19 May 2005 Blog Home : May 2005 : Permalink
Southern
A few months ago, though, EU representatives casually suggested to Ugandan ministers that if Uganda chooses to use DDT for malaria control, exporters will have to procure expensive equipment to ensure that their products do not contain any amount of residual DDT; otherwise they will face sanctions against their agricultural products. This negotiating technique is also known as blackmail.
Given the chemical's success at reducing the incidence of malaria in southern African nations, it is only natural that Uganda and other African countries are also considering using the chemical to battle one of their biggest human and economic scourges. "DDT has been proven, over and over again, to be the most effective and least expensive method of fighting malaria," said Ugandan health minister Jim Muhwezi. "Europe and America became malaria-free because of using DDT, and now we too intend to get rid of malaria by using it."
But thanks to the EU's not-so-subtle threats, many Ugandans have now second thoughts whether they can afford to save their people from dying. The country's $32 billion in annual agricultural exports to the EU are at risk.
The point here is that the entire debate reeks of hypocrisy. As the article notes those southern African nations that were starving due to EU interference are not punished for also spreading DDT around - possibly because spraying a miniscule amount of DDT around human homes does not cause any pollution of crops grown in fields. Even Greenpeace is willing ot accept that DDT should be used in a controlled fashion to eradicate malaria"If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's do
Both to protect European farmers and satisfy activist demands, the EU has threatened the use of trade sanctions to uphold its stringent environmental rules. This means that while the EU may import food from Uganda, it would simultaneously seek to export its overly precautionary regulations -- e.g., requiring a zero residual level of DDT in agricultural goods -- to the country.
An article in the EU's newsletter about Uganda shows how EUrocrats can use data that is misleading if not inaccurate to claim a potential toxicity effect and then stretch that to claim that EU consumers would be scared - something that is potentially true only if someone stirs up a load of scientifically dubious drivel.DDT is toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative in the tissues of living organisms, including man. Studies indicate that 50% of DDT can remain in the soil for as long as 10-15 years after application. It has been detected in human breast milk, is acutely toxic to birds and highly toxic to fish. There is therefore no doubt that DDT contaminates the food chain.
Because of these effects, the use of DDT is covered by the Stockholm Convention on ‘Persistent Organic Pollutants’ (POP), [...] DDT is banned for agricultural use in the EU. The EU has established Maximum Residue Levels (MRL’s) for DDT for both domestic and imported food and feedstuffs.
If Uganda is to use DDT for malaria control, it is advisable to do so under strictly controlled circumstances. The country would also have to set up a parallel system to monitor foodstuffs for the presence of DDT. This would ensure that any contamination of foodstuffs is detected and corrective measures taken. However, these measures may not be sufficient to allay the fears of individual consumers of Uganda’s food products in the EU.
To take the "scientific" statements at the top and analyse them is to see a classic example of suggestio falsi and suppressi veri. Firstly the 10-15 years persistency is precisely why Uganda wishes to spray it. However the plan is not to spray it indiscriminately but to target it on houses. Hence the chance of a measurable amount ending up in famer's fields is miniscule. Secondly DDT may well be toxic to birds and fish but its toxicity in humans is highly questionable - there is a professor who at a pinch of it once a year for 40 years with no obvious ill effects. Indeed a BBC article on the subject of African DDT spraying last year is quite clear that DDT is not toxic to humans except possibly in large doses.