Legalize and Promote DDT-NEG

Joshua Wilson Legalize and promote DDT – Neg brief Page 1 of 65
Legalize and promote DDT – Neg brief

Index:
LEGALIZE AND PROMOTE DDT – NEG BRIEF.............................................................................1
INDEX:...............................................................................................................................................1
STRATEGY NOTES:.........................................................................................................................6
POSITION/OPENING STATEMENT:................................................................................................7
INHERENCY......................................................................................................................................7
DDT use has been increasing...........................................................................................................................................................7
DDT still present in 90% of Americans...........................................................................................................................................7
DDT is banned in the US except for public health emergencies and many nations still use it ......................................................7
USAID already allows spraying of DDT when no alternatives are available.................................................................................7
DDT is still allowed and used in 25 countries.................................................................................................................................7
STOCKHOLM CONVENTION...........................................................................................................8
The Stockholm convention (which we have signed) denies us the right to use DDT but already allows the use of DDT in
places where viable alternatives are not available...........................................................................................................................8
The Stockholm convention denies us the right to export import or produce DDT and requires that necessary steps be taken to
eliminate it, but it allows it in combating malaria only “when locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not
available to the Party in question.”..................................................................................................................................................8
Stockholm convention requires that DDT and other POPs be reduced and eliminated..................................................................8
The Stockholm convention denies us the right use DDT but it allows it for combating malaria only “when locally safe,
effective and affordable alternatives are not available”...................................................................................................................9
Stockholm convention (which we have signed) already allows the use of DDT in places where alternatives are not available....9
The Stockholm convention already allows the use of DDT in places where alternatives are not available. But aims to phase
them out.........................................................................................................................................................................................10
Stockholm convention obligates us to phase out DDT by 2025 but currently allows developing countries to use it for malaria
control if absolutely necessary.......................................................................................................................................................10
Stockholm convention seeks to phase out DDT but currently allows exemptions if absolutely necessary..................................10
The Stockholm convention allows needy countries to use DDT but it promotes alternatives......................................................10
Passing the affirmatives plan undermines rule of law..................................................................................................................10

The Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties prohibits us from taking measures contrary to the intent of a treaty that we
have signed whether or not we have ratified it..............................................................................................................................10
America must uphold the rule of law.............................................................................................................................................11
We must act morally, even if it means our own death...................................................................................................................11
Impact Link: Nations get mad at us................................................................................................................................................11

Hypocrisy harms America's standing in the world........................................................................................................................11
Breaking and Failing to ratify international treaties harms our reputation and makes it so that other nations won’t do things we
want................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Breaking and Failing to ratify international treaties Isolates us and harms us .............................................................................12
Morality DA:.....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Internal Link 1: “natural law”........................................................................................................................................................12
Internal Link 2: Western morality is inherently consistent with “natural law”.............................................................................12
B. Brink & Uniqueness: Eastern culture relies on the self for morality........................................................................................13
C. Impact/Voter: International Law is key to permeation of “natural law”. Western morality influences such law but is
inhibited by the Affirmative plan...................................................................................................................................................13
Voter:.............................................................................................................................................................................................13
COUNTER PLAN MATERIAL.........................................................................................................14

Ratify the Stockholm convention....................................................................................................................................................14
Counter plan advocacy: Ratify the Stockholm convention............................................................................................................14
Ratifying the Stockholm convention would allow us to have a say in the regulation of harmful chemicals and would give us
access to information exchange.....................................................................................................................................................14
Ratifying the Stockholm convention would give us access to scientific peer reviewed process..................................................14
Failing to ratify the Stockholm convention harms US leadership.................................................................................................15
Redirect funds to malaria vaccines.................................................................................................................................................15

Counter plan Advocacy: Redirect funds to Malaria vaccines........................................................................................................15
Countries need funding to fight malaria........................................................................................................................................15
DDT CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS.............................................................................................16

DDE and DDD are metabolic products of DDT............................................................................................................................16
DDT causes cancer............................................................................................................................................................................16

DDT causes cancer........................................................................................................................................................................16
Cancer risk increases with each generation exposed to DDT........................................................................................................16
Breast cancer.....................................................................................................................................................................................16
DDT Compound Speeds Breast Cancer Growth (Additional warrant in non underlined card)....................................................16
DDT causes breast cancer..............................................................................................................................................................17
DDT causes breast cancer..............................................................................................................................................................17
DDT causes breast cancer that kills 46,000 women every year....................................................................................................17
Children exposed to DDT are 5 times as likely to develop breast cancer.....................................................................................18
DDT increases the risk of cancer 500%, previous studies on DDT and cancer were flawed........................................................18
Testicular cancer...............................................................................................................................................................................18
DDT causes testicular cancer.........................................................................................................................................................18
Testicular cancer kills about 380 people per year..........................................................................................................................18
DDT harms the liver.........................................................................................................................................................................19

DDT harms the Liver.....................................................................................................................................................................19
Study shows that DDT significantly increases the risk of liver and biliary tract cancer...............................................................19
DDT significantly increases risk of liver cancer mortality............................................................................................................19
DDT causes neurological damage....................................................................................................................................................20

The longer a person is exposed to DDT the lower their neurobehavioral performance (i.e. It kills your brain/reasoning skills),
this can only be explained by DDT exposure................................................................................................................................20
DDT harms the brain.....................................................................................................................................................................20
DDT harms mental and physical development in babies...............................................................................................................20
DDT harms mental and physical development in babies...............................................................................................................20
DDT harms neurodevelopment in children....................................................................................................................................21
Exposure to DDT by birth decreases verbal, memory, quantitative and perceptual performance skills in children.....................21
DDT messes up the nervous system................................................................................................................................................21

DDT messes up the nervous system..............................................................................................................................................21
Lung cancer.......................................................................................................................................................................................22
DDT causes lung cancer................................................................................................................................................................22
DDT harms the reproductive system..............................................................................................................................................22

DDT harms the reproductive system.............................................................................................................................................22
DDT harms reproductive capabilities............................................................................................................................................22
DDT messes with hormones.............................................................................................................................................................22
DDT harms the liver, reproduction, and messes up hormones......................................................................................................22
DDT messes up hormones.............................................................................................................................................................23
Messing with hormones=baaad stuff.............................................................................................................................................23
DDT disrupts endocrine.................................................................................................................................................................23
Definition of endocrine..................................................................................................................................................................23
Definition of endocrine..................................................................................................................................................................23
Problems from DDT can lead to Population crashes which threaten everyone ............................................................................24
DDT increases preterm birth and decreases lactation..................................................................................................................24

DDT Decreases duration of lactation (the time babies can nurse).................................................................................................24
Decreased duration of lactation leads to an increase in death.......................................................................................................24
DDT significantly increases pre-term births enough to offset any benefit from DDT use ...........................................................25
Deaths from pre-term births and decreased lactation could offset any benefit from DDT use ....................................................25
DDT causes as many deaths in infants as it might possibly save by completely stopping malaria...............................................25
DDT Degrades the Immune system.................................................................................................................................................26

Over time DDT degrades immune systems...................................................................................................................................26
Impact: Degrading the immune system has serious problems for the young and elderly ............................................................26
General lists of DDT health Harms.................................................................................................................................................26

DDT harms Biodiversity and humans............................................................................................................................................26
DDT leads to irreparable damage in humans and animals............................................................................................................27
Scientific research shows many health problems from DDT........................................................................................................27
DDT causes cancer, premature birth, and other health problems..................................................................................................28
DDT has many problems, it harms health, builds mosquito resistance, creates disposal problems, accumulates in the food
chain, and harms communities where they are produced..............................................................................................................28
DDT is a threat to human health, we must use alternatives...........................................................................................................29
DDT accumulates..............................................................................................................................................................................29
DDT Accumulates in the human body and it gets passed down to children so over time the concentration in descendents will
increase..........................................................................................................................................................................................29
DDT accumulates, if we let it exist for too long there will be problems.......................................................................................30
Argument Turns and Responses.....................................................................................................................................................30

Health effects of DDT spraying are not being monitored in Africa..............................................................................................30
AT: “WHO says DDT is safe” WHO didn’t take into account newer information.......................................................................30
AT: “DDT needed to fight West Nile Virus”................................................................................................................................31
AT: “American studies say there is no sig. health risk” American DDT use/effects=/=African DDT use/effects DDT will have
much worse effects in Africa.........................................................................................................................................................31
MISC HARMS..................................................................................................................................31
When DDT is allowed for any use it gets illegally used in the Agricultural sector.....................................................................31
When DDT is allowed for any use it gets illegally used in the Agricultural sector and makes mosquitoes resistant...................31
When DDT is allowed for any use it gets illegally used in the Agricultural sector contaminating the food supply and disrupting
international trade..........................................................................................................................................................................32
DDT production plants poisons people that live near them.........................................................................................................32

New demands for DDT poisons poor communities that live near the production plants..............................................................32
DDT HARMS ANIMALS AND BIO-DIVERSITY.............................................................................33

General: DDT harms bio diversity..................................................................................................................................................33
We must stop both malaria and DDT which harms biodiversity...................................................................................................33
DDT accumulates in animals and has catastrophic results for many species (destroys Bio diversity).........................................34
DDT harms humans and Bio-diversity..........................................................................................................................................34
The ban on DDT saved many species from extinction, and we have done well without it (we found alternatives and there was
no malaria resurgence)...................................................................................................................................................................35
DDT kills harmless animals, so the EPA banned it since the damage from DDT is greater than its possible benefits ...............35
DDT is toxic to fish, invertebrate species, and birds, and is probably responsible for cancer in humans as well........................35
DDT hurts birds................................................................................................................................................................................36
Toxic...................................................................................................................................................................................................36
DDT is lethal to birds and fish and harms bird’s reproduction......................................................................................................36
We banned DDT because it almost wiped out several bird species..............................................................................................36
DDT is detrimental to bird populations.........................................................................................................................................36
Reproductive.....................................................................................................................................................................................37
DDT harms bird populations.........................................................................................................................................................37
Several qualified studies show that DDT harms bird populations.................................................................................................37
DDT causes egg shell thinning in lots of birds which reduces populations..................................................................................38
DDT is toxic to birds, harms their reproduction and destroys their eggshells and embryos.........................................................38
DDT is toxic to birds, harms their reproduction and destroys their eggshells and embryos.........................................................38
DDT destroys male female balance in bird populations with serious consequences....................................................................38
DDT hurts fish...................................................................................................................................................................................39

DDT is toxic and works it’s way up the food chain, destroying animals like fish........................................................................39
When DDT is sprayed it sticks to soil until it is carried to water by surface runoff (this is the link card to harms that occur in
aquatic ecosystems).......................................................................................................................................................................39
DDT is highly toxic to fishes and other useful aquatic life...........................................................................................................40
DDT accumulates in fish and can drastically affect populations...................................................................................................40
DDT has been shown to be lethal to fish and other beneficial life................................................................................................40
DDT spraying for mosquitoes kills fish.........................................................................................................................................41
Fish Rock...........................................................................................................................................................................................41
Fish provide jobs for 45 million Africans......................................................................................................................................41
Fish help fight HIV/AIDS .............................................................................................................................................................41
Fish are the main way to fight malnutrition...................................................................................................................................41
Fish are important in fighting poverty...........................................................................................................................................42
Fish are essential to food security in Africa...................................................................................................................................42
Fish prevent starvation...................................................................................................................................................................42
DDT bio-accumulates in the food chain..........................................................................................................................................42

DDT is toxic and works its way up the food chain destroying fish and birds...............................................................................42
DDT accumulates through biomagnification, the more you get the worse the odds are for you..................................................43
DDT is toxic and works it’s way up the food chain, but the US ban stopped it............................................................................43
Argument Turns and Responses.....................................................................................................................................................44

AT: “DDT won’t get into the environment because we only legalize it for indoor spraying” up to 82% of DDT will find its way
into the outdoor environment.........................................................................................................................................................44
AT: “DDT harms animals but helps humans, Humans are more important” To regard the established effects that DDT has on
wildlife as a different problem than adverse effects on human health is to create a false dichotomy:..........................................44
BIO-D ROCKS:................................................................................................................................44
Biodiversity loss empirically causes conditions that threaten human survival – increased loss threatens ecosystem collapse and
humanity’s very existence. David Diner ’94.................................................................................................................................44
Accepting biodiversity loss is like playing Russian Roulette…with humanity’s existence. Paul Warner 94 ..............................45
Species Loss Threatens Planetary Survivability and Diversity.....................................................................................................45
Species Loss Threatens Humans....................................................................................................................................................45
DDT FAILS.......................................................................................................................................45
DDT Doesn’t repel Mosquitoes........................................................................................................................................................45
How DDT works: DDT is supposed to kill mosquitoes, it doesn’t repel them.............................................................................45
DDT doesn’t repel mosquitoes......................................................................................................................................................46
Mosquitoes are resistant...................................................................................................................................................................46
Mosquitoes are getting so resistant that they aren’t even repelled................................................................................................46
Mosquitoes are increasingly resistant to DDT...............................................................................................................................46
Mosquitoes are resistant to DDT...................................................................................................................................................47
DDT fails, mosquitoes are resistant...............................................................................................................................................47
Africans don’t want DDT.................................................................................................................................................................48

DDT use should be terminated for three reasons:..........................................................................................................................48
DDT has serious implementation problems...................................................................................................................................48
Empirics prove: locals don’t want DDT spraying, and will thwart US efforts to further DDT....................................................48
DDT spraying causes crops to be rejected by international markets (impacts: 1) hurts poor, 2) violates self government because
farmers don’t want it.)....................................................................................................................................................................49
Argument Turns and Responses Re: malaria resurgence............................................................................................................49

