NEG - DDT Legalization CON

NEG – DDT Legalization CON Page |1
NEG – DDT Legalization – CON

OPENERS................................................................................................................4
Over hyping a chemical can do irretrievable harm................................................................4
SIGNIFICANCE......................................................................................................5
1. A2: DDT is Less Dangerous than the Alternatives.............................................................5
1. DDT causes convulsions, atrophy, and paralysis in all vertebra (including humans)......................5
2. DDT and other currently banned pesticides present higher cancer risks.........................................5
3. DDT is a very persistent chemical: Even if it’s not as strong as others, its effects last longer.........5
4. DDT is dangerous because of its persistence...................................................................................6
5. Alternatives to DDT do not persist as long in the environment.......................................................6
6. DDT gets water born and is really acquired by aquatic organisms..................................................6
7. DDT can be genotoxic in humans...................................................................................................6
8. DDT is highly toxic in the freshwater environment........................................................................7
9. The West Nile efficacy is outweighed by the rampant negative impacts of DDT...........................7
2. A2: DDT was Outlawed for Political Reasons.....................................................................8
1. All pesticides must be approved by the EPA and are carefully tested before being
rejected/accepted.................................................................................................................................8
2. The reason DDT was banned? Persistence......................................................................................8
3. A2: We Need DDT to Fight Malaria....................................................................................9
A. The U.S. Already Supports the Spraying DDT.................................................................9
1. DDT is totally legal currently for Malaria fighting purposes: USAID uses it, and WHO approves
of it......................................................................................................................................................9
2. USAID uses DDT for inside residual spraying................................................................................9
3. USAID uses DDT in eight African countries..................................................................................9
4. The World Health Organization is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa....................................10
5. Everyone is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa.......................................................................10
6. USAID is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa..........................................................................10
7. DDT was called by WHO to be used in developing countries against malaria as of 2006; however,
it is only sprayed on the inside of walls.............................................................................................10
8. WHO’s 2006 announcement made it clear that DDT will be a top choice when used properly
(namely, when sprayed indoors)........................................................................................................10
9. Kochi, India plans to use DDT along with other methods (such as bed nets and new medications)
to combat malaria..............................................................................................................................12
10. Even after DDT was banned, developing countries continued to use it; in addition, a U.S. 2001
treaty that aimed to eradicate malaria allows for the indoor spraying of DDT (which seems to be
effective)...........................................................................................................................................12
11. Wide approval exists for indoor residual spraying of DDT.........................................................12
12. A2: “EU trade obstruction threats”: EU recently lifted them.......................................................12
13. U.S. is now funding international DDT programs.......................................................................13
B. We Have a New Malaria Vaccine as of 2010...................................................................14
1. The new malaria vaccine as of 2010 is extremely effective in children.........................................14
2. Info Card: About the study/vaccine...............................................................................................14
3. Info Card: About the vaccine........................................................................................................14
4. Info Card: About the study............................................................................................................14
C. Other Successful Non-DDT Malaria Approaches............................................................15
1. Insecticide-treated bed nets and basic malaria education are the best ways to prevent malaria.....15
2. Public health experts in Mexico are introducing new strategies to prevent malaria outbreaks –
without the help of DDT...................................................................................................................15
4. A2: We Need DDT to Combat the West Nile Virus..........................................................16
Preston Black PSDC

1. We have vaccine! There is no need to legalize a devastatingly horrible chemical!.......................16

2. Scientists and health organizations are trying to prevent malaria through new vaccinations and
immune mosquitoes..........................................................................................................................16
5. A2: The DDT Ban has Killed Millions...............................................................................17
The DDT ban has not killed millions – it’s just not that simple........................................................17
SOLVENCY...........................................................................................................18
1. Demand: Who is Going to Start Re-Using DDT?.............................................................18
A. The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Discourages DDT................18
1. DDT has been banned along with 22 other harmful chemicals under Prior Informed Consent.....18
2. Prior Informed Consent provides info to countries on hazardous chemicals, including pesticides 18
3. Info Card: The purpose of PIC......................................................................................................18
4. Info Card: The U.S. is a PIC signatory, but it has not ratified it....................................................19
5. Info Card: Major Provisions of Rotterdam/PIC.............................................................................19
B. The Stockholm Convention Discourages DDT................................................................20
1. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP): Def. of a POP/makes them
dangerous..........................................................................................................................................20
2. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants reduces/eliminates the use of DDT 20
3. Stockholm Convention allows DDT for malaria control, but not for crops...................................20
4. Supply: Who is Going to Make DDT?...............................................................................21
1. DDT was banned in 1972, and it isn’t registered for production in the U.S..................................21
2. DDT has been generally replaced and many bugs have developed resistance to it........................21
5. Costs of Spraying.................................................................................................................22
1. With Uganda’s resources already overburdened, it makes little sense to embrace an approach that
is exceedingly costly from fiscal, human and environmental standpoints.........................................22
2. DDT fails as a public health tool because the costs are too high and impossible to control..........22
DISADVANTAGES...............................................................................................23
1) Bald Eagles...........................................................................................................................23
Shell:..........................................................................................................................................23
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Relegalizes DDT...........................................................................23
B. Internal Link: Banning DDT is the Reason Bald Eagles Recovered in the 1970s.........................23
C. Impact: DDT Causes Reproductive Failure in Raptors, Eagles and Pelicans................................23
Extension:.................................................................................................................................24
1. DDT moves up the ecosystem, and eventually harms Eagles and other large birds (good
explanation).......................................................................................................................................24
2. A2: “The ESA – not the DDT ban – is the cause of eagle recovery”: This is because of tactics to
diminish DDT’s role in the recovery the Bald Eagle.........................................................................24
3. A2: “DDT is not responsible for eggshell thinning”: That idea is totally bogus............................25
2) Super Bugs............................................................................................................................26
Shell:..........................................................................................................................................26
A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Results in More Spraying of DDT.......................................26
B. Internal Link: Increased DDT Use Leads to More DDT Resistant Mosquitoes............................26
DDT uniquely gives bugs resistance to other pesticides, allowing rampant spread of deadly diseases
..........................................................................................................................................................26
C. Impact: Increased Malaria............................................................................................................26
For each kilo of DDT sprayed, 105 new cases of malaria are created from resistance......................26
Extension:.................................................................................................................................27
1. DDT creates genetic “superbugs” that will decimate ecosystems even after spraying stops.........27
2. DDT is becoming obsolete: More and more insects are becoming resistant..................................27
3. Mosquitoes are already becoming immune to DDT – however, this has not yet happened in
Eastern Africa (obviously, though, it eventually will).......................................................................27
Preston Black PSDC

4. DDT becomes ineffective quickly; many mosquitoes are already resistant...................................27

3) Increased Infant Mortality [Case Turn]............................................................................28
Shell:..........................................................................................................................................28
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Increases the Spraying of DDT in Africa.......................................28
B. Brink: DDT Increases Infant Mortality.........................................................................................28
DDT concentrations in breast milk are much higher where it is applied for malaria control.............28
C. Impact: Case Turn – The Affirmative Team Actually Increases Infant Deaths............................28
The lives saved by decreased infant malaria cases are canceled by the increased infant deaths from
DDT..................................................................................................................................................28
Extension:.................................................................................................................................29
1. Three studies found that DDT levels were higher in exposed groups............................................29
2. DDT use would increase total infant deaths by 9%.......................................................................29
4) Trade Sanctions...................................................................................................................30
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Legalizes DDT, Increasing the Use of DDT in Other Countries. .30
B. Internal Link: The EU has Threatened to Sanction Countries that Spray DDT............................30
C. Impact: Trade Sanctions Hurt.......................................................................................................30
5) Increased Pesticide Pollution..............................................................................................31
Shell:..........................................................................................................................................31
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Legalizes DDT...............................................................................31
B. Internal Link: DDT is Really Dangerous......................................................................................31
DDT is indiscriminatory, and has the potential to upset entire ecosystems.......................................31
C. Uniqueness: Alternatives to DDT do not Persist as Long in the Environment..............................31
The prime benefit of DDT alternatives is that they do not persist for long periods of time in the
environment......................................................................................................................................31
D. Impact: Immense Consequences...................................................................................................31
DDT has irrevocably harmed birds and animals and contaminated the entire world food supply.....31
Extension:.................................................................................................................................32
1. Pesticides have damaged humans and the environment................................................................32
2. Pesticides have damaged farm workers.........................................................................................32
3. Pesticides have damaged the people living around farms..............................................................32
Contributors: Tim Caiello [TC], Matt Hendrickson [MH/McParker], Katherine McNair

[MH/McParker], Ryan Parker [MH/McParker], and Preston Black [PB]
Preston Black PSDC

