumption both. So far this year, 67,000 species have become extinct, 12 million acres of forest has been destroyed, 18 million acres have become new desert, and 10 billion pounds of toxic waste has been thrown into the environment. That's just so far this year...
Oh, and we will add another 140 million babies or so to the planet... this year.
So before using the excuse of 'no choice', make sure there is none. Because poisoning the earth anywhere is not a real good idea anymore. Just ask the same science that gave you DDT in the first place.
I am so sick of extra-ordinary methods, no matter how dangerous, to fix problems that can't be solved unless the human 'unfettered' population growth is brought under control and actually decreased.
If that is what these idiots want, let's send them 100,000,000 tons of the shit and they and layer it a foot deep around their country and then I can suggest they find the proper drainage basins, dig the canals, the ditches and lay the pipe and pump all their mosquito breeding water to the oceans, then that way their problem is solved, right?
I have another great idea, why don't we get the plutoniun we have and crush it up and sprinkle it around the homes in america so that way we won't use as much oil this coming winter to stay warm because the plutonium has a have life of 10s of thousands of years and will keep all those people warm for that long.
None of this is necessary.
This article is a very poor article.
It doesn't have to DDT or bust. Jackson conveniently does not mention that mosquito netting is very very cheap. If you can afford to go around spraying DDT, you can afford to give everyone a mosquito net. Not just "the head of household".
A very very poor and biased article. Jackson only provides the arguments of those who want to spray DDT.
Firstly, Jackson seems to want to ignore that mosquito netting is very very cheap. While nets treated with repellent are better than nets not treated with repellent, even basic nets not treated with repellent are effective. It does not only have to be available for the "head of household" who gets the netting. If you can afford to go around spraying DDT, you an certainly afford to give everyone a mosquito net.
Secondly, the idea that mosquito netting needs to be "demystified" is hilarious. The concept is basic. It is hung above a bed, to surround a bed to prevent mosquitoes to get the sleeping person. It is / has been used in tropical countries throughout the world for decades.
And before someone accuses me of being a western imperialist lecturing poor Africans, I have lived in a country with a serious mosquito problems. Slept surrounded by mosquito netting not treated with repellent.
Will Africans know this automatically? Who will provide the netting, will they manufacture it themselves? How long should they have to wait to get it? If DDT is the only thing IMMEDIATELY available to them, should they abstain from using it, risking malaria? Please, put yourself in another person's shoes. What does 'desperation' mean to you, and how do you behave when you are DESPERATE? We see others as WE are, not as THEY are. There can be no genuine empathy within ego. This much is clear.
Why do you think African people are dumb? Do you think African people do not know how to use cars? TVs?
The technology of mosquito netting is basic and simple. Even a little child can easily understand why it works once the use is shown. Just as even a little child can easily understand how a shoe works once the use of a shoe is demonstrated.
All a mosquito net is pieces of fabric with very many small holes in them. You hang the netting over where you are sleeping from a (wooden) frame.
Who provides the netting? Who manufactures it? Will they manufacture it themselves? Answer me this: who provides the DDT? Who manufactures the DDT? Will they manufacture the DDT themselves? Why do you believe that DDT is easier to produce than mosquito netting? The technology of mosquito netting is very basic, very simple, very cheap. Mosquito nets have long been used throughout tropical Asian countries. They aren't some new fangled high tech western invention. It is DDT that is the new fangled high tech western invention.
The idea that DDT is easier to manufacture than mosquito nets is hilarious.
And BTW, I am not completely against the use of DDT. I am against how it is being portrayed here in this article, and in some of the comments. It is an extremely limited short term solution, especially when you are the point where you are spraying the INTERIOR of individual homes with it.
It seems clear to me that you have never used mosquito nets before, and never lived in a country where the use of mosquito nets is prevalent, nay ubiquitous. In such countries, it is the poor among whom the use of mosquito nets is most prevalent, since they cannot afford other more high tech, more expensive measure. So you might want to think about your last couple sentences about seeing others as we are, not as they are.
I have read many places that DDT, while extremely toxic in water, is quite safe when sprayed on walls - on land, it's more of an insect repellant than an insecticide, and quite safe at reasonable doses for mammals and even birds.
The problem was that farmers and others started broadcasting DDT through the environment, causing serious toxicity as it got rained into aquatic environments.
So many millions have died from malaria who could have been protected if DDT had been used correctly.
See http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th13(l).htm for a balanced view - there are many stronger pro-DDT statements on the Web also.
The article you linked mentions that it accumulates in animal / human tissue, thus getting concentrated the higher up the food you go.
What species tends to be at the top of the food chain? What land species at the top of the food chain often consumes aquatic animals?
And why do you think DDT spraying will be effective if only done in homes? Mosquito often do breed and live OUTSIDE human homes. In still water.