AT: “In what is now Sri Lanka malaria cases rose after DDT was banned” It’s not that simple, Mosquitoes developed
resistance to DDT..........................................................................................................................................................................49
AT: “DDT ban caused malaria resurgence in South America” No there were other factors; the resurgence actually proves that
large scale house spraying is unsustainable...................................................................................................................................49
Malaria resurgence happened because mosquitoes became resistant............................................................................................50
AT: “DDT ban causes malaria resurgence” Nope there are lots of reasons..................................................................................50
Malaria was already almost completely gone by the time DDT came into usage.........................................................................50
AT: “DDT eliminated malaria in US” nope, draining wetlands was the main reason..................................................................50
SQ ALTERNATIVES WORK/BETTER...........................................................................................51
Alternative advocacy: “We can stop DDT AND Malaria”...........................................................................................................51
Safer alternatives are available so we should phase out DDT.......................................................................................................51
What works for one country might not work for another, we should aggressively advocate a host of alternatives to DDT........51
We must stop both malaria and DDT............................................................................................................................................51
We can solve malaria without DDT...............................................................................................................................................52
SQ is working on Alternatives that work.......................................................................................................................................52

The UN is working on cost effective and environmentally-friendly alternatives to DDT............................................................52
UN is furthering alternatives to Cut malaria by 60% while also eliminating DDT.......................................................................53
Alternatives to DDT are working great and saving lives...............................................................................................................53
Alternative methods are working to control malaria.....................................................................................................................53
Gates’ foundation is combating malaria on several fronts.............................................................................................................53
There are safe alternatives to DDT that are better and are still acceptable cost wise....................................................................54
People are working to stop malaria without DDT in the status quo..............................................................................................54
Alternatives work, Example: the Philippines.................................................................................................................................54
More Effective and safer alternatives exist and they are working.................................................................................................55
Examples: Mexico.........................................................................................................................................................................55
Example: Kenya.............................................................................................................................................................................56
Example: Vietnam.........................................................................................................................................................................56
Example: India...............................................................................................................................................................................56
Example: the Philippines ..............................................................................................................................................................56
Bed nets..............................................................................................................................................................................................56
Nets work better and are cheaper than DDT at preventing malaria...............................................................................................56
DDT has serious implementation problems. Bed nets are better and avoid DDT’s problems......................................................57
Bed-nets work................................................................................................................................................................................57
Bed-nets work................................................................................................................................................................................57
Bed nets are more effective than DDT..........................................................................................................................................58
Bed nets are cheaper than DDT.....................................................................................................................................................58
Bed nets can be cheaper than DDT spraying.................................................................................................................................58
Vaccines.............................................................................................................................................................................................58
Vaccines would be much better than DDT because resistance to DDT is inevitable....................................................................58
Vaccines would be much better than DDT....................................................................................................................................58
A new malaria vaccine has been discovered..................................................................................................................................59
New malaria vaccine works...........................................................................................................................................................59
New malaria vaccine works better than even naturally developed protective immune responses to the parasite over lifelong
exposure to malaria........................................................................................................................................................................59
Details and further advocacy for the vaccine from University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine
Development (CVD)......................................................................................................................................................................60
A new Malaria vaccine exists, and it works!.................................................................................................................................60
Bill Gates is working toward defeating malaria and has already developed a vaccine that could potentially stop 70% of malaria
deaths.............................................................................................................................................................................................60
Bill Gates is working toward defeating malaria and has already developed a vaccine that works...............................................60
Bill Gates is working toward defeating malaria and has already developed a vaccine that could be on the market as soon as
2012................................................................................................................................................................................................61
Gates is attacking Malaria with several promising vaccines.........................................................................................................61
Other alternatives to DDT...............................................................................................................................................................61

Possible alternative: Traps.............................................................................................................................................................61
Possible alternative: Methoprene...................................................................................................................................................62
New effective non toxic alternatives to DDT: Methoprene, Neem, and Insect-killing bacterium ...............................................62
One natural way to fight malaria is to introduce natural predators of mosquitoes, several countries are doing this....................62
Working alternative: Sterilize the bugs (seriously, it works)........................................................................................................63
DDT alternative: Synthetic pyrenoids...........................................................................................................................................63
SOURCE INDICTS...........................................................................................................................63
Roger Innis, Paul Drissen, The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and the Committee for a constructive tomorrow.....63
CORE.............................................................................................................................................................................................64
Africa Fighting Malaria and Congress for Racial Equality...........................................................................................................64
Africa Fighting Malaria.................................................................................................................................................................64
ADDITIONAL CREDENTIALS FOR REFERENCED STUDIES.....................................................64

Additional credentials for the study by the U.S. Department of health and human services........................................................64
Additional credentials for the UC Berkley study...........................................................................................................................65
Credentials for the vaccine study by University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine Development (CVD). .65
Strategy Notes:
I can just see the wheels turning in some of your minds, (esp. new debaters)… “Wow, this is a big brief” obviously
you will not be able to read anything close to even a quarter of the brief in a single round.
This brief has been developed to give you maximum flexibility in round as to the course your arguments will take.
You can either:
1) Be lame and Just argue DTT not necessary (lots of alternatives that work better),
2) Be fatalistic and go for Solvency (DDT fails/illegal/attitudinal barrier)
3) Be ruthless and Go for the jugular (DDT worst thing evah!!, extinction in several generations)
Of course a good negative will use a combination of arguments.
Although I am confident enough in the quality of this brief that you could just pull it in round I STRONGLY
encourage you to use these cards to come up with your own individual shells that match your individual
argumentation style and the time limit.
You will notice that I have also included several ATs which can be used as second line responses against Aff.
Arguments, look at them so you know when to pull them. BTW while we’re talking about this; I have heard of cards
that say something like “no peer reviewed studies show any harm from DDT”, hogwash. That evidence=lamest
argument ever. Although I personally am not really against DDT there are LOTS of studies; many of which, BTW, are
included in this brief. If the Aff pulls a card like that then have fun with them. CX sample:
What was the source on the evidence that said “No Studies show DDT to be Harmfull”? Is (fill in blank with answer)
omniscient? Oh, so you mean he doesn’t know about every single study ever done? Thank you!
Have fun! If you’d let me know how the brief fares against which teams I would appreciate it.
God bless, ~Josh Wilson
Position/opening statement:
“No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently
presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it
worse.” Rachel Carson, Silent Spring , 1962.
Inherency
DDT use has been increasing
The scientific American, May 4, 2009 “Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?” by Marla Cone and Environmental
Health News http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria
Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and
the President's Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program launched by former President Bush.
DDT still present in 90% of Americans

Reuters, April 29, 2008 “DDT-related chemical linked to testicular cancer” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29321193
DDE remains ubiquitous in the environment even decades after DDT was being banned in the United States -- and is
present in about 90 percent of Americans, McGlynn [leader of the study] said. "The trouble with these chemicals is
they hang around a long time. It's in the food chain now," McGlynn added. People who eat fish from contaminated
areas can absorb it, for instance.
DDT is banned in the US except for public health emergencies and many nations still use it
The center for disease control and prevention “Frequently Asked Questions about DDT and DDE” copyright 2010
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/fallon/ddtfaq.htm
DDT was manufactured to control insects on agricultural crops and insects that carry diseases like malaria and typhus.
It does not occur naturally in the environment. Because of damage to wildlife and the potential harm to human health,
the production and use of DDT was banned in the United States, except for during public health emergencies. DDT is
still used in some other countries.
USAID already allows spraying of DDT when no alternatives are available

USAID June 2 2009 “Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS)”
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/techareas/irs.html
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 still allowed and used in 25 countries.

Professor Donald Gutstein (communications professor at Simon Fraser University) 22 Jan 2010 “Inside the DDT Propaganda
Machine” http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/01/22/DDTPropaganda/
Despite what the pro-DDT organizations alleged, DDT was not banned for use in mosquito control and could continue
to be used in 25 countries in malarial regions. In these countries, limited amounts of DDT can be sprayed on the
inside walls of houses to combat malaria-carrying mosquitoes. "The environmental community is collaborating with
the World Health Organization to ensure that the phase-out of the remaining uses of DDT does not undermine the
battle against malaria and the well-being of people living in malarial zones," the United Nations Environmental
Programme reported
Stockholm convention
The Stockholm convention (which we have signed) denies us the right to use DDT but
already allows the use of DDT in places where viable alternatives are not
available.
The Stockholm convention denies us the right to export import or produce DDT and requires that
necessary steps be taken to eliminate it, but it allows it in combating malaria only “when
locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not available to the Party in question.”
The Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants, Annex B part II, 2001 (signed by US in 2001)
http://chm.pops.int/images/pdf.png
1. The production and use of DDT shall be eliminated except for Parties that have notified the Secretariat of their
intention to produce and/or use it. A DDT Register is hereby established and shall be available to the public. The
Secretariat shall maintain the DDT Register.
2. Each Party that produces and/or uses DDT shall restrict such production and/or use for disease vector control in
accordance with the World Health Organization recommendations and guidelines on the use of DDT and when locally
safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not available to the Party in question.
3. In the event that a Party not listed in the DDT Register determines that it requires DDT for disease vector control, it
shall notify the Secretariat as soon as possible in order to have its name added forthwith to the DDT Register. It shall
at the same time notify the World Health Organization.
4. Every three years, each Party that uses DDT shall provide to the Secretariat and the World Health Organization
information on the amount used, the conditions of such use and its relevance to that Party’s disease management
strategy, in a format to be decided by the Conference of the Parties in consultation with the World Health
Organization. 5. With the goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT, the Conference of the Parties
shall encourage: (a) Each Party using DDT to develop and implement an action plan as part of the implementation
plan specified in Article 7. That action plan shall include:
(i) Development of regulatory and other mechanisms to ensure that DDT use is restricted to disease vector
control;
(ii) Implementation of suitable alternative products, methods and strategies, including resistance management
strategies to ensure the continuing effectiveness of these alternatives;
(iii) Measures to strengthen health care and to reduce the incidence of the disease.
(b) The Parties, within their capabilities, to promote research and development of safe alternative chemical and non-chemical
products, methods and strategies for Parties using DDT, relevant to the conditions of those countries and with the goal of
decreasing the human 30 and economic burden of disease. Factors to be promoted when considering alternatives or combinations
of alternatives shall include the human health risks and environmental implications of such alternatives. Viable alternatives to
DDT shall pose less risk to human health and the environment, be suitable for disease control based on conditions in the Parties in
question and be supported with monitoring data.
6. Commencing at its first meeting, and at least every three years thereafter, the Conference of the Parties shall, in consultation
with the World Health Organization, evaluate the continued need for DDT for disease vector control on the basis of available
scientific, technical, environmental and economic information, including:
(a) The production and use of DDT and the conditions set out in paragraph 2;
(b) The availability, suitability and implementation of the alternatives to DDT; and
(c) Progress in strengthening the capacity of countries to transfer safely to reliance on such alternatives.
Stockholm convention requires that DDT and other POPs be reduced and eliminated
Stockholm Convention Secretariat 2008 “Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants”
http://chm.pops.int/Convention/tabid/54/language/en-US/Default.aspx#convtext
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty to protect human health and the
environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed
geographically and accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife. Exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs) can lead serious health effects including certain cancers, birth defects, dysfunctional immune and reproductive
systems, greater susceptibility to disease and even diminished intelligence. Given their long range transport, no one
governing acting alone can protect is citizens or its environment from POPs. In response, the Stockholm Convention,
which was adopted in 2001 and entered into force 2004, requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the
release of POPs into the environment.
The Stockholm convention denies us the right use DDT but it allows it for combating malaria only
“when locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not available”
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (Selected by the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica for Britannica
Internet Guide Award (Best of the Web). For its quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability.) Works to replace the
use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. As one of five PAN Regional Centers
worldwide, we link 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.) PAN is led by: Steve Scholl-Buckwald
(Ph.D History and American Studies from Indiana University. before joining PAN Steve taught and served as a dean at Ohio
Wesleyan University and John F. Kennedy University in California From 1969 to 1985.) Heather Pilatic (Ph.D Literature from
Duke University Before joining PAN Heather studied science studies and social theory at Duke University’s Literature Program.
Her doctoral research focused on twentieth-century U.S. political culture, economics and intellectual history with a focus on
conceptions of science and citizenship around the turn of the century. Prior to returning to graduate school, Heather worked in
marketing and communications for technology start-ups, and has volunteered or worked for environmental and social justice
nonprofits over a period of ten years.) Kathryn Gilje (B.S., Environmental Science from University of Minnesota College of
Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences Kathryn joined PAN in 2005, bringing ten years of organizing, fundraising,
program planning and organizational development experience with food, agriculture and social justice organizations. Before
joining PAN Kathryn worked for ten years on organizing, fundraising, program planning and organizational development
experience with food, agriculture and social justice organizations. She was also senior associate with the Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy) Monica Moore (M.S.in Environmental Science Policy and Management from University of California,
Berkeley. Monica has been engaged with pesticide issues since 1980, including working with NGO coalitions in Brazil, staffing
the Food First Pesticide Project, and co-founding PAN North America in 1984. She serves as an advisor and/or board member to
many local, national and international organizations, and is active in consultations on sustainable agriculture, environmental
health, preservation of biodiversity and genetic resources.)
2008 “Safe Malaria Solutions - Beyond DDT” http://www.panna.org/ddt
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is an international treaty calling for the
elimination of hazardous chemicals that persist in the environment and in our bodies, and travel the world in water
and on air. DDT is among the original twelve chemicals targeted for global phaseout by the POPs treaty, with
exemptions for countries where controlling disease vectors (like mosquitos) are necessary and “locally safe, effective
and affordable alternatives are not available”. 163 governments from around the world are party to this legally binding
treaty
Stockholm convention (which we have signed) already allows the use of DDT in places where
alternatives are not available.
The Environmental Defense Fund (Since 1967, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has linked science, economics and
law to create innovative, equitable and cost-effective solutions to society's most urgent environmental problems. Environmental
Defense Fund is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including future generations. Among these rights
are access to clean air and water, healthy and nourishing food, and flourishing ecosystems. Guided by science, Environmental
Defense Fund evaluates environmental problems and works to create and advocate solutions that win lasting political, economic
and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-efficient and fair. Environmental Defense Fund is a leading national
organization representing more than 700,000 members.
Received the highest rating of four stars by Charity Navigator, the independent charity evaluator.
Environmental Defense is the only environmental group named among "the most successful nonprofits in recent U.S. history" in
the new book Forces for Good.
Ranked first among environmental groups — and second overall — in the 2007 Financial Times global study of 850 business-
nonprofit partnerships.
"Environmental Defense is probably the best nonprofit to find the intersection between profit and planet."-McDonald's Senior
Director of Social Responsibility Bob Langert
“America's most economically literate green campaigners"-The Economist) 28-Dec-2006 “The U.S. Ban on DDT, A Continuing
Success Story” http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=4407
Environmental Defense supports the practical approach taken in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPS), which was agreed to by international negotiators in 2001 and which the U.S. has signed but not
ratified. This treaty allows indoor use of DDT to control disease-spreading insects when "locally safe, effective and
affordable alternatives are not available." The POPS treaty aims to encourage the development of less persistent and
toxic alternatives, in order to allow the eventual elimination of DDT. The treaty also provides a system to track DDT
usage so that it is not used in widespread, outdoor applications that would harm wildlife and human health.
Environmental Defense believes that, as cost-effective alternatives become available, all uses of DDT should be
phased out.
The Stockholm convention already allows the use of DDT in places where alternatives are not
available. But aims to phase them out
USAID June 2 2009 “Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS)”
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/techareas/irs.html
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.
Stockholm convention obligates us to phase out DDT by 2025 but currently allows developing
countries to use it for malaria control if absolutely necessary
ScienceDaily July 5, 2006 “DDT In Mothers Linked To Developmental Delays In Children, UC Berkeley Study Finds”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060705090426.htm
Since 2001, more than 100 countries have committed to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,
which calls for the elimination by the year 2025 of DDT and 11 other persistent pollutants. Because DDT is inexpensive
and effective in controlling mosquitoes – at least in those regions where insects have not yet become resistant to it – the
convention permits its use for malaria control until safe, affordable and effective alternatives can be found.
Stockholm convention seeks to phase out DDT but currently allows exemptions if absolutely necessary
In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to
eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only
for controlling malaria. Since then, nine nations—Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda,
Mozambique and Swaziland—notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT. Five others—Zimbabwe, North
Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China, have reserved the
right to begin using it, according to a January Stockholm Convention report. "This is a global issue," Eskenazi [a University
of California at Berkeley School of Public Health professor] said. "We need to enforce the Stockholm Convention and
to have a plan for each country to phase out DDT, and if they feel they can't, good reason why other options cannot
work."
The Stockholm convention allows needy countries to use DDT but it promotes alternatives
UN News Centre 3 November 2008 “Safer alternatives to malaria-controlling DDT focus of UN-backed meeting”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28793&Cr=Chemical&Cr1=
Countries are permitted under the Stockholm Convention to obtain exemptions allowing them to use DDT to treat the
inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes that carry the malaria parasite to humans. The UN Environment
Programme (UNEP), which hosts the Convention’s secretariat, advocates safer alternatives to DDT which would also
give Governments greater choice.
Passing the affirmatives plan undermines rule of law

The Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties prohibits us from taking measures contrary to the
intent of a treaty that we have signed whether or not we have ratified it.
Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties Article 18 Signed At Vienna 23 May 1969 Entry Into Force: 27 January
1980 http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH538.txt
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the
treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made
its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty
Impact: Passing the affirmatives plan undermines rule of law

(Note: This can be turned into a kritik, or at least argued as a-priori, very easily)
America must uphold the rule of law

Barry Kellman, Prof at Depaul, Duke Law Journal, December 1989, p. 1597-1602
America must uphold its historical commitment to be a nation of law. Our strength grows from the resolve to subject
military force to constitutional authority. [He goes on to state] The very underpinnings of constitutional governance
are threatened by those who contend that the rule of law weakens the execution of military policy. Their argument --
that because our adversaries are not restricted by our Constitution, we should become more like our adversaries to
secure ourselves -- cannot be sustained if our tradition of adherence to the rule of law is to be maintained. To the
contrary, the judiciary must be willing to demand adherence to legal principles by assessing responsibility.
We must act morally, even if it means our own death

Watson, philosophy professor, Washington University, “WORLD HUNGER AND MORAL OBLIGATION”, 1977, pp.
118-9.
One may even have to sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would
preserve it. For example, if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason
tells him that collaboration will hurt no one, he remains silent. [He goes on to state]. That an action is necessary to
save one’s life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. No
principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation. There is a strict analogy
here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the
sake of being Christian. The moral world contains pits and lions, but one looks always to the highest light. The
ultimate test always harks back to the highest principle – recant or die – and it is pathetic to profess morality if one
quits when the going gets rough.
Impact Link: Nations get mad at us
Hypocrisy harms America's standing in the world

US Senator Carl Levin (Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee), April 26, 2007,"On Legal Issues
Regarding Individuals Detained as Unlawful Enemy Combatants," http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?
id=273127
America's standing in the world has taken a nosedive since the world embraced us after 9/11. According to a recent
poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, 67% of the people surveyed across 25 countries
disapprove of the U.S. handling of Guantanamo detainees. The Program Director explained: "The thing that comes up
repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq. The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be - You were a
champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules."
Breaking and Failing to ratify international treaties harms our reputation and makes it so that other
nations won’t do things we want
Laurence R. Helfer (Professor of Law and Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt University Law
School.) “EXITING TREATIES” 26 October 2005 http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/91/1579.pdf
The link between reputation and compliance is simply stated: If a state fails to comply with its treaty commitments,
other states will be reluctant to enter into future agreements with that state or will demand additional assurances or
concessions before doing so [He goes on to state in the same context] multiple refusals to ratify—as with multiple
denunciations of previously ratified agreements—signal a state’s propensity to eschew multilateral cooperation and
carry much the same reputational cost as a track record of violating treaty commitments. This effect is likely to be
especially pronounced where the non-ratifying or exiting state participated in the negotiating conferences that helped
to shape the treaties’ form and substance.
Breaking and Failing to ratify international treaties Isolates us and harms us

Roseann M. Latore (the solicitations editor & symposium chair of the Boston college international & comparative law
review.) “Escape out the back door or charge in the front door: U.S. reactions to the international criminal court”
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/25_1/06_TXT.htm
The United States may be the world’s greatest superpower, but this status does not give it an excuse to hold itself
above the will of all others in the application of international law. U.S. unilateralism no longer serves U.S. national
interests. Instead, by refusing to be bound by rules that the international community supports and by liberally
sanctioning nations that have offended it, the United States is isolating itself from the international community [She
goes on to say] The United States cannot use its current status to unilaterally veto that which the majority of the
world’s nations support, and expect that it will not be harmed by the result.
Brink: As Anti-Americanism is linear, this disadvantage requires no brink. In other words, as we are more
hypocritical, there is more Anti-Americanism
Analysis: Because the world is fed-up with us pulling out of so many treaties and even if there are clauses that allow
that sort of thing, it is, and should be, looked down upon. We should be a country of our word, and a people of our
word, and when we say that we will do something or support something or suppress something, the world can know
that we will stand by that.
Impacts: (Use all that juicy stuff in BBM ATCA reform and any stuff about soft power)
(Note: you might be able to run a Kritik on hypocrisy, I haven’t seen one yet but I think it could work well)
Morality DA:
(Note: Thanks to Will Malson for this DA)
Internal Link 1: “natural law”
S: (n) law, natural law (a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or
binding upon human society)
(Princeton WordNet, 2009)
Internal Link 2: Western morality is inherently consistent with “natural law”

M.J. Cherry, “Natural Law and the Possibility of a Global Ethics (Philosophical Studies in
Contemporary Culture)”, Page 24, “4. APPARENT MORAL AGREEMENT AND REASONING
ACROSS MORAL BOUNDARIES”, Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (November 3, 2004), ISBN-10:
1402022239, ISBN-13: 978-1402022234
4.1 Apparent Agreement: Respecting Rights and Liberties
With regard to respecting individual rights and liberties, we confront the problem not only of defining basic human
goods and human fulfillment, but also of determining how such goods ought to be realized. Consider, for example, the
moral principles of equality and autonomy, central to Western accounts of morality and bioethics. The dominant
accounts of Western bioethics regard moral decision-making within the framework of a "liberal cosmopolitan polity,"
to use H.T. Engelhardt's terminology, in which citizens are understood as moral agents who compromise with each
other in the realization of individual liberty, understood in terms of the economic and institutional conditions and
social structures which sustain fair equality of opportunity and personal autonomy (Engelhardt, 2000). Traditional
familial, religious, and community oriented understandings of human flourishing are marginalized, criticized, and
called into question. Western bioethics generally judges the decision to live and make medical choices within a
traditional family structure that does not value autonomous authenticity as morally deficient. Western bioethicists
appeal, for example, to a general moral consensus that individual-oriented informed consent is important for
respecting the rights of persons: insofar as the patient is competent, he is the best judge of his own best interests and
his decision should in the end trump, as long as there are no significant interests of others at sake.14 Governmental
and institutional biomedical policy, such as individual-oriented informed consent and ideologically directed
education, is structure so as progressively to discourage the choice to remain in a traditional religious or cultural
community (Engelhardt, 2002, 25).
B. Brink & Uniqueness: Eastern culture relies on the self for morality
Dimitar Stankov, “The Philosophy of Person: Solidarity and Cultural Creativity: Polish Philosophical
Studies, I (Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change, Iva, Eas)” by Jozef Tischner (Editor), George
F. McLean (Editor), Jozef Zycinski (Editor), CHAPTER IX: THE MORAL CULTURE OF THE
PERSON, Publisher: Council for Research in Values (October 1994), ISBN-10: 1565180496, ISBN-
13: 978-1565180499
Since antiquity Eastern peoples have coined the notion "culture of the heart", in the sense of a culture of feelings. It is
often forgotten that the greatness of the human spirit reveals itself not so much, and not only, in thoughts, ideas, and
knowledge, but also in feelings, attractions and passions. That is why it comes as no surprise that Eastern culture
devotes so much attention to purity of mind, feelings and experience. The notion of culture is understood more as a
culture of heart than of mind: spiritual harmony could not be achieved only through a culture of mind and intellect;
one needs the other inner culture of heart and feelings.
C. Impact/Voter: International Law is key to permeation of “natural law”. Western morality

influences such law but is inhibited by the Affirmative plan.
The Desert News quoting Senator Elbert D. Thomas, "International Law Seen As Key for World
Peace", Dec 4, 1947, evening edition, Vol. 348, No. 57, 98th year
WASHING, D. C.—Inter- national law which recognizes the "natural law written by God" is the only formula that
will secure and defend the future peace of the world,” Sen. Elbert D. Thomas (D-Utah) declared today. Senator
Thomas' views were expressed at a semester social evening of the faculty and members of the student council of the
law school of the Catholic University of America here in an address entitled "World Events and America's Legal
Fundamentals." Discussing basic principles and ideals, Mr. Thomas briefly talked of the Chinese who provided the
reason for law and punishment which is to promote virtue, and of Thomas Jefferson who believed that our liberties
"are the gift of God." "Those things for which we will fight," the senator said, "which we will defend, are very, very
simple principles, and they are related to our concept of democracy. "We are going to defend the right to come and go
freely, the right to buy and sell, the right to own and dispose. In short, we are going to stand for those four great
freedoms in relation to person, to mind, to soul, and to property which we in America classify as our civil liberties.
"We have accepted the thesis," Senator Thomas said, "that not only is war of universal concern, but also that chaos,
poverty and starvation breed chaos, poverty and starvation. We know that disorder and anarchy produce disorder and
anarchy, that order and prosperity beget peace, and we realize that these are of universal application. Concluding on
the subject of international relations, Senator Thomas noted a 1945 quotation by the pope who said: ". . . For it is
international law which recognizes its foundation in that natural law written by God in the conscience of every man,
and from it derives ultimately its binding force. The alternative is the law of the stronger; and then the defenses of
peace will collapse under the first attack launched by those for whom might makes right."
Voter:
Voting for the plan succeeds in alienating us from the international community, which is key to the
spread of Western morality. Vote negative to continue with squo’s relevance. This disad outweighs aff
advantages – saving “thousands” of lives is negligible compared with the prospect of saving millions
more by furthering morality in Eastern culture.
Counter plan material

Ratify the Stockholm convention
(This counter plan is mutually exclusive, net beneficial, and arguably non topical as it is a change in
international rather than domestic policy (and thus arguably non topical according to original intent
standards since the NCFCA alternates between domestic and international policy) and would not
significantly change our ‘general goals’ or ‘guiding principles’ (See BBA topicality press: policy=goal)
Counter plan advocacy: Ratify the Stockholm convention