OPENERS
Over hyping a chemical can do irretrievable harm
Professor May Berenbaum [Ph.D. from Cornell University (1980); Professor of entomology and head of the department of entomology
at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign], “If Malaria’s the Problem, DDT’s Not the Only Answer,” Article Published by the
Washington Post [an American Newspaper and news service], June 5, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html [TC]
“Overselling a chemical’s capacity to solve a problem can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes but
by delaying the use of more effective long-term methods. So let’s drop the hyperbole and overblown rhetoric – It’s
not what Africa needs.”
Preston Black PSDC

SIGNIFICANCE
1. A2: DDT is Less Dangerous than the Alternatives
1. DDT causes convulsions, atrophy, and paralysis in all vertebra (including humans)
A Duke University Department of Chemistry Publication: Dangers of DDT, 2008,

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/ddtup.html [MH/McParker]
“So far, we have learned that DDT is an extremely persistent chemical. It gets into the fats of organisms, and it stays there. But
what makes it so dangerous to organisms? In this section, we’ll discover how DDT works. The current misunderstanding is that DDT
kills by disturbing an organism’s nerve cells. All cells, including nerve cells, have a plasma membrane, which is the cell’s outer
boundary. Like an egg shell, the plasma membrane separates the inside of the cell from the outside. One important
difference, though: The plasma membrane allows special substances to enter and leave the cell, (food, oxygen, water,
etc.). The plasma membrane is made up mostly of lipids (fats). Remember that DDT is fat soluble, and so it will
dissolve easily into the plasma membrane. In order to get into the plasma membrane, the DDT must open up the
membrane slightly to make room for itself. DDT, unfortunately, opens up the membrane a little too much and causes
the cell to leak. Two things which will slip through these leaks are sodium ions and potassium ions. For a nerve cell, the
concentration of Na+ and K+ inside and outside of a cell [which] are especially important, because they help determine when
the nerve cell will fire its signals. After DDT gets into the plasma membrane, nerve impulses (signals) no longer fire
when they are supposed to. If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax.
Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of
the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control).”
2. DDT and other currently banned pesticides present higher cancer risks
Tsunehiro Otsuki & John S. Wilsona [Researchers with the Development Research Group at the World Bank,], “To Spray or Not to
Spray: Pesticides, Banana Exports, and Food Safety,” World Bank’s Policy Research Working Paper Series, Paper #2805,
World Bank Research Paper, March 2002, http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2805.html#provider [TC]
“Some pesticides, e.g. dieldrin, DDT and heptachlor, whose registration has been cancelled, have higher cancer risks
than the normally used pesticides. In an EPA report of 1987, pesticides in food were considered to be most
hazardous to human health. The EPA identified 55 pesticides that could leave carcinogenic residues in food (National
Academy of Sciences, 1987).”
3. DDT is a very persistent chemical: Even if it’s not as strong as others, its effects last longer
The Cornell University Extension Toxicology Network [A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell
University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis], “Pesticide Information Profile: DDT ”
Article originally published no earlier than 1994, © 2008 Cornell University, http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-
dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html [TC]
“DDT is very highly persistent in the environment, with a reported half life of between 2-15 years and is immobile
in most soils. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic
and anaerobic). These processes generally occur only very slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are
DDE and DDD, which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties. Due to its extremely
low solubility in water, DDT will be retained to a greater degree by soils and soil fractions with higher proportions of soil organic matter. It may
accumulate in the top soil layer in situations where heavy applications are (or were) made annually; e.g., for apples. Generally DDT is tightly
sorbed by soil organic matter, but it (along with its metabolites) has been detected in many locations in soil and groundwater where it may be
available to organisms. This is probably due to its high persistence; although it is immobile or only very slightly mobile, over very long periods
of time it may be able to eventually leach into groundwater, especially in soils with little soil organic matter.”
Preston Black PSDC

4. DDT is dangerous because of its persistence
“Due to the persistence of DDT and its metabolites in the environment, very low levels may continue to be detected
in foodstuffs grown in some areas of prior use. It has been suggested that, depending on patterns of international
DDT use and trade, it is possible that dietary exposure levels may actually increase over time. Persons eating fish
contaminated with DDT or metabolites may also be exposed via bioaccumulation of the compound in fish. Even though current dietary
levels are quite low, past and current exposures may result in measurable body burdens due to its persistence in the
body.”
5. Alternatives to DDT do not persist as long in the environment
Professor David Pimentel [Ph.D. from Cornell University (1951); Professor of Insect Ecology & Agricultural Sciences at the
Department of Entomology and Section of Ecology and Systematics at Cornell University], “Silent Spring Revisited – Have Things Changed
Since 1962?” Article Published in Pesticide Outlook, a Magazine of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 2002,
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b209421p&JournalCode=PO [PB]
“It took 10 years from the time that Rachel Carson’s book was published before DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. By the time that DDT was
banned, pesticide use had increased 10-fold to about 500,000 kg per year. The total quantity of pesticides in the U.S. in terms of pounds has not
increased since 1972, but the actual toxicity of the pesticides has increased 10 to 20 times (Pimentel et al., 1993). The prime benefit with
the new, highly toxic pesticides that replaced DDT and similar chemicals is that the new toxicants do not persist for
long periods of time in the environment.”
6. DDT gets water born and is really acquired by aquatic organisms
“DDT may reach surface waters primarily by runoff, atmospheric transport, drift, or by direct application (e.g. to
control mosquito-borne malaria). The reported half-life for DDT in the water environment is 56 days in lake water
and approximately 28 days in river water. The main pathways for loss are volatilization, photodegradation, adsorption to water-borne
particulates and sedimentation. Aquatic organisms, as noted above, also readily take up and store DDT and its metabolites.
Field and laboratory studies in the United Kingdom demonstrated that very little breakdown of DDT occurred in estuary sediments over the
course of 46 days.”
7. DDT can be genotoxic in humans
“In humans, blood cell cultures of men occupationally exposed to DDT showed an increase in chromosomal
damage. In a separate study, significant increases in chromosomal damage were reported in workers who had direct
and indirect occupational exposure to DDT. Thus it appears that DDT may have the potential to cause genotoxic
effects in humans, but does not appear to be strongly mutagenic. It is unclear whether these effects may occur at
exposure levels likely to be encountered by most people.”
Preston Black PSDC

8. DDT is highly toxic in the freshwater environment
“DDT is very highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species. Reported 96-hour LC50s in various aquatic invertebrates (e.g.,
stoneflies, midges, crayfish, sow bugs) range from 0.18 ug/L to 7.0 ug/L, and 48-hour LC50s are 4.7 ug/L for daphnids and 15 ug/L for
sea shrimp. Other reported 96-hour LC50s for various aquatic invertebrate species are from 1.8 ug/L to 54 ug/L. Early developmental
stages are more susceptible than adults to DDT’s effects. The reversibility of some effects, as well as the
development of some resistance, may be possible in some aquatic invertebrates DDT is very highly toxic to fish
species as well. Reported 96-hour LC50s are less than 10 ug/L in coho salmon (4.0 ug/L), rainbow trout (8.7 ug/L), northern pike (2.7 ug/L),
black bullhead (4.8 ug/L), bluegill sunfish (8.6 ug/L), largemouth bass (1.5 ug/L), and walleye (2.9 ug/L). The reported 96-hour LC50s in fathead
minnow and channel catfish are 21.5 ug/L and 12.2 ug/L respectively. Other reported 96-hour LC50s in largemouth bass and guppy were 1.5
ug/L and 56 ug/L respectively. Observed toxicity in coho and chinook salmon was greater in smaller fish than in larger. It is reported that
DDT levels of 1 ng/L in Lake Michigan were sufficient to affect the hatching of coho salmon eggs. DDT may be
moderately toxic to some amphibian species and larval stages are probably more susceptible than adults. In addition to acute toxic
effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure. This
occurs mainly through uptake from sediment and water into aquatic flora and fauna, and also fish. Fish uptake of DDT
from the water will be size-dependent with smaller fish taking up relatively more than larger fish. A half- time for elimination of DDT from
rainbow trout was estimated to be 160 days.”
9. The West Nile efficacy is outweighed by the rampant negative impacts of DDT
Barbara A. Cohn et al. [Ph.D.; Director of Child Health and Development Studies at the Center for Research on Women’s and Children’s
Health at the Public Health Institute], Mary S. Wolff [Mount Sinai School of Medicine], Piera M. Cirillo [Child Health and Development
Studies, Center for Research on Women’s and Children’s Health, Public Health Institute], Robert I. Sholtz [Child Health and Development
Studies, Center for Research on Women’s and Children’s Health, Public Health Institute], “DDT and Breast Cancer in Young Women: New
Data on the Significance of Age at Exposure,” Article Published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’
Environmental Health Perspectives [a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health],
October 1, 2007, http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10260/10260.pdf [MH/McParker]
“DDT has played in important role in malaria control, a pressing public health problem. However, in addition to
cancer, the potential harmful effects of DDT that have been reported include reproductive problems such as
premature birth and breastfeeding problems. The possible side effects of DDT for wildlife and humans should be
recognized and a balanced view should be encouraged, including alternative methods of malaria control.”
Preston Black PSDC

