DDT and malaria prevention: addressing the paradox

Boloka/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Bouwman, Hindrik
dc.contributor.author Van den Berg, Henk
dc.contributor.author Kylin, Henrik
dc.date.accessioned 2012-10-03T09:14:41Z
dc.date.available 2012-10-03T09:14:41Z
dc.date.issued 2011
dc.identifier.citation Bouwman, H. et al. 2011. DDT and malaria prevention: addressing the paradox. Environmental health perspectives, 119(6):744-747. [http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/journal-information/] en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0091-6765
dc.identifier.issn 1552-9924 (Online)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10394/7430
dc.description Published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services en_US
dc.description.abstract Background The debate regarding dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in malaria prevention and human health is polarized and can be classified into three positions: anti-DDT, centrist-DDT, pro-DDT. Objective We attempted to arrive at a synthesis by matching a series of questions on the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS) with literature and insights, and to identify options and opportunities. Discussion Overall, community health is significantly improved through all available malaria control measures, which include IRS with DDT. Is DDT “good”? Yes, because it has saved many lives. Is DDT safe as used in IRS? Recent publications have increasingly raised concerns about the health implications of DDT. Therefore, an unqualified statement that DDT used in IRS is safe is untenable. Are inhabitants and applicators exposed? Yes, and to high levels. Should DDT be used? The fact that DDT is “good” because it saves lives, and “not safe” because it has health and environmental consequences, raises ethical issues. The evidence of adverse human health effects due to DDT is mounting. However, under certain circumstances, malaria control using DDT cannot yet be halted. Therefore, the continued use of DDT poses a paradox recognized by a centrist-DDT position. At the very least, it is now time to invoke precaution. Precautionary actions could include use and exposure reduction. Conclusions There are situations where DDT will provide the best achievable health benefit, but maintaining that DDT is safe ignores the cumulative indications of many studies. In such situations, addressing the paradox from a centrist-DDT position and invoking precaution will help design choices for healthier lives. en_US
dc.description.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002127
dc.description.uri http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114806/pdf/ehp-119-744.pdf
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Superintendent of Documents en_US
dc.rights Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives.
dc.subject Effects en_US
dc.subject health en_US
dc.subject indoor residual spraying en_US
dc.subject malaria vector management en_US
dc.subject precaution en_US
dc.title DDT and malaria prevention: addressing the paradox en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search the NWU Repository

Advanced Search


My Account