Special efforts on the part of the developed world should be made either to produce low-cost alternatives and to assist
poorer countries in purchasing higher priced alternatives are urgently needed. The long-term answer to control of
malaria and other insect-borne diseases lies with adequate investment in public health surveillance, treatment and
comprehensive pest management, including the identification of safer and more effective pesticides. We urge the U.S.
government to contribute to achieving these goals by ratifying the Stockholm Convention
Ratifying the Stockholm convention would allow us to have a say in the regulation of harmful
chemicals and would give us access to information exchange
Stockholm Convention Secretariat 2008 “Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants”
http://chm.pops.int/Convention/tabid/54/language/en-US/Default.aspx#convtext
Parties nominate official contact points for the purpose of administrative functions and all official communications
under the Convention. Parties shall also nominate national focal points for the purpose of information exchange
pursuant to Article 9 of the Convention.
Ratifying the Stockholm convention would give us access to scientific peer reviewed process
Center for International Environmental Law (Nonprofit organization that provides environmental legal services in
international and comparative environmental law.) March 13, 2006 “U.S. Ratification of the Stockholm Convention: Analysis
of Pending POPs Legislation” Update http://www.ciel.org/Publications/POPs_Bills_28Feb2006.pdf
The international procedure to add POPs to the Stockholm Convention guarantees a thorough, deliberate, science-
based review over the course of years. Once the United States becomes a party to the Convention, the U.S.
government is expected to participate fully in this process. Therefore, decisions reached under the treaty to ban or
severely restrict additional POPs should provide the starting point for U.S. domestic regulation. The United States
should utilize the information and analysis developed through the Convention’s scientific review process in future
domestic regulation of POPs.
Failing to ratify the Stockholm convention harms US leadership

Center for International Environmental Law (Nonprofit organization that provides environmental legal services in
international and comparative environmental law.) March 13, 2006 “U.S. Ratification of the Stockholm Convention: Analysis
of Pending POPs Legislation” Update http://www.ciel.org/Publications/POPs_Bills_28Feb2006.pdf
Following the first meeting of the Stockholm Convention in May 2005, where the United States was relegated to
observer status, pressure has been rising for U.S. ratification. In July 2005 Secretary of State Rice and EPA
Administrator Johnson sent a joint letter to the House and Senate leadership warning of “negative repercussions for
U.S. leadership” in international chemicals discussions if Congress does not act quickly to adopt necessary
implementing legislation.
Redirect funds to malaria vaccines

(This counter plan is non topical and net beneficial as it avoids the problems of DDT and is more
effective at combating malaria)
Counter plan Advocacy: Redirect funds to Malaria vaccines

Seattle Times June 13, 2008 “Gates Foundation tackles a giant that preys on Africa's children”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/malaria/2003897861_malariatanzania09.html
The Malaria Vaccine Initiative's contract with GSK sets a ceiling on the price that can be charged for the vaccine, but
it also guarantees a profit. Otherwise, the company would have no incentive to keep producing a drug that has no
market in the wealthy world, Rabinovitch says. GSK estimates it has invested $300 million of its own money in the vaccine
project. But it's still unclear who will pay for the finished product. The vaccines that African children get now cost a few
cents to a few dollars. The price of the more complex malaria vaccine will depend on how many countries use it, but it
could be as high as $9. Up to 25 million children a year would need three doses, pushing the potential annual cost to
nearly $700 million. The hope is that rich nations will pay through international groups like the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and a vaccine program called the GAVI Alliance — both of which get major grants
from the Gates Foundation.
Countries need funding to fight malaria

WWF (world wide fund for Nature) study report on DDT JUNE 1998 (Dr. Patricia Matteson, consultant to WWF, had
primary responsibility for developing the information in this report on malaria management. Additional contributions came from
Dr. Michael Smolen and Dr. Susan Sang on health and environmental effects; Dr. Donald Mackay and his coauthors on the
exposure model; Montira Pongsiri on DDT production and use; the various contributing authors of the underlying case studies,
including Reg Allsop, Tsetse Control Division, Botswana; Priti Kumar and Raj Kishor Khaware, Centre for Science and
Environment, India; Gary R. Mullins, Department of Animal Health and Production, Botswana; Jorge Ramírez, Mexico; Bruce
Benton and colleagues, World Bank Onchocerciasis Coordination Unit, USA; Clive Shiff and Peter Winch, Johns Hopkins
University School of Hygiene and Public Health, USA; Japhet Minjas and Zul Premji, Muhimbili University College of Health
Sciences, Tanzania; Leonard Ortega and colleagues, Philippine Malaria Control Service; Lilian de las Llagas, University of the
Philippines College of Public Health; Jorge Méndez and Martín Tellaeche, Secretaría de Salud, Mexico; Fernando Bejarano,
Red de Accíon sobre Plaguididas y Alternativas en México; and Julia Langer, Richard Liroff , and Stephen Leahy.)
“RESOLVING THE DDT DILEMMA” http://assets.panda.org/downloads/resolvingddt.pdf
International lending agencies and other international financial pressures are placing substantial pressures on
developing nations’ budgets. If malaria management programs are to have any chance of success in many countries,
targeted financial assistance must be provided by donor nations.
DDT causes health problems

DDE and DDD are metabolic products of DDT
Peer reviewed study by the U.S. Department of health and human services (see add. creds., authored by 5 PHDs 2 master
degrees, an MPH(masters of public health, highest medical degree available) and 2 research corporations) Public Health
Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry September 2002 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf
People are not exposed to DDT, DDE, or DDD individually, but rather to a mixture of all three compounds since
DDE and DDD are degradation and metabolic products of DDT. In addition, DDT, DDE, and DDD each can exist in
three isomeric forms based on the relative position of the chlorine substitutions on the two chlorophenyl rings
DDT causes cancer

DDT causes cancer
Based on all of the evidence available, the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that DDT is
reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
has determined that DDT is possibly carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined that DDT, DDE, and DDD are
probable human carcinogens.
Cancer risk increases with each generation exposed to DDT

Several multigeneration studies have been conducted in mice. In these studies, exposure of the F1 and subsequent
generations to DDT was initially perinatal (i.e., in utero and through lactation) and was followed postweaning by oral
exposure to DDT in the diet. In a study by Tarjan and Kemeny (1969), exposure to 0.4 mg p,p’-DDT/kg/day resulted
in significant increases in leukemia and pulmonary carcinomas in the F2 generation and occurred with increasing
frequency with each subsequent generation of mice.
Breast cancer
DDT Compound Speeds Breast Cancer Growth (Additional warrant in non underlined card)
Washington post February 14, 2008 “DDT Compound Speeds Breast Cancer Growth” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021401780_pf.html
A new Canadian study may finally explain how a key compound found in the U.S.-banned insecticide DDT
accelerates the growth of breast cancer tumors. The new report, published in the open access journal Breast Cancer
Research, suggests that DDT's main metabolite blocks a pathway of a hormone that would otherwise help inhibit
growth in normally responsive breast cancer cells.
In their study, researchers from Universite Laval and Institut national de sant publique in Quebec found that the metabolite
blocked the androgen receptors (AR) found on certain human breast cancer cells. When added to cancer cells having AR, potent
androgen compounds slow the tumor's growth. But the researchers found that when increasing concentrations of the metabolite
were added, the androgen-mediated effects were blocked. The growth of breast cancer cells known as CAMA-1 actually
accelerated, even when androgen was present to try to mitigate the presence of the hormone estrogen, which normally signals the
cancer cells to grow. "Our results suggest that in addition to estrogenic compounds, which have been the main focus of
researchers over the past decades, chemicals that block the AR could favor breast cancer progression," lead researcher Pierre
Ayotte said in a prepared statement. DDT, a widely used insecticide in the United States from World War II through the
1970s, has been linked to breast cancer in previous studies. It was banned stateside following concerns about its
affects on wildlife, the environment and human health, but it is still used in some other countries.
DDT causes breast cancer

Evidence of a positive association between breast cancer and exposure to DDT and DDT-related compounds was
found in a case-control analysis nested within a prospective study in which blood samples of New York City women
attending a mammography clinic were collected between 1985 and 1991 (Wolff et al. 1993).
DDT causes breast cancer

Peer reviewed Study by 5 scientific researchers from various universities:
A. Schecter (Department of Preventive Medicine, Clinical Campus, State University of New York, Health Science Center)
P. Toniolo (Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center)
L. C. Dai (National 10/80 Committee for Investigation of the Consequences of Chemicals Used During Wartime in Vietnam,
College of Medicine, Hanoi, Vietnam)
L. T. B. Thuy (National 10/80 Committee for Investigation of the Consequences of Chemicals Used During Wartime in Vietnam,
College of Medicine, Hanoi, Vietnam)
And M. S. Wolff (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York) 13 February 1997 “Blood Levels of DDT and Breast Cancer Risk
Among Women Living in the North of Vietnam” from the scientific journal: “Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology” http://www.springerlink.com/content/fx7tn2f1jrqk98q0/
A positive association has been reported between elevated tissue organochlorines (DDT/DDE,PCBs, dioxins) and
breast cancer in some case-control studies and occupational cohort studies. We previously reported high serum levels
of DDT and its metabolite DDE in women living throughout Vietnam. We report here the results of a small hospital-
based case-control study examining the association between blood levels of DDT/ DDE and the risk of invasive breast
cancer among residents of the north of Vietnam, an area where insecticides such as DDT have been heavily used in
the recent past.
DDT causes breast cancer that kills 46,000 women every year
Environmental Research Foundation April 22, 1993 “New Study Links DDT to Breast Cancer”
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0047.htm
A new study published yesterday in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE reports that breast
cancer in American women is strongly associated with DDE (a form of DDT) in their blood.[1] Breast cancer strikes
176,000 women in the U.S. each year, and each year 46,000 die of it. DDE is a residue derived from the well-known
pesticide, DDT. DDT was banned in the U.S. in the early 1970s but trace residues are still measurable nearly everywhere in the
environment. Furthermore, DDT is still heavily used today in many locations outside the U.S. The principal author of the new
study, Dr. Mary Wolff at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, says, "[Our] findings suggest that environmental
chemical contamination with organochlorine residues may be an important etiologic [causal] factor in breast cancer. Given the
world-wide dissemination of organochlorine insecticides in the environment and the food chain, the implications are far-reaching
for public health intervention worldwide." The study shows that women with high levels of DDE in their blood have a four-times-
greater risk of breast cancer than women with low levels of DDE in the blood. (In this case, "high" means 20 billionths of a gram
of DDE in each milliliter of blood and "low" means 2 billionths of a gram in each milliliter of blood. There are 28.3 grams in an
ounce, and 4.7 milliliters in a teaspoon.)
Children exposed to DDT are 5 times as likely to develop breast cancer
Living on Earth (An independent media program) “DDT and Breast Cancer”
October 5, 2007 http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00040&segmentID=1
A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives is based on actual blood samples preserved from as long
as 40 years ago and the results are startling. It shows that if a female is exposed to DDT before puberty, she is five
times as likely to get breast cancer as a woman who is exposed to DDT later in life. And virtually every female in the
U.S. who was a child between 1945 and 1965, when DDT was widely used, is in a high-risk category. Dr. Barbara
Cohn [Center director of the Child Health and Development Studies at the Public Health Institute in Berkeley.] from the Public
Health Institute in Berkeley, California was the lead author of the study.
DDT increases the risk of cancer 500%, previous studies on DDT and cancer were flawed
Peer reviewed study by scientific researchers from the Public health institute at Berkley California and the mount
Sinai School of medicine:
Barbara A. Cohn (child health and developmental studies, center for research on women’s and children’s health, public health
institute, Berkley, California), Mary S. Wolff(Mount Sinai School of medicine, New York), Piera M. Cirillo (child health and
developmental studies, center for research on women’s and children’s health, public health institute, Berkley, California), Robert
I. Sholtz (child health and developmental studies, center for research on women’s and children’s health, public health institute,
Berkley, California) Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct, 2007 “DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the
significance of age at exposure”
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of DDT and breast cancer assessed exposure later in life when the breast may not
have been vulnerable, after most DDT had been eliminated, and after DDT had been banned.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether DDT exposure in young women during the period of peak DDT use predicts
breast cancer.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, nested case-control study with a median time to diagnosis of 17 years using blood
samples obtained from young women during 1959-1967. Subjects were members of the Child Health and Development Studies,
Oakland, California, who provided blood samples 1-3 days after giving birth (mean age, 26 years). Cases (n = 129) developed
breast cancer before the age of 50 years. Controls (n = 129) were matched to cases on birth year. Serum was assayed for p,p'-
DDT, the active ingredient of DDT; o,p'-DDT, a low concentration contaminant; and p,p'-DDE, the most abundant p,p'-DDT
metabolite.
RESULTS: High levels of serum p,p'-DDT predicted a statistically significant 5-fold increased risk of breast cancer
among women who were born after 1931. These women were under 14 years of age in 1945, when DDT came into
widespread use, and mostly under 20 years as DDT use peaked.
Testicular cancer
DDT causes testicular cancer
U.S. researchers said on Tuesday. They found a clear link between testicular cancer and DDE, which is created when
the body or the environment breaks down the pesticide DDT. Men with the highest levels of DDE were 70 percent
more likely to have developed testicular cancer than those with the lowest levels, according to the study published in
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Testicular cancer kills about 380 people per year