2. A2: DDT was Outlawed for Political Reasons

1. All pesticides must be approved by the EPA and are carefully tested before being
rejected/accepted
Professor Frederick M. Fishel [Associate Professor at the Agronomy Department at the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Director of the Pesticide Information Office at the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL] “Pesticides and Prior Informed Consent,” Article Published by the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, October 2009, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI22200.pdf [TC]
“No pesticide may be lawfully sold in the United States until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
reviewed the manufacturer’s application for registration and determined that use of the product does not present an
unreasonable risk to humans, wildlife, or the environment. Pesticides banned in the United States are those that the
EPA has determined pose an unacceptable risk. (See Figure 1.) For pesticides banned in the United States, the EPA has
also determined that the unacceptable risks associated with the pesticide cannot be reduced by actions – such as
label amendments – to alter use patterns. In most cases, when the EPA has banned use of a pesticide in the United
States, the related active ingredients are voluntarily cancelled by the pesticide manufacturer. Table 1 contains a 1998
listing of pesticide active ingredients that have had all or most of their uses banned in the United States. (Table 1 also includes the criteria for the
EPA’s ban on each of these pesticide uses.) These pesticides, banned by the EPA, are included in the UN’s PIC list.”
2. The reason DDT was banned? Persistence
Agricultural Sciences, October 2009, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI22200.pdf [brackets added] [TC]
“DDT [was banned in] (1972). The characteristics of DDT to persist, especially in temperate climates, and to
biomagnify in the food chain led to significant reproductive effects in birds – including the brown pelican, osprey
and eagles – due to eggshell thinning. These features – combined with exposure and accumulation of residues in
humans and the potential oncogenicity of DDT – contributed to health concerns. In addition, there were concerns
about general environmental contamination of a long-lived nature and uncertainty about the eventual adverse
impacts on humans and the environment because of continuing, long-term exposure through water, food and other
sources. Finally, DDT is toxic to a number of organisms, including fish.”
Preston Black PSDC

3. A2: We Need DDT to Fight Malaria
A. The U.S. Already Supports the Spraying DDT

1. DDT is totally legal currently for Malaria fighting purposes: USAID uses it, and WHO approves of
it
USAID [The United States Agency for International Development; has been the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to countries
recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms; a federal government agency that receives overall
foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State; its work supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign
policy objectives by supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and, democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian
assistance], “Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS),”, June 2, 2009, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/techareas/irs.html
[brackets and parentheses added to maintain context of article] [TC]
“The use of the insecticide DDT for [indoor residual spraying] (IRS) is very different from the massive agricultural
applications that led to the ban of DDT in the United States and other countries, both in terms of the amounts of
insecticide used and the potential risks to the environment. If used correctly for this purpose, it poses no known risk to human
health. Malaria, on the other hand, kills more than 1 million people each year, the vast majority of whom are African children. USAID
adheres to strict environmental guidelines, approval processes, and procedures for the use of DDT and all other
World Health Organization (WHO)-approved insecticides in its malaria control programs. We work with WHO and
national partners to build country-level capacity to ensure the safe and judicious use of all insecticides, including DDT, used in malaria control
programs. DDT is one of the WHO-approved insecticides for IRS. Its use for IRS to prevent malaria is an allowable
exception under the Stockholm Convention – also known as the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty or POPs Treaty
– when used in accordance with WHO guidelines and when safe, effective, and affordable alternatives are not
available. The Stockholm Convention aims to eventually end the use of all POPs, including DDT.”
2. USAID uses DDT for inside residual spraying
“USAID has never had a ‘policy’ as such either ‘for’ or ‘against’ DDT for Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS). The real
change in the past two years has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in general – with DDT or any
other insecticide – as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa. For example, in fiscal year 2005 USAID
supported less than $1 million of IRS in Africa, with programs utilizing insecticides purchased by the host government or another donor. For
fiscal year 2006, in the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) and in other bilateral programs, USAID will support more than $20 million
in IRS programs in Africa, including the direct purchase of insecticides. This dramatic increase in the scale of our
IRS programs overall is the greatest factor in DDT’s recent prominence in USAID programs.”
3. USAID uses DDT in eight African countries
“For Fiscal Year 2006, USAID is providing more than $20 million in support of IRS activities in eight African
countries, including the direct purchase of insecticides, spraying equipment, protective gear, environmental assessments, training of spray
personnel and information, education, and communication for local residents. USAID is currently supporting IRS with DDT in
Zambia. This year, pending completion and satisfactory results of all necessary entomological and environmental assessments, USAID plans to
support IRS with DDT in Ethiopia and Mozambique (including purchase of the insecticide); and also in Madagascar (using DDT
purchased by another donor). With FY 2006 funding, USAID is supporting IRS with insecticides other than DDT in Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania, and Angola.”
Preston Black PSDC

NEG – DDT Legalization CON P a g e | 10
4. The World Health Organization is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa
The World Health Organization [the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system; is responsible for
providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based
policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends], “WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean
bill of health for controlling malaria,” September 15, 2006, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html [TC]
“Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to
control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play
a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying not
only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.”
5. Everyone is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa
“Views about the use of insecticides for indoor protection from malaria have been changing in recent years.
Environmental Defense, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the 1960s, now endorses the indoor use of DDT
for malaria control, as does the Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust. The recently-launched President’s
Malaria Initiative announced last year that it would also fund DDT spraying on the inside walls of households to
prevent the disease.”
6. USAID is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa
“‘I anticipate that all 15 of the country programs of President Bush’s $1.2 billion commitment to cut malaria deaths
in half will include substantial indoor residual spraying activities, including many that will use DDT,’ said Admiral
R. Timothy Ziemer, Coordinator of the President’s Malaria Initiative. ‘Because it is relatively inexpensive and very
effective, USAID supports the spraying of homes with insecticides as a part of a balanced, comprehensive malaria
prevention and treatment program.’”
7. DDT was called by WHO to be used in developing countries against malaria as of 2006; however, it
is only sprayed on the inside of walls
The New York Times, “DDT to be used against malaria – Health & Science – International Herald Tribune,” September 15, 2006,
© 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/health/15iht-web.0915malaria.2826156.html [PB]
“The World Health Organization on Friday called on more developing countries, particularly in Africa, to begin
spraying the controversial pesticide DDT to fight malaria. The difference: DDT, longed banned in the United States
and elsewhere because of environmental damage, is no longer sprayed outdoors. Instead it’s used to coat the inside
walls of mud huts or other dwellings and kill mosquitoes waiting to bite families as they sleep.”
8. WHO’s 2006 announcement made it clear that DDT will be a top choice when used properly
(namely, when sprayed indoors)
“A small number of malaria-plagued countries already use DDT, backed by a 2001 United Nations treaty that set out
strict rules to prevent environmental contamination. But the influential World Health Organization’s long-awaited
Preston Black PSDC

announcement makes clear that it will push indoor spraying with a number of insecticides – and that DDT will be a
top choice because when used properly it’s safe, effective and cheap.”
Preston Black PSDC

9. Kochi, India plans to use DDT along with other methods (such as bed nets and new medications) to
combat malaria
“Kochi, [India] has positioned indoor spraying [of DDT] as an important but neglected third weapon – along with
insecticide-treated bed nets and new medications – in the war on malaria, which infects half a billion people each year and kills
more than 1 million, most of them children.”
10. Even after DDT was banned, developing countries continued to use it; in addition, a U.S. 2001
treaty that aimed to eradicate malaria allows for the indoor spraying of DDT (which seems to be
effective)
“DDT never disappeared in developing countries, although political pressure and lack of funding meant few continued to use it. Then
a 2001 United Nations treaty that aims to wipe out a dozen of the world’s most dangerous chemicals carved out one
exception for DDT: indoor anti-malaria spraying, under strict conditions to prevent environmental contamination.
Why? When small amounts are sprayed on interior walls, DDT forms a residue that both repels mosquitoes –
discouraging them from flying into the house – and kills those that rest on the walls, explained Clive Shiff, a
professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Malaria Research Institute. It has to be applied only about once a year.”
11. Wide approval exists for indoor residual spraying of DDT
Jessie Stone [affiliated with the New York Times], “Try nets, not DDT – Editorials & Commentary – International Herald Tribune,”
Article Published by the New York Times, September 22, 2006, © 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/health/15iht-
web.0915malaria.2826156.html [PB]
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) endorsement of DDT for spraying inside houses has the support of the
U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. With the WHO’s encouragement, several African nations have
approved DDT for use in indoor residual spraying (that is, spraying the walls of huts to kill the mosquitoes that wait
there until dark). Uganda’s Ministry of Health and National Malaria Control Program, for example, have embraced
this approach. Newspaper articles across Africa have assured readers that DDT has gotten a bad rap and is, in fact, safe for use.”
12. A2: “EU trade obstruction threats”: EU recently lifted them
Philip Stevens [Health Program Director at the International Policy Network; author of numerous health policy publications,
including “Free trade for better health” (2005), “The real determinants of health” (2005) and “The 10/90 Gap and the diseases of poverty”
(2004); writings on health policy have appeared in a wide range of international newspapers; has held research positions at the Adam Smith
Institute and Reform in London; spent several years as a management consultant], “DDT Spray: The Slaughter of the Innocents,” Critical
Opinion, The International Policy Network [a global think tank headquartered in the City of London; runs public education campaigns on
international issues ranging from trade and development to healthcare and the environment; works in partnership with over 75 think tanks
around the world], January 13, 2007, http://www.criticalopinion.org/articles/27 [PB]
“The EU only recently lifted threats of trade obstruction if Uganda used DDT, the chemical that eradicated malaria in the USA
and Europe. ‘Residual indoor spraying’ has long been allowed by international treaty but even the World Health Organization
ignored DDT while wasting billions of dollars since 1998 on its fatally counter-productive Roll Back Malaria campaign.”
Preston Black PSDC

13. U.S. is now funding international DDT programs
Philip Stevens [Health Program Director at the International Policy Network; author of numerous health policy publications,
including “Free trade for better health” (2005), “The real determinants of health” (2005) and “The 10/90 Gap and the diseases of poverty”
(2004); writings on health policy have appeared in a wide range of international newspapers; has held research positions at the Adam Smith
Institute and Reform in London; spent several years as a management consultant], “DDT Spray: The Slaughter of the Innocents,” Critical
Opinion, The International Policy Network [a global think tank headquartered in the City of London; runs public education campaigns on
international issues ranging from trade and development to healthcare and the environment; works in partnership with over 75 think tanks
around the world], January 13, 2007, http://www.criticalopinion.org/articles/27 [PB]
“The World Health Organization has gradually changed its mind over the last 18 months, the Global Fund for AIDS,
TB and Malaria is buying DDT for several countries, and the U.S. Agency for International Development will now
fund DDT programs – but the fears, obstructionism and environmentalist propaganda continue unabated.”
Preston Black PSDC

B. We Have a New Malaria Vaccine as of 2010

1. The new malaria vaccine as of 2010 is extremely effective in children
Science Daily News [Adopted from materials provided by the University of Maryland Medical Center], “New Malaria Vaccine Is Safe and
Protective in Children, Scientists Find,” February 6, 2010, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203201425.htm?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News
%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher [TC]
“A new vaccine to prevent the deadly malaria infection has shown promise to protect the most vulnerable patients –
young children – against the disease, according to an international team of researchers led by the University of
Maryland School of Medicine’s Center for Vaccine Development and the Malaria Research and Training Center at
the University of Bamako in Mali, West Africa. In a new study of the vaccine in young children in Mali, researchers
found it stimulated strong and long-lasting immune responses. In fact, the antibody levels the vaccine produced in
the children were as high or even higher than the antibody levels found in adults who have naturally developed
protective immune responses to the parasite over lifelong exposure to malaria.”
2. Info Card: About the study/vaccine
“In addition to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s support of Dr. Plowe’s research, the study was sponsored by
the U.S. Army and funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, part of the National Institutes
of Health, and the United States Agency for International Development. The new vaccine, called FMP2.1/AS02A,
was developed as part of a longstanding research collaboration between the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
(WRAIR) GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK). The vaccine consists of a form of the AMA-1 protein, invented and
manufactured by WRAIR, and the AS02 Adjuvant System, developed and manufactured by GSK. The Adjuvant
System is a compound that boosts the immune response to the vaccine. Previous studies in the U.S. and in Mali
already have found the vaccine to be safe and to produce strong immune responses in adults.”
3. Info Card: About the vaccine
“The vaccine, based on a single strain of the falciparum malaria parasite – the most common and deadliest form of
the parasite found in Africa – targets malaria in the blood stage. The blood stage is the period after the mosquito
bite, when the parasite multiplies in the blood, causing disease and death. Other blood stage vaccines have been
tested but none has shown the ability to prevent malaria disease.”
4. Info Card: About the study
“For the study, the University of Maryland School of Medicine’s CVD team collaborated with a group of Malian
researchers from the Malaria Research and Training Center, led by Mahamadou Thera, M.D., Ph.D., and Ogobara
Doumbo M.D., Ph.D. The study also included collaborators WRAIR, GSK Biologicals, NIAID and USAID. The
scientists tested the vaccine in 100 Malian children ages 1-6 at the Bandiagara Malaria Project in rural Mali. The
children were randomly assigned to receive either one of three escalating doses of the malaria vaccine or a control
rabies vaccine. All three doses of the vaccine proved to be safe and well tolerated, and all three doses also showed
very strong antibody responses that were sustained for at least a year.”
Preston Black PSDC

C. Other Successful Non-DDT Malaria Approaches

1. Insecticide-treated bed nets and basic malaria education are the best ways to prevent malaria
insecticide-treated bed nets can reduce the incidence of malaria by at least 50% and perhaps as much as
“For instance,
90%. Combination- drug therapy along with targeted non-DDT spraying inside huts will also be effective in
controlling malaria. DDT is not the magic bullet that will eradicate malaria. We need to refocus resources and
attention on something most Africans do not have: basic malaria education and prevention with insecticide-treated
bed nets. A mosquito net costs $6.50 and can last up to five years. An average of three people can sleep under it, and
the only harmful effect we have heard about, after having distributed 11,000 nets in the Kamuli, Jinja and Kayung
districts over the last two years, is people being hot at night.”
2. Public health experts in Mexico are introducing new strategies to prevent malaria outbreaks –
without the help of DDT
John Eberlee [affiliated with the International Development Research Center], “Controlling Malaria in Mexico Using Alternatives to DDT,”
Article Published by the International Development Research Center [a corporation that supports researchers from the
developing world in their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies; supports networking and
knowledge sharing between scientific, academic, and development communities; supports research under the broad themes of: Environment and
Natural Resource Management; Information and Communication Technologies for Development; Social and Economic Policy; and Innovation,
Policy and Science; IDRC’s Board comprises 11 members from Canada and 10 from other countries, including developing countries; Dr Gordon
Smith is the Chairman of the Board, and the President is Dr. David Malone], September 14, 2001, http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5460-201-1-
DO_TOPIC.html [PB]
“Public health experts in Mexico, in collaboration with the nation’s Malaria Control Program, are introducing new
strategies to prevent malaria outbreaks – without the help of DDT. A multi-disciplinary team funded by the
International Development Research Centre is using an ecosystem health approach to fight malaria in the State of
Oaxaca – the main site of malaria outbreaks in Mexico. Investigators are looking at ways to manage the local
environment to reduce the incidence and spread of malaria. ‘We’re looking at malaria from many different angles including the
molecular biology of the vector and the parasite, community perceptions of malaria, statistical analyses, and a geographic information system-
based surveillance system,’ says Juan Hernandez, Director of Informatics at the National Institute of Public Health… The research team is
currently evaluating the rapid diagnostic approach in 20 different localities. But there are already signs [that] the
new control strategies are working. Since 1998, the number of malaria cases in Mexico has fallen sharply. There
were just 2,000 cases last year, and only about 200 cases up to the end of May, 2001, reports Dr Rodriguez. ‘It’s the
first time in Mexico that an outbreak of malaria has been controlled without using DDT,’ he concludes.”
Preston Black PSDC