Most men with testicular cancer can be cured with surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The American
Cancer Society said about 8,000 new cases will be diagnosed this year in the United States and about 380 men will die
of it.
DDT harms the liver
DDT is toxic to the liver
Many studies have reported hepatic effects in animals following exposure to DDT and related compounds. Effects
observed include induction of microsomal enzymes, increased serum transaminase activities of hepatic origin, liver
hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and necrosis, and liver cancer. Induction of microsomal enzymes is important because it can
lead to altered metabolism of exogenous and endogenous substrates, including steroid hormones. In fact, as previously
mentioned, alteration of hormone metabolism has been suggested to be at least a contributing factor in the DDT-
induced reproductive and developmental effects. Based on induction profiles obtained in rats, DDT and related
compounds are considered primarily, although not exclusively, phenobarbital-type inducers. Liver effects were the
most sensitive effects observed in animals treated with DDT by relevant routes of exposure.
DDT harms the Liver

The center for disease control and prevention “Frequently Asked Questions about DDT and DDE” copyright 2010
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/fallon/ddtfaq.htm
People who worked with DDT for a long time had some changes in the levels of liver enzymes, but these
improved after exposure stopped.
In animals, short-term exposure to large amounts of DDT in food harmed the nervous system, and long-term
exposure harmed the liver. Studies in lab animals also showed that short-term exposure to DDT in food
might harm reproduction.
Study shows that DDT significantly increases the risk of liver and biliary tract cancer
Peer reviewed study by Pierluigi Cocco et al.(Institute of occupational Medicine, University of Cagliari Italy, guest
researcher at Occupational Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer institute) “Proportional mortality of dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) workers: a preliminary report”. Arch Environ Health 1997; 52: 299-303
A preliminary study of deaths among Sardinian men who had worked with DDT in a malaria-eradication campaign in
the 1940s showed a significantly increased risk of liver and biliary-tract cancers among those workers
DDT significantly increases risk of liver cancer mortality

Peer reviewed study by scientific researchers from the national cancer institute and the national institute of health:
Pierluigi Cocco, .(Institute of occupational Medicine, University of Cagliari Italy, guest researcher at Occupational
Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer institute, Maryland) Neely Kazerouni (Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics,
National cancer institute, National Institute of health, Maryland.) and Shelia Hoar Zahm (Division of Cancer Epidemiology
and Genetics, National cancer institute, National Institute of health, Maryland.) May 1999 The National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) “Cancer Mortality and Environmental Exposure to DDE in the United States”
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3454288
To explore the role of DDE, the major and most persistent DDT derivative, in cancer etiology, we examined the
association of the 1968 adipose DDE levels of population samples from 22 U.S. states with age-adjusted mortality
rates between 1975 and 1994 for multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); and cancer of the breast, corpus
uteri, liver, and pancreas. Separate analyses were conducted by gender and race. Covariates in the regression models
included average per-capita income, percent metropolitan residents, and the population density. Liver cancer mortality
increased significantly with adipose DDE levels in both sexes among whites
DDT causes neurological damage
The longer a person is exposed to DDT the lower their neurobehavioral performance (i.e. It kills your
brain/reasoning skills), this can only be explained by DDT exposure
Peer reviewed Study by 3PHDs 2 MDs and a MS from various universities and institutes around the world:
Berna van Wendel de Joode MS (Central American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances) Catharina Wesseling
PhD(Central American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances) Hans Kromhout PhD (Environmental and Occupational
Health Group, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Netherlands) Patricia Monge MD(Central American
Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances) Marco Garcia MD(Department of Occupational Health, RECOPE, Cartago, Costa
Rica) and Donna Mergler PhD (Center for the Study of Biological Interactions in Environmental Health (CINBIOSE),
University of Quebec) “Chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDT” 31 March 2001.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-42R0S3T-
J&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2001&_alid=1210764073&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=4886&_doca
nchor=&view=c&_ct=16&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=061417d514452a0f3175190c
4fc11cd8
We investigated chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDT by comparing the
neurobehavioral performance of retired malaria-control workers with a reference group of retired guards and drivers.
DDT-exposed workers did worse on tests assessing various neurobehavioral functions than controls; performance
significantly deteriorated with increasing years of DDT application. Our results could not be explained by exposure to
cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides or other potential confounding factors
DDT harms the brain

Neurological tests assessing cognitive, motor, and sensory functions were conducted on 27 former workers and 27
matched controls. The men had been involved in DDT use between 1955 and 1986; the mean number of years of
DDT application was 4.6 years. The exposed group had overall poorer performance; verbal attention and visuomotor
speed and sequencing differed most between the groups. When years of DDT application was entered in the analysis
as the explanatory variable, significant exposure-effect relations were seen for five tests in cognitive, motor, and
sensory domains. Although the population sample was small, the study seems to have been well controlled.
DDT harms mental and physical development in babies

Since the 1970s, scientists have known that when DDT accumulates in a woman's tissues it can be transmitted to her
developing fetus across the placenta. Now, a new study led by a team of researchers at the University of California,
Berkeley, has found that such in utero exposure is associated with developmental delays in the young child.
[The article continues in the same context to say]
The study is the first to examine the effects of maternal levels of DDT, rather than its breakdown products, on child
neurodevelopment – that is, the development of mental and physical skills. At a time when health authorities around the world are
considering increasing use of this pesticide to combat malaria, the study is one of the first to suggest that DDT may be harmful to
child development. As such, it provides important health information for decision makers, said Brenda Eskenazi, the study's lead
author. "People need to consider these data if they are going to continue using DDT or reintroduce it in countries where it's been
banned," said Eskenazi, a professor of epidemiology and maternal and child health at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health.
DDT harms mental and physical development in babies

For each tenfold increase in DDT levels measured in the mother, the team found a corresponding two- to three-point
decrease in the children's mental development scores at 12 and 24 months. No decrease was found at six months. The
highest in utero DDT exposures in children were associated with a seven- to 10-point decrease in Bayley mental
scores, compared to the lowest exposures.
In the physical skills evaluations – known as psychomotor testing – there were two-point decreases in children's
scores at six and 12 months for each tenfold increase in DDT levels in the mothers.
DDT harms neurodevelopment in children

Peer reviewed Study by 7 PHD and MPH(masters of public health, highest medical degree available) researchers from
various universities :
Brenda Eskenazi, PhD (Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of California),
Amy R. Marks, MPH (Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of California),
Asa Bradman, PhD (Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of California),
Laura Fenster, PhD (California Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control),
Caroline Johnson, PhD (Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of
California), Dana B. Barr, PhD (National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention),
Nicholas P. Jewell, PhD(Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of
California) Pediatrics vol. 118 no. 1 July 2006, pp. 233-241 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-3117)
“In utero exposure to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (ddt) and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (dde) and neurodevelopment
among young Mexican American children” http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/233
Prenatal exposure to DDT, and to a lesser extent DDE, was associated with neurodevelopmental delays during early
childhood, although breastfeeding was found to be beneficial even among women with high levels of exposure. Countries
considering the use of DDT should weigh its benefit in eradicating malaria against the negative associations found in
this first report on DDT and human neurodevelopment.
Exposure to DDT by birth decreases verbal, memory, quantitative and perceptual performance skills
in children
Peer reviewed Study by 6 scientific researchers from California Department of Health Services, Center for Children's
Environmental Health Research at the university of california, Impact Assessment, Inc., and The National Center for
Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention :
Laura Fenster (California Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control)
Brenda Eskenazi (Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of California),
Meredith Anderson (Impact Assessment, Inc., Richmond, CA, United States), Asa Bradman (Center for Children's
Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of California), Alan Hubbard (Center for Children's
Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of California) and Dana B. Barr (National Center for
Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
3 August 2006 “In utero exposure to DDT and performance on the Brazelton neonatal behavioral assessment scale”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W81-4MSPV1K-
1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_sear
chStrId=1210553782&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a78c7e8c2
2cbfff30081e570d7350b55
Results showed that DDT cord serum concentration at birth was inversely associated with verbal, memory,
quantitative, and perceptual-performance skills at age 4 years. Children whose DDT concentrations in cord serum were
>0.20 ng/ml had mean decreases of7.86 (standard error, 3.21) points in the verbal scale and10.86(standard error, 4.33) points in
the memory scale when compared with children whose concentrations were <0.05 ng/ml. These associations were stronger
among girls. Prenatal exposure to background, low-level concentrations of DDT was associated with a decrease in
preschoolers' cognitive skills. These results should be considered when evaluating the risk and benefits of spraying
DDT during anti-malaria and other disease-vector campaigns.
DDT messes up the nervous system

DDT messes up the nervous system
The main neuro-physiological effect of DDT is to prolong the sodium current in axons drastically, which accounts for
the increase in depolarizing after-potential and the resultant repetitive after discharges in nerve fibers and synaptic
junctions. As many basic functions such respiratory and cardiovascular functions are controlled by the nervous
system, exposure to high amounts of DDT is expected to produce a wide array of symptoms and central and
peripheral signs of toxicity.
Lung cancer
DDT causes lung cancer
Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with increased lung cancer in a case control study of the Uruguayan
work force (De Stefani et al. 1996).
DDT harms the reproductive system

DDT harms the reproductive system
Exposure to DDT and DDT-related compounds, particularly during development, can adversely affect the
development and function of the reproductive system of both female and male animals. This is due primarily to the
ability of some of these compounds to disrupt the action of natural steroids and bind to receptors for estrogens and
androgens. Hormonal effects of DDT and residues that lead to altered reproduction and/or development are discussed.
DDT harms reproductive capabilities

Studies in humans suggest that high DDT/DDE burdens may be associated with alterations in end points that are
controlled by hormonal function such as duration of lactation, maintenance of pregnancy, and fertility. High blood
levels of DDE during pregnancy have also been associated with increased odds of having pre-term infants and small-
for-gestational-age infants. Perinatal exposure of animals to DDT/DDE has caused alterations in the reproductive
organs and infertility.
DDT messes with hormones

DDT harms the liver, reproduction, and messes up hormones
Animal studies show that long-term exposure to moderate amounts of DDT (20–50 mg per kilogram [kg] of body
weight every day) may affect the liver. Tests in animals also suggest that short-term exposure to DDT and metabolites
in food may have a harmful effect on reproduction. In addition, we know that some breakdown products of DDT can
cause harmful effects on the adrenal gland. This gland is situated near the kidney and produces hormones (substances
produced by organs and released to the bloodstream to regulate the function of other organs).
DDT messes up hormones
In addition to being a neurotoxicant, DDT is capable of inducing marked alterations on reproduction and development
in animals. This is attributed to hormone-altering actions of DDT isomers and/or metabolites.
Messing with hormones=baaad stuff

The proper development of many systems and functions depends on the timely action of hormones, particularly sex
steroids; therefore, interfering with such actions can lead to a wide array of effects that may include altered metabolic,
sexual, immune, and neurobehavioral functions.
DDT disrupts endocrine

Peer reviewed Report by scientific researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
Dr Chen A, (postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the U.S. National Institutes of
Health) and Rogan W.J. (a senior investigator in the Epidemiology Branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, one of the U.S. National Institutes of Health) August 2003 “Nonmalarial Infant Deaths and DDT Use for Malaria
Control Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2003 9(8): 960-964.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0082.htm
DDT was originally banned because of ecological effects, such as eggshell thinning, and accumulation in the
environment and organisms, including human beings. Although acute toxic effects are scarce, toxicological evidence
shows endocrine-disrupting properties
Definition of endocrine
Nicole Evans (a medical student, less than 6 months away from MD) “Is altering fat hormones an effective way to treat
obesity?” Jan 08, 2010 http://www.helium.com/items/1705614-endocrine-hormones-weight-gain-weight-loss
The endocrine system is comprised of several glands which direct activities within the body by releasing chemical
messengers, called hormones, into the bloodstream. The target cells for each hormone in the body require the presence
of that specific hormone in order to carry out their own functions.
Definition of endocrine
The American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endocrine,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endocrine+gland, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endocrine+system
Endocrine: Of or relating to endocrine glands or the hormones secreted by them.
Endocrine gland: A gland that secretes hormones directly into the blood. These glands make up the endocrine system
Endocrine system: The endocrine system chemically controls the various functions of cells, tissues, and organs through
the secretion of hormones.
Scientific studies show that DDT has subtle health effects that over time can threaten the survival of
the human race. (Note: context is specifically speaking of DDT)
WWF (world wide fund for Nature) study report on DDT JUNE 1998 (Same Credentials as below)
Recent scientific literature offers compelling evidence that there are more subtle effects than the direct acute or
carcinogenic effects seen with exposure to pesticides. These subtle perturbations to neural, endocrine, and
development pathways are conceptually different and can have far-reaching implications for health and survival.
Problems from DDT can lead to Population crashes which threaten everyone
(Cross apply under Bio diversity harms of DDT)
Alterations to breeding and parental behaviors, feminization of males, diminished fertility, developmental problems,
depressed immune function, compromised neural function, and changes in social behaviors are just some of the
observed effects of endocrine disruption. In some species, exposure to DDT and other POPs has resulted in population
instability or crashes. The occurrence of any such changes across a population of any species, including humans,
raises serious concerns.
DDT increases preterm birth and decreases lactation

DDT Decreases duration of lactation (the time babies can nurse)
Two birth cohort studies on DDE level in breast milk and duration of lactation both showed a negative relationship
between DDE level and breast-feeding duration, whether in North Carolina or Mexico Figure 1 shows similar trends
in the decrease of duration of lactation from both of these geographic sites. With a breast milk p,p'-DDE level of 5.0–
7.5 mg/kg (fat basis), the median duration of breast-feeding is expected to be 3–4 months, down 40% to 50%, as
compared with 7–8 months if p,p'-DDE level falls into the 0–2.5 mg/kg category.
Pooled analysis of data from 17 African countries from the World Fertility Surveys and Demographic and Health
Surveys (DHS) in late 1970s and 1980s, when DDT was not used in most of Africa, showed that the mean duration of
breast-feeding was 18.1 months (first quartile 12.0 months, median 18.8 months, and third quartile 23.7 months)
Another DHS dataset indicated the median breast-feeding duration in Africa from 1986 to 1990 was 19.3 months
Thus, if we assume the proportional decrease in duration of lactation attributable to high DDE concentration in milk
fat in Africa is similar to that seen in North America, where we observed 40% shorter duration of lactation in women
with approximately 6 mg/kg compared to women with approximately 0 mg/kg, and the result of spraying is to
increase median DDE in milk fat from 0.4–0.6 mg/kg to 5–8 mg/kg (see above), the median expected duration of
breast-feeding in areas with routine DDT application for malaria control should be approximately 11–12 months.
Decreased duration of lactation leads to an increase in death