4. A2: We Need DDT to Combat the West Nile Virus

1. We have vaccine! There is no need to legalize a devastatingly horrible chemical!
Roy Hall [affiliated with the University of Queensland’s School of Molecular & Microbial Sciences], “West Nile Vaccine Breakthrough,”
Article Published in the Science Daily [one of the Internet’s most popular science news web sites; the award-winning site has earned
the loyalty of students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, educators and the general public around the world; best
known for showcasing the top science news stories from the world’s leading universities and research organizations; these stories are selected
from among dozens of press releases and other materials submitted to Science Daily every day, and then edited to ensure high quality and
relevance; Universities have come to rely on Science Daily to spread news about their scientists’ findings to a wider audience], May 21,
2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519120154.htm [MH/McParker]
“Associate Professor Alex Khromykh, from the University of Queenland’s School of Molecular & Microbial Sciences, and
colleagues have found a way to generate immune response levels comparable to a live virus vaccine, which could also
help suffers of other disease such as dengue fever and Japanese encephalitis. ‘What this means is that our prototype vaccine has the
potential to not only be safer but just as effective as live vaccines,’ Dr. Khromykh said. He said the vaccine they
were developing – called pKUNdC/C – was what is known as a DNA vaccine, which is safer, purer and more stable than
other vaccines prepared using traditional approaches, such as attenuated live virus vaccines. ‘The results we are
getting show that [the vaccine] pKUNdC/C not only has the benefits of a DNA vaccine but combines the potency of a
live virus vaccine as well.”
2. Scientists and health organizations are trying to prevent malaria through new vaccinations and
immune mosquitoes
Dr. Jane Orient [M.D. from the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, NY (1974); former certified Board
member of the American Board of Internal Medicine (1977); Clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine;
former staff physician at the Tucson Veterans Administration Medical Center; former instructor/assistant professor of medicine at the University
of Arizona College of Medicine (1977-1980); Managing editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons; Member of the Association
of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Arizona Medical Association, the Pima County Medical Society, the American Association of
Orthopedic Medicine, the American College of Legal Medicine, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and the International Dose-Response
Society], “The real cost of environmental extremism can be seen in malaria’s mounting death toll,” Article Published in Environment
and Climate News, Heartland Institute, April 4, 2001, http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/1142/DDT_and_Malaria.html [PB]
“Money is pouring into malaria research. Funding through the National Institutes of Health increased five-fold and
should reach $50 million in 2001. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation plans to disburse $115 million, $50 million
through its Malaria Vaccine Initiative. The hope is to find a vaccine that will be 95% effective for at least six
months. The malaria parasite is becoming resistant to every cheap drug that works – chloroquine is ineffective nearly everywhere – and even to newer drugs like mefloquine. Drugs
designed with the aid of genome sequencers are probably a decade away. Fortunately, artemisinins, used as herbal remedies in China for 2,000 years, look promising. Clinical trials were delayed,
however, because the World Health Organization expressed concern about neurotoxicity in animals. Some observers say the biggest roadblock was lack of the right regulatory ‘credentials, which
Science has also reported that efforts are underway to engineer a mosquito that is
people seem to regard almost as religious edicts.’
refractory – ‘stubbornly defiant’ – to the malaria parasite, and get it to replace the native population.”
Preston Black PSDC

5. A2: The DDT Ban has Killed Millions

The DDT ban has not killed millions – it’s just not that simple
Professor May Berenbaum [Ph.D. from Cornell University (1980); Professor of entomology and head of the department of entomology
at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign], “If Malaria’s the Problem, DDT’s Not the Only Answer,” Article Published by the
Washington Post [an American Newspaper and news service], June 5, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html [TC]
“But some DDT advocates have resorted to anti-environmentalist drama to make their case for its use in Africa. They have accused
environmental activists of having ‘blood on their hands’ and causing more than 50 million ‘needless deaths’ by
enforcing DDT bans in developing nations. In his best-selling anti-environmentalist novel ‘State of Fear,’ Michael
Crichton writes that a ban on using DDT to control malaria ‘has killed more people than Hitler.’ Such statements
make good copy, but in reality, chemicals do not wear white hats or black hats, and scientists know that there really
are no miracles.”
Preston Black PSDC

SOLVENCY
1. Demand: Who is Going to Start Re-Using DDT?
A. The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Discourages DDT

1. DDT has been banned along with 22 other harmful chemicals under Prior Informed Consent
“Prior Informed Consent (PIC) held in September 1998 identified 22 harmful pesticides and five industrial
chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in a number of countries and required that these pesticides
cannot be exported unless agreed by the importing country. The PIC list included the following 22 hazardous
pesticides. Pesticides such as DDT, Chlordane, Lindane and Aldrin have been completely banned or severely
restricted in North America and Europe because of their acute toxicity.”
2. Prior Informed Consent provides info to countries on hazardous chemicals, including pesticides
Agricultural Sciences, October 2009, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI22200.pdf [TC]
“The Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure is an international information exchange sponsored by the United
Nations to assist countries throughout the world in decisions on whether to allow import of chemicals of concern.
Some of these chemicals of concern include pesticides. PIC maintains a listing of chemicals that have been banned
or severely restricted in the participating countries because of unacceptable levels of risk to human health and/or the
natural environment. At the original date of this publication, October 2009, the most current PIC list contained a
total of 40 industrial and pesticidal chemicals, 29 of which are pesticide active ingredients.”
3. Info Card: The purpose of PIC
The United States Environmental Protection Agency [employs 17,000 people across the country, including our headquarters offices
in Washington, DC, 10 regional offices, and more than a dozen labs; EPA’s staff are highly educated and technically trained; more than half are
engineers, scientists, and policy analysts; in addition, a large number of EPA’s employees are legal, public affairs, financial, information
management and computer specialists] “International Agreements and Treaties,” February 2010,
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/agreements/index.html [TC]
“Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade PIC was adopted on September 10, 1998 by a Conference of Plenipotentiaries in
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The Convention entered into force on February 24, 2004.
The objectives of the Convention are:
• To promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain
hazardous chemicals to protect human health and the environment from potential harm
• To contribute to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous chemicals, by facilitating information
exchange about their characteristics, by providing for a national decision-making process on their import
and export and by disseminating these decisions to Parties.”
Preston Black PSDC

4. Info Card: The U.S. is a PIC signatory, but it has not ratified it
“The Convention creates legally binding obligations for the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
procedure. It was built on the voluntary PIC procedure, initiated by the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 1989. As of July, 2008, the
United States is a Signatory to the Convention, but not a Party. For the United States to become a Party, the
Convention must be ratified by the Senate and implementing legislation must be passed.”
5. Info Card: Major Provisions of Rotterdam/PIC
“Major Provisions:
The Convention covers pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or
environmental reasons by Parties and that meet the specifications of the Convention. The Convention requires that a
chemical or pesticide must be banned or severely restricted by two or more countries in two regions of the world.
•Annex I specifies the information that must be contained in the notice of control action.
•Annex II specifies the criteria by which the action is evaluated for inclusion.
•Annex III is a list of all those chemicals that have been included. Severely hazardous pesticide formulations
that present a hazard under conditions of use in developing countries or countries with economies in
transition may also be nominated for inclusion in Annex III.
•Annex IV contains the information requirements and the evaluation criteria.
•Annex V contains information requirements for export notifications required by the Convention.
•Annex VI outlines process for settlement of disputes under the Convention.
Currently, there are 39 chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention and subject to the PIC procedure, including
24 pesticides, 6 severely hazardous pesticide formulations and 11 industrial chemicals. The current substances listed
are shown on the Rotterdam Convention.”
Preston Black PSDC

B. The Stockholm Convention Discourages DDT

1. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP): Def. of a POP/makes them
dangerous
“Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants:

Pesticides that enter the air or water do not stop at country borders. EPA works with other countries, institutions, and
stakeholders to address issues related to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that move in the environment. POPs are
a concern for the following reasons:
•POPs are very stable chemicals because of their chemical characteristics. Some are pesticides, industrial
chemicals, or produced as unintentional by-products from most forms of combustion, including wood
burning and industrial processes.
•At certain concentrations, POPs can cause adverse effects to the environment and human health, and some are
linked to reproductive failure and cancer.
•POPs are problematic because of several intrinsic characteristics: toxicity, potential to bioaccumulate in the
food chain, stability and resistance to natural breakdown, and propensity for long-range air and water
transport.”
2. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants reduces/eliminates the use of DDT
“The United Nations Environment Program sponsored negotiations to address the global problems associated with
POPs. The United States joined forces with 90 other countries and the European Community to sign a
groundbreaking United Nations treaty in Stockholm, Sweden, in May 2001 that entered into force in May 2004.
Under the treaty, known as the Stockholm Convention or the POPs treaty, countries agree to reduce or eliminate the
production, use, and/or release of the following12 POPs: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene,
mirex, toxaphene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. The Convention specifies a
scientific and procedural review process that could lead to the addition of other POPs chemicals of global concern.”
3. Stockholm Convention allows DDT for malaria control, but not for crops
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, “The Foundation for Global Action on
Persistent Organic Pollutants: A United States Perspective,” Article published no earlier than 2002,
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/pops/POPsa.pdf [TC]
“For DDT, particular attention is drawn to the need to balance malaria vector control in some developing countries
with epidemiological evidence of increased preterm human births associated with DDT exposure, and its
demonstrated adverse ecological impacts. Notable in this context, the Stockholm Convention provides for continued
DDT use for disease vector control in countries registering such a need, where safe and cost-effective alternatives
are not available. This use is subject to World Health Organization recommendations and guidelines, which allow
indoor application only.”
Preston Black PSDC