Shorter duration of lactation increases the risk for infant and childhood deaths in both industrialized and developing
countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a Mantel-Haenszel pooled analysis to review the effect
of breast-feeding on infant and child death rates. The analysis identified breast-feeding as a strong protective factor
against infant death, especially that caused by infectious illnesses such as diarrhea and acute lower respiratory tract
infection. Breast-feeding was most protective in younger infants; nevertheless, it was still protective at 9 to 11 months
after birth. If the median duration of lactation were shortened from 19 months to 11–12 months because of high
concentrations of DDE, we would expect the proportion of children weaned before 12 months of life to increase from
~25% to 50%. In Africa, where prolonged breast-feeding is the norm, the risk of not being breast-fed continues into
the second year of life, with ORs ranging from 8 in Ghana to 2 in Senegal. (Death after 1 year of age is no longer
considered an infant death, but ORs should not change abruptly between 12 and 19 months of age). In the WHO
analyses, the ORs for breast-feeding longer >1 year all were from Africa, and the ORs for breast-feeding <1 year
were from Asia or South America. To estimate the effect of decreasing from a median duration of 19 months in Africa
to 11 months, we used the most stable African estimate, from Senegal, which is 2.9 at 19 months, and compared it to
the pooled estimate from Asia and South America at 11 months, which is 1.4. Thus, if we assume the overall RR of
infant death from this degree of DDT-induced shortened lactation to be approximately 2.0, shortened lactation would
result in a 20% (=((p2*RR+1-p2)-(p1*RR+1-p1))/(p1*RR+1-p1), p1=25%, p2=50%, RR=2) increase in infant mortality
caused by infectious diseases.
DDT significantly increases pre-term births enough to offset any benefit from DDT use
Peer reviewed study by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Walter J Rogan, Aimin Chen,
“Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1- trichloroethane (DDT)” Lancet 2005;
http://www.panna.org/ddt/health/archive
Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent
research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm
birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria.
Deaths from pre-term births and decreased lactation could offset any benefit from DDT use
If continuous DDT spraying does cause increased preterm births and shortened breastfeeding duration, infant deaths
will occur, perhaps to the same extent as the deaths spraying would potentially prevent. Mothers would also carry a
body burden of DDT, and even if they were to leave the malaria-protected house, they would still have raised risk of
preterm birth and early weaning. Other risks, such as neurological and reproductive effects in spraying staff, might
also apply.
DDT causes as many deaths in infants as it might possibly save by completely stopping malaria.
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.
DDT Degrades the Immune system

Over time DDT degrades immune systems
Experimental evidence in mice, rats, rabbits, and goats clearly shows that DDT and the synthetic pyrethroids
cypermethrin, deltamethrin, and permethrin can lower antibody production, lymphocyte proliferation, phagocytosis rates,
and white blood cell counts, any of which increases the time it takes to respond to infections. Some of these effects
are transgenerational and mediated by hormones in the fetal development process.
Impact: Degrading the immune system has serious problems for the young and elderly
However, the direct consequences of immune suppression – increased frequency of infection and cancer – raise
serious health concerns.
General lists of DDT health Harms

DDT harms Biodiversity and humans
In particular, WWF has played a leading role globally in highlighting the hazards to biodiversity and human health
from hormone-disrupting chemicals (“endocrine disruptors”). These chemicals, many of which are pesticides
(including DDT), block, mimic or otherwise interfere with naturally produced chemical messengers in the body which
control how organisms develop and function. They are suspected of being responsible for serious developmental,
immunological, behavioral, and reproductive problems. First found in wildlife populations, and also well-documented
in laboratory studies, evidence is growing that such health impacts occur in humans as well. Exposure to very small
amounts – in the parts per trillion range – of an endocrine-disrupting chemical at an important stage in fetal or infant
development can be more harmful than heavier doses later on.
DDT leads to irreparable damage in humans and animals

WWF (world wide fund for Nature) Someshwar Singh (Director of Communications at Green Cross International, based in
Geneva, Switzerland. He has over 25 years of media related experience Masters in Economics from the Delhi School of
Economics worked for the daily Financial Express, part of India's largest newspaper) president is Yolanda Kakabadse (The
former Ecuadorian Minister of Environment) President Emeritus is HRH (The Duke of Edinburgh.)
June 30, 1998 “Three Decades After Silent Spring, DDT Still Menacing the Environment”
http://www.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?1833/Three-Decades-After-Silent-Spring-DDT-Still-Menacing-the-
Environment
A report released today by WWF, 'Resolving the DDT Dilemma,' notes that DDT is linked to irreparable harm in
animals and humans such as cancer, reduced lactation, and reproductive problems. About 35,000 metric tons of DDT
are produced each year in at least five countries and it is legally imported and used in dozens, including Mexico.
Because DDT can travel long distances and accumulate in the body, millions of humans and animals worldwide have
buildups of the chemical in their tissue, even though it may have been produced on another continent. WWF-
sponsored research, for example, has found that black-footed albatrosses on Midway Island -- 3,100 miles from Los
Angeles and 2,400 miles from Tokyo -- have high levels of DDT, as well as PCBs and dioxins. Further studies have
linked DDT to feminization and altered sex-ratios of gulls, and eggshell thinning in birds of prey.
Scientific research shows many health problems from DDT

Pesticide Action Network International 30 April 2007 “Preventing malaria, promoting health: Supporting safe and effective
strategies without DDT” http://www.panna.org/files/panDdtMalaria.pdf Abou Thiam, (PAN Africa. Professor, Environmental
Sciences Institute, University Cheikh Anta Dop Dakar) Elsa Nivia, (PAN Latin America. Agronomist with a degree in Biology
and Chemistry and a post graduate degree in vegetable production with emphasis in phyto-improvement. Teacher on
environmental and social impacts of Agrochemicals at the Santa Rosa University, Colombia. She was the director of project
“Reduction in the Use of Pesticides and Promotion of Agro-Ecological Alternatives” in Colombia, between 1996 -1999, and also
project evaluator for the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture between 2000-2004. She is a member of the Colombian Society for
Soil Sciences and Entomology for the production and improvement of crops.) Carina Weber, (executive director of PAN Europe,
no additional credentials available) Monica Moore (PAN North America. M.S.in Environmental Science Policy and Management
from University of California, Berkeley. Monica has been engaged with pesticide issues since 1980, including working with NGO
coalitions in Brazil, staffing the Food First Pesticide Project, and co-founding PAN North America in 1984. She serves as an
advisor and/or board member to many local, national and international organizations, and is active in consultations on
sustainable agriculture, environmental health, preservation of biodiversity and genetic resources.)
Sarojeni Rengam, (executive director of PAN Asia and the Pacific, no additional credentials available)
Scientific research shows that low-level DDT exposure carries elevated risks of adverse chronic health impacts.
Studies have identified evidence of human reproductive disorders associated with exposure to DDT and its more
harmful break-down chemical dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE). These include:
• higher incidence of undescended testes5
• poor sperm quality6
• premature delivery and reduced infant birth weight7
• miscarriage8
• reduced breast milk production9
• neurological effects, including developmental delays among babies and toddlers exposed to DDT in the womb10
• elevated risk of breast cancer (while evidence of a link between DDT exposure and breast cancer is ambiguous, the weight of
the evidence indicates increased risk) 11
• other cancers (the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists DDT as a possible human carcinogen)12
• nervous system impacts due to occupational exposure to DDT13
• liver impacts due to occupational exposure to DDT14
5. Longnecker, MP, MA Klebanoff, JW Brock, H Zhou, KA Gray, LL Needham and AJ Wilcox. Maternal serum level of 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis (p-
chlorophenyl) ethylene and risk of cryptorchidism, hypospadias, and polythelia among male offspring. American Journal of Epidemiology Vol.
155, No. 4 : 313-322.
6. Aneck-Hahn N.H., Schulenburg G. W., Bornman M. S., Farias P., and de Jager C., Impaired semen quality associated with environmental
DDT exposure in young men living in a malaria area in the Limpopo Province, South Africa, Journal of Andrology 2006,
DOI:10.2164/jandrol.106.001701; and Hauser R., Altshul L., Chen Z., Ryan L., Overstreet J., Schiff I., and Christiani D.C., Environmental
Organochlorines and Semen Quality: results of a pilot study, Environ Health Perspect. 2002 March; 110(3): 229–233.
7. Longnecker, M. P., M. A. Klebanoff, H. Zhou, J. W. Brock. Association between maternal serum concentration of the DDT metabolite DDE
and pre-term and small-for-gestational-age babies at birth. The Lancet 2001; 358: 110-114.
8. Altshul, L., C. Chen, L. Fu, W.Guang, A. Huang , S. Korrick, M. Perry,S. A. Venners, X. Wang, and X. Xu. Preconception Serum DDT and
Pregnancy Loss: A Prospective Study Using a Biomarker of Pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access. August 2005. Vol.
162, No. 8.
9. Rogan, W. J.; Gladen, B. C.; McKinney, J. D.; Carreras, N.; Hardy, P.; Thullen, J.; Tingelstad, J., and Tully, M. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene (DDE) in human milk: Effects on growth, morbidity, and duration of lactation. American Journal
of Public Health. 1987; 77(10):1294-1297; and Gladen, B. C. and Rogan, W. J. DDE and shortened duration of lactation in a northern
Mexican town. American Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85(4):504-508.
10. Eskenazi, B., Marks A. R., Bradman A., Fenster L., Johnson C., Barr D. B. and Jewell N. P. In Utero Exposure to
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and Neurodevelopment Among Young Mexican
American Children, Pediatrics, 2006;118;233-241.
11. Dees C, Askari M, Foster JS, Ahamed S, Wimalasena J. 1997. DDT mimics estradiol stimulation of breast cancer cells to enter the cell
cycle. Mol Carcinog 18(2):107-14; and Li JY, Wu DS, Yang F, Zeng HY, Lei FM, Zhou WD, Li H, Tao P. 2006a. [Study on serum
organochlorines pesticides (DDTs) level, CYP1A1 genetic polymorphism and risk of breast cancer: a case control study.] [English abstract -
article in Chinese]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 27(3):217-22; and Schecter A, Toniolo P, Dai LC, Thuy LT, Wolff MS. 1997. Blood
levels of DDT and breast cancer risk among women living in the north of Vietnam. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 33(4):453–456; and van’t
Veer P, Lobbezoo IE, Marin-Moreno JM, Guallar E, Gomez-Aracena J, Kardinaal AFM, Kohlmeier L, Martin BC, Strain JJ, Thamm M, van
Zoonen P, Baumann BA, Huttunen JK, Kok FJ. 1997. DDT (dicophane) and postmenopausal breast cancer in Europe: case-control study. Br
Med J 315:81-85; and Zheng T, Holford TR, Mayne ST, Ward B, Carter D, Owens PH, Dubrow R, Zahm SH, Boyle P, Archibeque S, Tessari J.
1999a. DDE and DDT in breast adipose tissue and risk of female breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 150(5):453–458.
12. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). DDT and Associated Compounds (Group 2B)- Summaries & Evaluations, Vol.: 53
(1991) (p. 179), http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol53/04-ddt.html
13. van Wendel de Joode B, Wesseling C, Kromhout H, Monge P, Garcia M, Mergler D. Chronic nervous system effects of long-term
occupational exposure to DDT. Lancet 2001 Mar 31; 357(9261): 1014-16.
14. Bouwman, H.; Cooppan, R. M.; Botha, M. J., and Becker, P. J. Serum levels of DDT and liver function of malaria control personnel. S Afr
Med J. 1991; 79(6):326-329. ISSN: 0038-2469.
DDT causes cancer, premature birth, and other health problems

Chronic low dose DDT exposure has been shown to be associated with premature birth and low birthweight in babies
who were exposed before birth, and with decreased duration of milk supply in nursing mothers. Most of what we
know about DDT's toxicity to humans (as with many chemicals) is derived from laboratory-animal studies, which
have demonstrated that DDT is likely to cause cancers and other health problems.
DDT has many problems, it harms health, builds mosquito resistance, creates disposal problems,
accumulates in the food chain, and harms communities where they are produced
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 neurodevelopmental 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.
DDT is a threat to human health, we must use alternatives.