4. Supply: Who is Going to Make DDT?

1. DDT was banned in 1972, and it isn’t registered for production in the U.S.
“REGULATORY STATUS: DDT is no longer registered for use in the United States, although it is still used in other
(primarily tropical) countries. It is in EPA Toxicity Class II, moderately toxic. DDT was banned from use in the
United States in 1972, and remains banned barring public health emergency (e.g., outbreak of malaria).”
2. DDT has been generally replaced and many bugs have developed resistance to it
“DDT is an organochlorine insecticide used mainly to control mosquito-borne malaria; use on crops has generally
been replaced by less persistent insecticides. It was extensively used during the Second World War among Allied
troops and certain civilian populations to control insect typhus and malaria vectors, and was then extensively used as
an agricultural insecticide after 1945. DDT was banned for use in Sweden in 1970 and in the United States in 1972.
It is available in several different forms: aerosols, dustable powders, emulsifiable concentrates, granules and
wettable powders. It is reported to be compatible with many other pesticides and incompatible with alkaline
substances. Many insect pests may have developed resistance to DDT.”
Preston Black PSDC

5. Costs of Spraying
1. With Uganda’s resources already overburdened, it makes little sense to embrace an approach that
is exceedingly costly from fiscal, human and environmental standpoints
“In the African countries where the burden of malaria is greatest, the disease is endemic. Uganda,
where it rains throughout the year,
could not be more different from South Africa in terms of malaria, and it is a mistake to apply the same formula
here. The use of DDT for indoor spraying will not produce the same results and will almost certainly have dire
consequences. And spraying is costly. This year in Kabale, in southwestern Uganda, 100,000 huts were sprayed as
part of an indoor spraying project. A permethrin derivative, not DDT, was used and the spraying was controlled and safe. The cost
was close to $2 million. Uganda has a population of 28 million, with 7 people on average to a hut. Any
comprehensive, nationwide spraying effort would have to reach some 4 million huts, costing more than $80 million,
and that’s only for the first of several rounds of spraying. With Uganda’s resources already overburdened, it makes
little sense to embrace an approach that is exceedingly costly from fiscal, human and environmental standpoints.”
2. DDT fails as a public health tool because the costs are too high and impossible to control
PAN North America (Pesticide Action Network of North America) [organization that works to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with
ecologically sound and socially just alternatives; links local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into
an international citizens’ action network; this network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and
environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society], “Safe Malaria Solutions – Beyond DDT,” © 2008,
http://www.panna.org/ddt [PB]
“DDT fails as a public health tool for the same reasons it was banned as an agricultural pesticide in the 1970s. The
costs are too high and impossible to control:
• Health effects: Studies show that DDT is a neuro-developmental and reproductive toxin that is especially
dangerous to infants and children. DDT has been linked to low sperm count in men, certain forms of cancer and
diabetes.
• Resistance: The effectiveness of DDT continues to decline as more and mosquito populations develop
resistance.
• Stockpiles: 100,000+ tons of obsolete pesticides like DDT are stockpiled in Africa with no means of
disposal.
• Bioaccumulation: DDT and its breakdown product, DDE, persist for many years, travel the world, and
accumulate in the global food chain.
• Dirty production: DDT production plants contaminate the environment and put local communities at risk
wherever they are produced.
Communities facing malaria, which disproportionately affects poor and undernourished areas, should not have to
also face the long-term health risks posed by exposure to DDT when safe and affordable solutions are available.
What countries fighting malaria need is strong support for effective, safe and affordable solutions that invest in
community resources over the long term.”
Preston Black PSDC

DISADVANTAGES
1) Bald Eagles
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Relegalizes DDT

B. Internal Link: Banning DDT is the Reason Bald Eagles Recovered in the 1970s
Brian Seasholes [an adjunct scholar with the Reason Foundation; research focuses on wildlife and land-use issues, especially the
Endangered Species Act, property rights, and wildlife conservation; received his Master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
where his research focused on the institutional aspects of wildlife conservation, and his thesis was on the Bubiana Conservancy in Zimbabwe; his
writings have appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Houston Chronicle, Orange County Register, Chattanooga Free Press, The
Washington Times, and the Endangered Species Update], “The Bald Eagle, DDT, and the Endangered Species Act Examining the Bald Eagle’s
Recovery in the Contiguous 48 States,” Project Director: Skaidra Smith-Heisters Policy Brief No. 63,
Article Published by the Reason Foundation, Published no earlier than July 2007 [date inferred from most recent reference],
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/21737.pdf [TC]
“The banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972, not the passage of the ESA in 1973, is widely acknowledged as the
paramount reason for the bald eagle’s recovery. ‘Nearly everyone agrees that the key to the eagle’s resurgence –
even more so than the Endangered Species Act – was the banning of the use of the insecticide DDT in this country
in 1972,’ admits the National Audubon Society.”
C. Impact: DDT Causes Reproductive Failure in Raptors, Eagles and Pelicans

“DDT, specifically its metabolite DDE, or the form into which it breaks down, caused widespread reproductive
failures in raptors like the bald eagle as well as the brown pelican. DDT reduced the amount of calcium in eggshells,
which resulted in thin shelled eggs susceptible to breaking or infertility. DDT came into widespread use after World War II. It
proved very effective as a means to control mosquitoes as well as a wide range of insects problematic to the agricultural and forestry industries.
The relationship between DDT and the bald eagle’s decline and subsequent recovery has been very well established
by an authoritative body of peer-reviewed literature.”
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. DDT moves up the ecosystem, and eventually harms Eagles and other large birds (good
explanation)
Rosemary Drisdelle [a writer who was trained as a medical laboratory technologist; had a career in clinical microbiology,
mycology, and parasitology for many years; has written for professional journals, trade publications, and consumer magazines on various
topics, most of them involving some aspect of health or nature], “How DDT and Other Insecticides and Herbicides Kill Birds,” Article found
suite101.com, July 11, 2007, http://bird-habitats.suite101.com/article.cfm/birds_and_pesticides [PB]
“DDT is an organochlorine pesticide. It kills insects by disrupting the nervous system – unfortunately, it is also directly and indirectly
toxic to birds. To understand how DDT kills birds, we need to understand how the chemical behaves:
• DDT persists in the environment – it doesn’t break down readily and is detectable in soil, water and animal
tissues for a long time.
• DDT is fat soluble: Once ingested by an animal it remains stored in body fat.
• As smaller animals are eaten by predators, DDT moves up the food chain, becoming more concentrated: if
a robin eats earthworms with DDT in their tissues, the DDT insecticide in the worms ends up stored in the
robin’s fat. If the robin is killed and eaten by a hawk, the accumulated DDT joins the DDT already stored
in the hawk’s fat.
• In times of food shortage, birds use their fat stores, releasing all of the accumulated DDT at once, which
can result in lethal pesticide poisoning.
• DDT and related insecticides interfere with calcium metabolism in birds, resulting in abnormal eggshells.
Eggs are thin-shelled and may not allow exchange of air for the developing embryo. Eggs break and
embryos die during incubation. This is a particular problem for birds of prey, which tend to accumulate
high levels of DDT.
• DDT can have a direct effect on breeding, causing some birds to lay fewer eggs.”
2. A2: “The ESA – not the DDT ban – is the cause of eagle recovery”: This is because of tactics to
diminish DDT’s role in the recovery the Bald Eagle
“Despite the paramount importance of the DDT ban, some have tried to diminish its importance. ‘Under the
Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) initiated captive-breeding programs and habitat
protection. A 1972 DDT ban also helped,’ states the National Wildlife Federation. ‘Although the federal ban on
DDT in 1972 was a major factor in turning around the bald eagle’s decline, the Endangered Species Act also played
an essential role in its recovery,’ stated John Kostyack, Senior Counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.
Banning DDT was not a major factor, it was the major factor. ‘In the 1940s, eagles encountered a new threat from
the use of pesticides, including DDT, which weakened their eggs,’ observes the Endangered Species Coalition.
‘Under the ESA, the FWS launched a captive breeding program, monitoring program, habitat protection and nest
site protection.’ Note how no mention is made of DDT. Tactics to diminish the importance of DDT range from
failing to identify when it occurred and the ESA was passed, to conflating the ban with alleged conservation efforts
under the ESA, to omitting any mention of the ban altogether.”
Preston Black PSDC

3. A2: “DDT is not responsible for eggshell thinning”: That idea is totally bogus
“The DDT ban also spawned a separate group of denials, claiming that DDT had nothing to do with eggshell
thinning and, hence, reproductive failure. Led by Steve Milloy and the late Gordon Edwards, these denials
conveniently ignore the massive body of peer-reviewed literature on the link between DDT, eggshell thinning and
reproductive failure in raptors and pelicans. Unfortunately, it seems that Edwards and Milloy have subsumed their
arguments about the effects, or lack thereof, of DDT on raptors and pelicans under their larger point, which is that
the banning of DDT has had negative effects on human health, specifically efforts to combat malaria in the third
world where the DDT ban has caused tens of millions of deaths. Notwithstanding all of these crude efforts to
minimize the importance of the DDT ban, the fact remains that had DDT not been banned, conservation efforts for
the bald eagle in the contiguous states would have failed or been substantially less effective.”
Preston Black PSDC