The 15 environmental health experts, who reviewed almost 500 health studies, concluded that DDT "should be used
with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available."
We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health
risks," said Tiaan de Jager, a member of the panel who is a professor at the School of Health Systems & Public Health
at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should
be phased out without putting people at risk." The scientists reported that DDT may have a variety of human health
effects, including reduced fertility, genital birth defects, breast cancer, diabetes and damage to developing brains. Its
metabolite, DDE, can block male hormones. "Based on recent studies, we conclude that humans are exposed to DDT
and DDE, that indoor residual spraying can result in substantial exposure and that DDT may pose a risk for human
populations," the scientists wrote in their consensus statement, published online today in the journal Environmental
Health Perspectives. "We are concerned about the health of children and adults given the persistence of DDT and its
active metabolites in the environment and in the body, and we are particularly concerned about the potential effects of
continued DDT use on future generations."
DDT accumulates
DDT Accumulates in the human body and it gets passed down to children so over time the
concentration in descendents will increase.
Peer reviewed Study by 9 scientific researchers from the Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medical
and Pharmaceutical Science, and the National Institute for Occupational Health and Poison Control, Chinese Center
for Disease Control and Prevention 2008:
Wang Yan-rang (Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Ming Zhang (Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention), Qian Wang (Tianjin Institute of Medical and Pharmaceutical Science), Yang De-yi (Tianjin Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention), L Chao-lin (National Institute for Occupational Health and Poison Control, Chinese Center for Disease
Control and Prevention), Jing Liu (Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Li Jian-guo (Tianjin Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention), Hao Li (Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Yang Xue-ying (Tianjin Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention), Science of the total environment 2008 “Exposure of mother-child and postpartum woman-
infant pairs to DDT and its metabolites in Tianjin, China” http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20361982
To evaluate levels of DDT and its potential effects on women and children's health in a Chinese pesticide-exposed
area, we recruited 50 pairs of mother-child and 50 postpartum women, and determined the levels of total DDT and its four
main metabolites (p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDT) in venous blood, breast milk and umbilical blood cord by
gas chromatography. Accordingly, data on reproductive outcomes of mothers and postpartum women and healthy
status of children and infants were gathered through a questionnaire and medical examinations. Furthermore, we also
assayed the DDT levels of some environmental samples (soil, food, milk, et al.). The levels of DDT in children's blood were
higher than that in the women's.
DDT accumulates, if we let it exist for too long there will be problems
Even though levels of DDT and its metabolites in the air and water are at relatively low concentrations, they cycle
through the food web for decades and the ongoing accumulation in wildlife and human populations is cause for
caution.
Argument Turns and Responses

Health effects of DDT spraying are not being monitored in Africa
Brenda Eskenazi, a University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health professor and lead author of the
consensus statement, is concerned because the health of people inside the homes is not being monitored.
AT: “WHO says DDT is safe” WHO didn’t take into account newer information
WHO’s scientific experts appear to have focused largely on what might be called traditional health endpoints – cancer
and acute toxicity. There has been little, if any, attention to the new science on transgenerational impacts of DDT and
other pesticides. Since WHO’s last significant review of DDT in a public health context occurred in 1993, and most of
the scientific literature on the impacts of these hormone-disrupting chemicals on reproductive, neural, immune, and
behavioral outcomes post-dates this review, this is not surprising. However, there is now a compelling, science-based
case for the re-examination of DDT
AT: “DDT needed to fight West Nile Virus”

No pesticide will completely stop West Nile virus. Unlike malaria, whose parasite only lives in mosquitoes and
humans, the West Nile virus lives mainly in bird species, which carry the virus with them as they migrate. For that
reason, it is far more complicated to control the West Nile virus, particularly because there is no way to treat the
disease in birds. While a public health program involving human diagnosis, case tracking, treatment and mosquito
control was able to essentially eradicate malaria in this country, more-aggressive mosquito-control measures (such as
use of DDT) will not prove effective for long-term control of West Nile because birds will continue to spread the
disease. A vaccine, if it can be developed, will be more effective in preventing human disease, and will avoid
widespread ecological damage. Not only would aerial spraying of DDT be ineffective in limiting spread of the West
Nile virus, but it would also harm still more birds beyond the massive numbers that have died from the West Nile
virus, and would also expose a new generation of humans to this bio-accumulating toxin.
AT: “American studies say there is no sig. health risk” American DDT use/effects=/=African DDT
use/effects DDT will have much worse effects in Africa
In the United States, beginning in the1940s, large volumes of DDT were sprayed outdoors to kill mosquitoes and
pests on crops. It was banned in 1972, after it built up in food chains, nearly wiping out bald eagles, pelicans and other
birds. Today's use differs greatly. In Africa, it is sprayed in much smaller quantities but people are directly exposed
because it is sprayed on walls inside homes and other buildings. Many health studies have been conducted in the
United States, but on people who carry small traces of DDT in their bodies, not the high levels found in people in
Africa. "DDT is now used in countries where many of the people are malnourished, extremely poor and possibly
suffering from immune-compromising diseases such as AIDS, which may increase their susceptibility to chemical
exposures," said panel member Jonathan Chevrier, a University of California at Berkeley post-doctoral researcher in
epidemiology and in environmental health sciences.
Misc Harms
When DDT is allowed for any use it gets illegally used in the Agricultural sector
When DDT is allowed for any use it gets illegally used in the Agricultural sector and makes
mosquitoes resistant
2008 “Reliance on DDT is no solution” http://www.panna.org/ddt/reliance
Often DDT intended for indoor spraying to control mosquitoes is diverted to illegal agricultural use, increasing the
danger for human exposure and hastening the development of resistant mosquito populations
When DDT is allowed for any use it gets illegally used in the Agricultural sector contaminating the
food supply and disrupting international trade.
Although DDT is supposed to be tightly controlled by Ministries of Health, it is often illegally diverted to agriculture,
directly contaminating food. This has been reported or is suspected in many countries, including Mexico, Belize,
Ecuador, India, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Kenya, and Madagascar. The prohibition of DDT for agricultural use is
virtually universal, and the agribusiness sector in some developing countries is pressing for a complete phase out
because DDT residues are still causing shipments of agricultural commodities to be rejected by importing countries.
DDT production plants poisons people that live near them

New demands for DDT poisons poor communities that live near the production plants
strategies without DDT” http://www.panna.org/files/panDdtMalaria.pdf
Abou Thiam, (PAN Africa. Professor, Environmental Sciences Institute, University Cheikh Anta Dop Dakar)
Elsa Nivia, (PAN Latin America. Agronomist with a degree in Biology and Chemistry and a post graduate degree in vegetable
production with emphasis in phyto-improvement. Teacher on environmental and social impacts of Agrochemicals at the Santa
Rosa University, Colombia. She was the director of project “Reduction in the Use of Pesticides and Promotion of Agro-
Ecological Alternatives” in Colombia, between 1996 -1999, and also project evaluator for the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture
between 2000-2004. She is a member of the Colombian Society for Soil Sciences and Entomology for the production and
improvement of crops.) Carina Weber, (executive director of PAN Europe, no additional credentials available)
Monica Moore (PAN North America. M.S.in Environmental Science Policy and Management from University of California,
New demands for DDT use for malaria control also increase the burden on the communities
living near production plants. A DDT factory in the Eloor-Edayar region in India has a long
record of contaminating the environment, including rivers. The local community is now
protesting their poisoning as a result of emissions from this factory.21
21. Suchitra, M. Unchecked pollution on the Periyar. India Together. March 9, 2007. http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/mar/env-periyar.htm;
and The Hindu, Greenpeace pulls up Hindustan Insecticides for DDT pollution, Business Line, December 17, 2003.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/12/17/stories/2003121701481700.htm
DDT harms animals and Bio-Diversity

General: DDT harms bio diversity
We must stop both malaria and DDT which harms biodiversity
Environment
"DDT is the poster child for long-range persistent chemicals because even though it was banned decades ago in many
countries, it can still be found in high concentrations across the globe," said Clifton Curtis, Director, WWF-US Global
Toxics Program. "As our report shows, it is possible to completely ban DDT and work to eradicate malaria in ways
that protect the environment and human health."
"The dilemma is that both malaria and DDT pose a threat to human health. The pesticides used to fight malaria are
also harming biodiversity," said Julia Langer, Director, Wildlife Toxicology Program, WWF-Canada. "There's no
room for slippage when malaria kills four children every minute. The task ahead is to eliminate both an ultra-nasty
disease like malaria and an ultra-nasty chemical like DDT in a way that protects both human health and the
environment."
DDT accumulates in animals and has catastrophic results for many species (destroys Bio diversity)
Judith Weis (Professor of Biological Sciences at Rutgers University, Newark Campus. She received her bachelor’s degree
from Cornell University, and MS and PhD from New York University. She served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the
University. She was a Congressional Science Fellow with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. She served for
two years as a Program Director at the National Science Foundation. Her research focuses on estuarine ecology and
ecotoxicology, and she has published over 150 refereed papers, focusing mainly on stresses in the estuarine environment, and
their effects on organisms, populations and communities. She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), and has served on numerous advisory committees for the U.S. EPA. She has been a member of the Marine Board
of the National Research Council, and serves on the National Sea Grant Review Panel of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). She has been on the Boards of Directors of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC), and the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). She was the Chair of the Biology Section of American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2000, and was the President of American Institute of Biological Sciences
(AIBS) in 2001. and Cutler J. Cleveland (Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment at Boston University,
Dr. Cleveland holds a B.S. in Ecology from Cornell University, a M.S. in Marine Science from Louisiana State University, and a
Ph. D. in Geography from the University of Illinois. He has joint appointments in the Center for Energy and Environmental
Studies and the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer Range Future. He also is a Senior Fellow at the National Council for
Science and the Environment in Washington D.C. he is a member of the American Statistical Association’s Committee on Energy
Statistics, an advisory group to the Department of Energy. He is the recipient of the Adelman-Frankel Award from the United
States Association of Energy Economics for “unique and innovative contributions to the field of energy economics.” Dr.
Cleveland is Chairman of the Environmental Information Coalition, the governing body of the Earth Portal. He has won
publication awards from the International Association of Energy Economics, the American Library Association, and the National
Wildlife Federation. He has won teaching awards from the University of Illinois and the Honor’s Program in the College of Arts
and Sciences of Boston University.) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (Content source); 2008. "DDT." In:
Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (credentials above). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth October 10,
2006; Last revised September 3, 2008; Retrieved February 10, 2010]. <http://www.eoearth.org/article/DDT>
DDT's effects are not specific solely for insects. While it kills flies and mosquitoes, it also kills crabs and other
crustaceans, and accumulates in tissues of all marsh animals. DDT acts on the nervous system, causing nervousness and
hyperactivity. DDT and its metabolite DDE alter hormones, that affect calcium metabolism and can impact
reproduction and development of exposed animals. Birds were major victims of the chemicals' effects. They
experience reproductive failure as their eggs lacked sufficient calcium, were extremely thin, and shells broke when sat
upon by the nesting adult birds. DDT and its metabolites accumulated to the greatest extent in raptors (that is,
carnivorous birds that hunt and kill other animals), birds that eat carrion (that is, dead animals) and fish-eating birds.
There were drastic declines in populations of these birds that feed at the tops of food chains. Many carnivorous birds
(for example, bald eagles, ospreys, and pelicans) were on the brink of extinction before action was taken at the federal
level to ban the use of DDT
DDT harms humans and Bio-diversity

What has not been factored into the equations is the unacceptably high hazard DDT poses to global biodiversity and
human health, especially since reasonable alternatives exist. Since the last major scientific review of DDT by the
World Health Organization in the early 1990s, evidence has grown that elevated concentrations of DDE, a breakdown
product of DDT, are associated with reduced lactation by human mothers. Research in Mexico and elsewhere has
revealed measured concentrations of DDE in humans that exceed health authorities’ guidelines for acceptable
exposure. In addition to the widely recognized association of DDE with eggshell thinning in birds of prey, there is
growing evidence linking DDT and other persistent aromatic hydrocarbons (including PCBs and dioxins) to
reproductive and immunotoxic effects in wildlife. For example, DDT and these other chemicals have been linked to
feminization and altered sex-ratios of gull populations off the California coast and the U.S./Canadian Great Lakes.
These effects are the result of the chemicals’ disruption of sex hormones and other chemical messenger systems in
these organisms.
The ban on DDT saved many species from extinction, and we have done well without it (we found
alternatives and there was no malaria resurgence)
Since the nationwide ban took effect, there has been a gradual decline in DDT levels in humans and in wildlife. There
has been no resurgence of malaria or any of the other diseases that DDT was used to fight in the United States.
Moreover, farmers have found effective alternative means to control insect pests. The DDT ban is one of the very few
actions directly responsible for the recovery of species once in danger of extinction, including the peregrine falcon,
the bald eagle and the brown pelican. It also has clearly helped other bird species that were not yet endangered but
whose populations were declining due to DDT. As Russell Train, chairman emeritus of the World Wildlife Fund put
it, "The banning of DDT was one of the most important legal victories ever won for wildlife."
DDT kills harmless animals, so the EPA banned it since the damage from DDT is greater than its
possible benefits
Advameg (Advameg’s reference websites include NotableBiographies.com, MadeHow.com, NationsEncyclopedia.com,
FilmReference.com, ScienceClarified.com, FashionEncyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, ChemistryExplained.com and
more. They provide professionally written encyclopedic material) Science clarified “Science Clarified » Co-Di » DDT
(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)” Copyright © 2010 Advameg, Inc,. accessed February. 10 2010
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Co-Di/DDT-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.html
By the early 1970s, however, serious questions were being raised about the environmental effects of DDT. Reports
indicated that harmless insects (such as bees), fish, birds, and other animals were being killed or harmed as a result of
exposure to DDT. The pesticide was even blamed for the near-extinction of at least one bird, the peregrine falcon.
Convinced that the environmental damage from DDT was greater than the compound's possible benefits, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of DDT in the United States in 1973. Its use in certain other
countries has continued, however, since some nations face health and environmental problems quite different from
those of the United States.
DDT is toxic to fish, invertebrate species, and birds, and is probably responsible for cancer in humans
as well
DDT is highly toxic to fish and invertebrate species, somewhat toxic to birds, and relatively nonacutely toxic to
mammals. Moderately severe poisoning through ingestion can cause cardiac and respiratory failure, brain and nerve
damage and death. Other acute effects include liver damage and degeneration of the central nervous system. DDT also
kills sperm and lowers fertility and has been associated with premature births, absorbed fetuses and lower birth
weights. DDT has also caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidney, and immune system in
experimental animals. DDT is a known carcinogen in non-human mammalian species and is considered a probable
human carcinogen.
DDT hurts birds
Toxic
DDT is lethal to birds and fish and harms bird’s reproduction
(Note: Can be Cross Applied under toxic to fish)
Peer reviewed study by the U.S. Department of health and human services (see creds in human health section, authored
by 5 PHDs 2 master degrees, an MPH(masters of public health, highest medical degree available) and 2 research corporations)
Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry September 2002
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf
The 1972 EPA decision to ban DDT for most uses in the United States was significantly influenced by a
large body of scientific information documenting adverse effects to wildlife (EPA 1975). These observed
effects were severe, including the lethality of DDT to birds and fish and the DDE-induced reproductive
effects in birds, particularly eggshell thinning
We banned DDT because it almost wiped out several bird species