2) Super Bugs
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Results in More Spraying of DDT

B. Internal Link: Increased DDT Use Leads to More DDT Resistant Mosquitoes
DDT uniquely gives bugs resistance to other pesticides, allowing rampant spread of deadly diseases
The Merck Institute’s Center for Science in Africa [ the Merck Institute has contributed more than $560 million to support important
initiatives that address societal needs and are consistent with Merck’s overall mission to enhance the health and well-being of people around the
world], “DDT-resistant insects have additional genetic advantage that helps resistance spread,” August 2005,
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/july/ddtinsects.htm [MH/McParker]
“Worryingly, resistant strains [of mosquitoes] show ‘cross-resistance’ to a number of different compounds, so
spraying with DDT can unexpectedly increase resistance to newer compounds subsequently introduced to try and
overcome resistance. The World Health Organization estimates that during the period of DDT use, approximately 25 million human lives
have been saved. However, pyrethroids are most commonly used in mosquito control but they act on the same target in the nervous system as
DDT and ironically spraying with DDT may therefore have pre-selected for resistance to the newer pyrethroids.”
C. Impact: Increased Malaria

For each kilo of DDT sprayed, 105 new cases of malaria are created from resistance
Tim Lambert [writer for ScienceBlogs], October 14, 2005, extracting from an article by Georganne Chapin [President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Hudson Health Plan (the premier provider of state-sponsored managed health care services delivering
comprehensive coverage to more than 85,000 low-income people in New York’s Hudson Valley region); received her Master of Arts Degree and
Master of Philosophy Degree in Sociomedical Sciences from Columbia University; received her Juris Doctorate with certificates in Health Law
and International Law from the Pace University School of Law (2003); former Adjunct Professor of Law at the Pace University School of Law,
teaching Bioethics and Medical Malpractice] & Robert Wasserstrom [Ph.D. in Anthropology and History from Harvard University (1970-
1978)], “Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India,” Published in Nature Magazine, September 1981, (Vol.
293 17, pg. 181-185) 1981 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/10/chapin.php [MH/McParker]
“According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural uses of DDT and thereby
slowing the spread of resistance, ‘it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the
environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria.’”
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. DDT creates genetic “superbugs” that will decimate ecosystems even after spraying stops
The Merck Institute’s Center for Science in Africa [ the Merck Institute has contributed more than $560 million to support important
initiatives that address societal needs and are consistent with Merck’s overall mission to enhance the health and well-being of people around the
world], “DDT-resistant insects have additional genetic advantage that helps resistance spread,” August 2005,
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/july/ddtinsects.htm [MH/McParker]
“Insects that can withstand the powerful pesticide DDT that was banned in the 1970s have an additional genetic
advantage over their rivals that has helped them spread across the globe ever since, according to research published in
Current Biology this month. This discovery overturns current theories that resistance to pesticides burdens insects with a
genetic disadvantage that would stop them from competing with non-resistant insects once farmers stop using that
pesticide. Instead, researchers now believe that fruit flies that develop resistance to DDT gain a two-fold advantage:
not only can they survive being sprayed with pesticide, which other insects cannot, but in doing so they develop a
genetic advantage that makes them and their offspring more likely to thrive even when spraying is abandoned.”
2. DDT is becoming obsolete: More and more insects are becoming resistant
Ravi Agarwal, “No Future in DDT: A case study of India,” Article Published in Pesticide Safety News, May 2001,
[MH/McParker]
“DDT is becoming obsolete, not only owing to concerns over its toxicity, but also because it is losing its
effectiveness in treating malaria. India has been manufacturing and using DDT for more than 50 years. Use for agriculture was banned in
1989, and use for malaria has been declining in favor of more multi-sector approaches to the problem, since unsafe levels
of DDT are turning up in food supplies and the egg shells of large predatory birds, and its effectiveness is waning anyway. The use of DDT in
urban areas has halted completely. The major vector species has become resistant to DDT and HCH in most of the country.”
3. Mosquitoes are already becoming immune to DDT – however, this has not yet happened in Eastern
Africa (obviously, though, it eventually will)
© 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/health/15iht-web.0915malaria.2826156.html [brackets added] [PB]
“‘It would be naive to say DDT is a magic bullet for malaria. It isn’t,’ stressed [biologist Amir] Attaran. It won’t
work in some places where mosquitoes already are resistant to a range of insecticides, he noted. He suspects DDT
will be of most use in eastern Africa, where that problem hasn’t yet emerged.”
4. DDT becomes ineffective quickly; many mosquitoes are already resistant
Mark Ridley [Zoologist working in the Department of Zoology at Oxford University; former Professor at Emory University
in Atlanta, USA; works], “The theory of natural selection (part 1) – Are there examples of rapid evolutionary change?” Evolution, 3rd Edition,
2004, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp [PB]
“DDT becomes ineffective quickly. DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have
increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of
months rather than years. DDT becomes ineffective so quickly now because DDT-resistant mosquitoes exist at low
frequency in the global mosquito population and, when a local population is sprayed, a strong force of selection in
favor of the resistant mosquitoes is immediately created. It is only a matter of time before the resistant mosquitoes
take over.”
Preston Black PSDC

3) Increased Infant Mortality [Case Turn]
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Increases the Spraying of DDT in Africa
B. Brink: DDT Increases Infant Mortality
DDT concentrations in breast milk are much higher where it is applied for malaria control
Dr. Walter J Rogan [M.D.; clinical investigator with the Epidemiology Branch at the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences],& Dr. Aimin Chen [M.D.; Ph.D.; Epidemiology Branch, US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences], “Nonmalarial
Infant Deaths and DDT Use for Malaria Control,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, August 2003, (Vol. 9, No. 8),
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no8/pdfs/03-0082.pdf [TC]
“Although DDT can be found in the lipid of human tissues worldwide, and consequently in the fat of breast milk,
levels of DDT and its metabolites in breast milk are much higher in areas where this insecticide has been applied for
malaria control.”
C. Impact: Case Turn – The Affirmative Team Actually Increases Infant Deaths
The lives saved by decreased infant malaria cases are canceled by the increased infant deaths from
DDT
“When we combine data from North America on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE with African
data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths, we estimate an increase
in infant deaths that is of the same order of magnitude as that from eliminating infant malaria. Therefore, the side
effects of DDT spraying might reduce or abolish its benefit from the control of malaria in infants, even if such
spraying prevents all infant deaths from malaria.”
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. Three studies found that DDT levels were higher in exposed groups
“Three studies on DDT levels in serum or breast milk from Kwa-zulu after DDT application for malaria control
showed much higher DDT, DDE (dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene, the most stable and persistent form of DDT), and DDD
(dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane) levels in the DDT-exposed group.”
2. DDT use would increase total infant deaths by 9%
“The preterm delivery rate in sub-Saharan Africa ranged from 5% to 22% in studies from the 1990s, when DDT was
not used or used only in small amounts. A Malawi study showed that children born preterm had a crude relative risk (RR) of 2
for infant death; preterm birth accounted for 17% of infant deaths. Malaria itself might increase preterm birth, but this factor is
counted in the contribution of malaria to infant deaths (see below). The observed RR of 2 in Malawi is lower than that seen in the United States
and Canada, where mild (birth at 34–36 gestational weeks) and moderate (birth at 32–33 gestational weeks) preterm births were linked to a >2.9
fold increase in infant deaths. If we assumed that DDT use increased the overall preterm delivery rate from 15% (the
midrange of the African rates) before spraying to 25% after spraying (RR 1.7, well below the 3.1 seen in U.S. Data),/ and the RR of
preterm birth for infant death is 2.0, we estimated a 9% (=((p2*RR+1-p2)- p1*RR+1-p1))/(p1*RR+1- p1), p1=15%, p2=25%, RR=2)
increase in total infant deaths.”
Preston Black PSDC

4) Trade Sanctions
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Legalizes DDT, Increasing the Use of DDT in
Other Countries
B. Internal Link: The EU has Threatened to Sanction Countries that Spray
DDT
Uganda has considered using DDT, but has been threatened by the EU with trade sanctions
Roger Bate [Ph.D. in economics from the University of Cambridge; Master of Science Degree in environmental and resource management
from the University College at London University; an economist who researches international health policy, with a particular focus on tropical
disease and substandard and counterfeit medicines; Board Member and Director of Africa Fighting Malaria; Founder and Director of the
Environmental Unit at the Institute of Economic Affairs; ], “DDT Saves Lives in Fight against Malaria,”
Article Published by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, November 2005,
http://www.aei.org/article/23409 [PB]
“Uganda is currently considering a return to DDT but is being threatened by the European Union with sanctions
against agricultural products. The EU claims that DDT bought for public health protection could be corruptly sold to
farmers and that residues would end up in produce.”
C. Impact: Trade Sanctions Hurt

There could be dire consequences for outgoing trade with Europe if DDT was detected in exported goods
Leonard Gilroy [Director of Government Reform at the Reason Foundation; Master of Arts Degree in Urban and Regional Planning from
Virginia Tech], “EU Holds Uganda Hostage Over DDT,” Article Published by the Reason Foundation, February 2005,
http://reason.org/blog/show/eu-holds-uganda-hostage-over-d [PB]
“The European Union on Wednesday warned Uganda that its exports to Europe may suffer if it goes ahead with plans
to use the controversial pesticide DDT to fight malaria. Unless proper safety measures are put in place, the spraying of DDT
to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes could severely hurt Ugandan exports of fruit, produce and other flora to EU
countries, officials said. ‘If Uganda is to use DDT for malaria control, it is advisable to do so under strictly controlled circumstances and in
consultation with other countries in the region which may be affected,’ the EU said in statement released here. It said that if Kampala began DDT
spraying, it would be forced to set up a monitoring system to test for the presence of the pesticide in exports. The chief of the EU mission
in Uganda, Sigurd Illing, said there could be dire consequences for outgoing trade with Europe – which accounts for
more than 30 % of Uganda’s total exports – if DDT was detected in such goods.”
Preston Black PSDC

5) Increased Pesticide Pollution
Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team Legalizes DDT
B. Internal Link: DDT is Really Dangerous
DDT is indiscriminatory, and has the potential to upset entire ecosystems
The Natural Resources Defense Council [a non-profit international environmental advocacy group promoting conservation of the
natural and built environment; has a staff of more than 300 scientists, attorneys and other specialists],, “The Story of Silent Spring,” April 1997,
http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp [MH/McParker]
“DDT, the most powerful pesticide the world had ever known, exposed nature’s vulnerability. Unlike most
pesticides, whose effectiveness is limited to destroying one or two types of insects, DDT was capable of killing
hundreds of different kinds at once. When DDT became available for civilian use in 1945, there were only a few people who expressed
second thoughts about this new miracle compound. One was nature writer Edwin Way Teale, who warned, ‘A spray as indiscriminate as
DDT can upset the economy of nature as much as a revolution upsets social economy. 90% of all insects are good,
and if they are killed, things go out of kilter right away.’”
C. Uniqueness: Alternatives to DDT do not Persist as Long in the Environment

The prime benefit of DDT alternatives is that they do not persist for long periods of time in the
environment
Professor David Pimentel [Ph.D. from Cornell University (1951); Professor of Insect Ecology & Agricultural Sciences at the
Department of Entomology and Section of Ecology and Systematics at Cornell University], “Silent Spring Revisited – Have Things Changed
Since 1962?” Article Published in Pesticide Outlook, a Magazine of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 2002,
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b209421p&JournalCode=PO [PB]
“It took 10 years from the time that Rachel Carson’s book was published before DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. By the time that DDT was
banned, pesticide use had increased 10-fold to about 500,000 kg per year. The total quantity of pesticides in the U.S. in terms of pounds has not
increased since 1972, but the actual toxicity of the pesticides has increased 10 to 20 times (Pimentel et al., 1993). The prime benefit with
the new, highly toxic pesticides that replaced DDT and similar chemicals is that the new toxicants do not persist for
long periods of time in the environment.”
D. Impact: Immense Consequences

DDT has irrevocably harmed birds and animals and contaminated the entire world food supply
The Natural Resources Defense Council [a non-profit international environmental advocacy group promoting conservation of the
natural and built environment; has a staff of more than 300 scientists, attorneys and other specialists],, “The Story of Silent Spring,” April 1997,
http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp [MH/McParker]
“DDT enters the food chain and accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals, including human beings, and causes
cancer and genetic damage. A single application on a crop killed insects for weeks and months, and not only the
targeted insects but countless more, and remained toxic in the environment even after it was diluted by rainwater.
DDT and other pesticides had [have] irrevocably harmed birds and animals and had contaminated the entire world
food supply.”
Preston Black PSDC

Extension:
1. Pesticides have damaged humans and the environment
“Pesticide residues to the local environment (air, soil and surface water) affect the lives of birds, wildlife, domestic
animals, fish, livestock and human beings. Human health hazards vary with the type of the pesticides and also with
the extent of exposure. Moderate human health hazards from pesticides include mild headaches, flu, skin rashes,
blurred vision and other neurological disorders while rare, but severe human health hazards include paralysis,
blindness, and eve n death. A study by Repetto and Baliga shows that pesticides can damage the human immune
system by reducing the number of white blood cells and disease fighting lymphocytes. Long run health impacts
include cancer, infertility, miscarriage, male sterility, birth defects, and effects on the nervous system.”
2. Pesticides have damaged farm workers
“Farm workers are at much greater risk of toxicity due to exposure to pesticides. According to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approximately 4 million U.S. farm workers are at high risk of pesticide
exposure and about 10,000 to 20,000 pesticide–poisoned farm workers are treated every year. Risk of birth defects is
reported with certain pesticides, particularly, the herbicide 2,4-D used in farmland. Pingali et al. found a greater
probability of eye and skin problems associated with on-site use of pesticides among rice producers in the
Philippines. Crissman et al. found a link between pesticide use and incidence of chronic dermatitis among
Ecuadorian potato producers. Also, the EPA reports that a significant population of Nebraska farm workers had
reduced levels of blood cholinesterase, a common symptom of organophosphate exposure.”
3. Pesticides have damaged the people living around farms
“People residing close to farmland can also experience pesticide related problems due to dumping of pesticide
wastes, wind drafts from aerial spraying, or from the use of empty pesticide containers for drinking water storage.
Repetto and Baliga found that in Nicaragua, people living near cotton fields sprayed with insecticides had depressed
cholinesterase levels that may occur due to exposure to common insecticides like organophosphates. The EPA
estimated that between less than 1 percent of the community water systems and rural domestic wells had
concentration of pesticide residues higher than maximum allowable level. Risk of dietary exposure to pesticide
residues are of much concern. The probability of estimated aggregated cancer risk turned out to be 0.006 assuming
consumption of food with residues at the level of maximum residue limit.”
Preston Black PSDC

NEG - DDT Legalization CON

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEG - DDT Legalization CON

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEG – DDT Legalization CON Page |1

NEG – DDT Legalization – CON

Preston Black PSDC

1. We have vaccine! There is no need to legalize a devastatingly horrible chemical!.......................16

Preston Black PSDC

4. DDT becomes ineffective quickly; many mosquitoes are already resistant...................................27

Contributors: Tim Caiello [TC], Matt Hendrickson [MH/McParker], Katherine McNair

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

A Duke University Department of Chemistry Publication: Dangers of DDT, 2008,

Preston Black PSDC

4. DDT is dangerous because of its persistence

5. Alternatives to DDT do not persist as long in the environment

6. DDT gets water born and is really acquired by aquatic organisms

7. DDT can be genotoxic in humans

Preston Black PSDC

8. DDT is highly toxic in the freshwater environment

Preston Black PSDC

2. A2: DDT was Outlawed for Political Reasons

2. The reason DDT was banned? Persistence

Preston Black PSDC

3. A2: We Need DDT to Fight Malaria

A. The U.S. Already Supports the Spraying DDT

2. USAID uses DDT for inside residual spraying

3. USAID uses DDT in eight African countries

Preston Black PSDC

4. The World Health Organization is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa

5. Everyone is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa

6. USAID is encouraging the use of DDT in Africa

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

11. Wide approval exists for indoor residual spraying of DDT

12. A2: “EU trade obstruction threats”: EU recently lifted them

Preston Black PSDC

13. U.S. is now funding international DDT programs

Preston Black PSDC

B. We Have a New Malaria Vaccine as of 2010

2. Info Card: About the study/vaccine

3. Info Card: About the vaccine

4. Info Card: About the study

Preston Black PSDC

C. Other Successful Non-DDT Malaria Approaches

Preston Black PSDC

4. A2: We Need DDT to Combat the West Nile Virus

Preston Black PSDC

5. A2: The DDT Ban has Killed Millions

Preston Black PSDC

A. The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Discourages DDT

3. Info Card: The purpose of PIC

Preston Black PSDC

5. Info Card: Major Provisions of Rotterdam/PIC

Preston Black PSDC

B. The Stockholm Convention Discourages DDT

“Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants:

Preston Black PSDC

4. Supply: Who is Going to Make DDT?

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

A. Link: The Affirmative Team Relegalizes DDT

C. Impact: DDT Causes Reproductive Failure in Raptors, Eagles and Pelicans

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

Preston Black PSDC

A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Results in More Spraying of DDT