In the United States, beginning in the1940s, large volumes of DDT were sprayed outdoors to kill mosquitoes and
pests on crops. It was banned in 1972, after it built up in food chains, nearly wiping out bald eagles, pelicans and other
birds.
DDT is detrimental to bird populations

Journey North, an educational curriculum of The Annenberg foundation, Copyright © 1997-2010 (The Annenberg
Foundation is a private foundation established in 1989. It is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School at Radnor,
Pennsylvania founded in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg. The Annenberg Foundation exists to advance the public well-being
through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving this goal, the Foundation encourages the development of
more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge. Wallis Annenberg is the Chairman of the Board, President and CEO of the
Annenberg Foundation. She is the longest serving Trustee at the University of Southern California and has been honored by
numerous organizations such as the Americans for the Arts, the Shoah Foundation, the House Ear Institute and the California
African American Museum. Wallis serves on a number of Boards including the Museum of Modern Art in New York; the USC
Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education's Board of Councilors; the California Science Center; the
Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County; the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County). “DDT” http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/DDT.html
When DDT started being used, Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons were already becoming quite rare. The Bald Eagle
Act was passed in 1940, and most of the eagle shooting ended. People thought the eagles would quickly recover, but
they didn't. And by the 1950s, people were starting to notice something very ominous: virtually all the eagles people
were seeing were adults. Young eagles take 4 to 6 years to assume their adult plumage, so this meant that few baby
eagles had survived in at least 4 to 6 years. Some people started noticing dead songbirds in their yards after trucks
sprayed the air with DDT. A woman named Rachel Carson started researching the effects of pesticides on humans and
birds and wrote her famous book, Silent Spring, which was published in 1962. People realized the many problems
caused by insects, but most Americans also recognized how important birds are. They didn't want to lose backyard
songbirds. And when people found Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons dead, the carcasses showed dangerous levels of
DDT in their fatty tissue and gonads: their organs of reproduction. Birdwatchers and scientists noticed that eagles that
survived often didn't perform their mating rituals properly, and many were infertile. And ironically, Dutch elm disease
kept spreading despite heavy DDT use.
Reproductive
DDT harms bird populations
Widespread decline in some predatory and fish-eating bird populations first came to light in the 1960s because the
DDT metabolite, DDE, reduced the eggshell thickness of species such as peregrine falcons, brown pelicans, bald
eagles, and osprey. The thin-walled eggs were inadvertently crushed by roosting parents.
Several qualified studies show that DDT harms bird populations

Ronald Bailey (science journalist) January 7, 2004 “DDT, Eggshells, and Me: Cracking open the facts on birds and banned
pesticides”
The DDT/eggshell thinning bandwagon got really rolling with two scientific articles. The first study, "Decrease in
Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey," by British Nature Conservancy researcher D.A. Ratcliffe, was published in
Nature on July 8, 1967. Ratcliffe claimed that the incidence of broken eggs in nests of peregrine falcons,
sparrowhawks, and golden eagles had increased considerably since 1950. He compared eggshells collected before
1946 with eggshells collected afterward, and found that post-1946 peregrine falcon eggshells weighed 19 percent less;
sparrowhawks' weighed 24 percent less; and golden eagles' 8 percent less. Ratcliffe dismissed lack of food and
radioactive contamination as explanations for the thinning, but noted "some physiological change evidently followed
a widespread and pervasive environmental change around 1945-1947... For the species examined, frequency of egg-
breakage, scale of decrease in eggshell weight, subsequent status of breeding population, and exposure to persistent
organic pesticides are correlated. The possibility that these phenomena are links in a causal chain is being
investigated," he concluded.
Those British results were soon bolstered by the study "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in Raptorial
and Fish-Eating Birds," published in an October 1968 issue of Science, and authored by Daniel Anderson and Joseph
Hickey, both at the University of Wisconsin. "Catastrophic declines of three raptorial species in the United States
have been accompanied by decreases in eggshell thickness that began in 1947, and have amounted to 19 percent or
more, and were identical to phenomena found in Britain," they declared. The three species were peregrine falcons,
bald eagles, and ospreys. They claimed that the eggshell thinning coincided with the introduction of chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides like DDT, and concluded that these compounds were harming certain species of birds at the
tops of contaminated ecosystems.
Still, the researchers just had a correlation between DDT and eggshell thinning. So they did what good scientists should do—they
experimented. Joel Bitman at the U.S. Department of Agriculture fed Japanese quail a diet laced with DDT. His study, "DDT
Induces a Decrease in Eggshell Calcium," published in Nature on October 4, 1969, found that the quail dosed with DDT had
eggshells that were about 10 percent thinner than those of undosed quail. However, Bitman's findings were eventually overturned
because he had also fed his quail a low-calcium diet. When the quail were fed normal amounts of calcium, the thinning effect
disappeared. Studies published in Poultry Science found chicken eggs almost completely unaffected by high dosages of DDT.
It's not DDT per se that is thought to do the damage to eggshells, but a DDT metabolite known as DDE. Thus the
most persuasive feeding study refers to it: "DDE-induced Eggshell Thinning in the American kestrel: A Comparison
of the Field Situation and Laboratory Results." This groundbreaking study was published in the Journal of Applied
Ecology by Jeffrey Lincer in 1975.
Kestrels, commonly called sparrow hawks, are small falcons. Lincer noted that the "inverse correlation between DDE
in North American raptor eggs and eggshell thickness is clear but does not prove a causal relationship since other
chemicals or factors could be involved." So to find out what effect DDE might have, Lincer fed captive kestrels a
DDE-laced diet and then compared their eggs with those taken from the nests of wild kestrels. Lincer found that
dietary levels of three, six, and 10 parts per million (ppm) of DDE resulted in eggshells that were 14 percent, 17.4
percent, and 21.7 percent thinner respectively. "Despite the recent controversy, there can be little doubt now as to the
causal relationship between the global contaminant DDE and the observed eggshell thinning and the consequent
population declines in several birds of prey," concluded Lincer.
DDT causes egg shell thinning in lots of birds which reduces populations
Peer reviewed study by the U.S. Department of health and human services (see creds in human health section, authored
by 5 PHDs 2 master degrees, an MPH(masters of public health, highest medical degree available) and 2 research corporations)
Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry September 2002
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf
Numerous experimental studies have shown that dietary exposures to DDT/DDE/DDD are associated with eggshell
thinning and breakage in wild birds including the barn owl (Tyto alba) (Mendenhall et al. 1983), the American kestrel
(Porter and Wiemeyer 1969), the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchus) (Heath et al. 1969; Risebrough and Anderson 1975;
Vangilder and Peterle 1980), the black duck (Anas rubripes) (Longcore et al. 1971), the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix
japonica) (Kenney et al. 1972), the bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) (Wilson et al. 1973) and the the Ringed turtle doves
(Streptopelia risoria) (Haegele and Hudson 1973; Peakall 1970; Peakall et al. 1975). These experimental results have
verified that the field observations of eggshell thinning and reductions in wild raptor populations are associated with
releases of DDT.
DDT is toxic to birds, harms their reproduction and destroys their eggshells and embryos
The accumulation of DDT in many birds causes reproductive difficulties. Eggs have thinner shells that break easily,
and some eggs may not hatch at all.
DDT is toxic to birds, harms their reproduction and destroys their eggshells and embryos
Stuart M Bennett 2001 PiedPiper Northern Ltd. “DDT” http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th13(l).htm sources: World Health
Organisation. USA Environmental Protection Agency, Belstein, and Oregon University.
In birds, exposure to DDT occurs mainly through the food web through predation on aquatic and/or terrestrial species
having body burdens of DDT, such as fish, earthworms and other birds. There has been much concern over chronic
exposure of bird species to DDT and effects on reproduction, especially eggshell thinning and embryo deaths.
DDT destroys male female balance in bird populations with serious consequences
A more subtle but still worrisome effect was seen in the 1980s when scientists began finding evidence that DDT in
concentrations as low as 2 ppm could feminize male birds by developing female reproductive organs in male
embryos. Field studies of gull colonies in Lakes Michigan and Ontario found that 71 percent of male herring gulls
were significantly feminized. There was also a high incidence of female-female pairings in gulls normally known for
their long-lived monogamous, heterosexual pairings. In birds and other species, mating habits and sexual
differentiation are primarily the result of estrogen and androgen activity during fetal development. It is possible that
even very low concentrations of chemicals like DDT or DDE can influence their sexual maturation. These types of
effects can have serious consequences for bird populations.
DDT hurts fish

DDT is toxic and works it’s way up the food chain, destroying animals like fish
The toxicity of DDT was first noted in 1949 by the Fish and Wildlife Service in America, and following abuse by
crop sprayers, was eventually withdrawn in 1972 by the then Environmental Protection Agency.
As animals on the lower end of the food chain are eaten by those higher up, DDT becomes more and more
concentrated the higher you go. This continues until the primary predator is reached, who will then receive the highest
dose. DDT is highly persistent in the soil and can last from 2-15 years, not too bad some people might say, but when
you look at the half-life in an aquatic environment, this can be about 150 years, one half-life being that time to
degrade by 50%. DDT is highly acutely toxic to fish affecting membrane function and enzyme systems.
When DDT is sprayed it sticks to soil until it is carried to water by surface runoff (this is the link card
to harms that occur in aquatic ecosystems)
DDT, DDE, and DDD last in the soil for a very long time, potentially for hundreds of years. They stick strongly to
soil, and therefore generally remain in the surface layers of soil. Some soil particles with attached DDT, DDE, or
DDD may get into rivers and lakes through surface runoff. Only a very small amount, if any, appears to seep into the
ground and get into groundwater.
In surface waters, DDT will bind to particles in the water, settle, and be deposited in the sediment. DDT is taken up by
small organisms and fish in the water. It accumulates to high levels in fish and such marine mammals as seals and
whales. In these animals, its concentration can reach levels many thousands of times higher than in water. In these
animals, the highest levels of DDT are found in their adipose (or fat) tissue. DDT in soil can also be absorbed by some
plants and by the animals or people who eat those crops.
DDT is highly toxic to fishes and other useful aquatic life

DDT is very highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species. Reported 96-hour LC50s[lethal concentrations] 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. DDT is very highly toxic to fish species as well. Reported 96-hour
LC50s are less than 10 ug/L in rainbow trout (8.7 ug/L), northern pike (2.7 ug/L). 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. The reported bioconcentration factor for DDT
is 1,000 to 1,000,000 in various aquatic species, and bioaccumulation may occur in some species at very low
environmental concentrations. Bioaccumulation may also result in exposure to species which prey on fish or other
aquatic organisms (e.g., birds of prey).
DDT accumulates in fish and can drastically affect populations

Study by Wiktelius (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) and CA Edwards. “Organochlorine Insecticide
Residues in African Fauna”: 1971-1995. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 151: 1-37.
http://www.panna.org/ddt/health/archive
High DDT and dieldrin residues were reported from some species of African fish at levels that could potentially affect
their reproduction, have chronic toxic and behavioral effects, and even drastically affect populations
(Although this next piece of evidence is pretty old the source is highly qualified (probably better than the aff’s) and he is
talking about something that doesn’t change, the chemical nature of DDT, point this out to the judge. You can get a link to a
source defense by asking in CX “has the nature of DDT changed?”)
DDT has been shown to be lethal to fish and other beneficial life
“Possible Uses of DDT against Insect Pests Encountered in Sewage Treatment”(Paper of the Journal Series, New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, Department of Entomology. Presented at 31st Annual Meeting, New Jersey
Sewage Works Association. Trenton, March 20-22, 1946.) Elton J. Hansens (Deceased, Medical entomologist, research
professor in entomology at Rutgers (The State University of NJ), Ph.D. from Rutgers, distinguished professor in the College
of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Researcher at International Health Center Laboratories of the Rockefeller
Foundation, Associate in Agriculture New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.) Sewage Works Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May,
1947), pp. 513-517 Published by Water Environment Federation http://www.jstor.org/stable/25030487 Accessed: 08/02/2010
We therefore must determine not only that a certain quantity of DDT will kill mosquito larvae but also that that
dosage will not kill fish or other beneficial life. A great deal of work has been done along these lines. We now know
that more than half a pound of DDT per acre applied in oil is dangerous to fish. Considerable work along this line has
been done in New Jersey. In 1945 Ginsburg showed that DDT was highly toxic to goldfish in the laboratory and that it
also killed black bass, catfish, and minnows in the field. It was shown that as an emulsion DDT killed goldfish at a
dilution of one to 2,500,000. It was also demonstrated that DDT is most toxic to fish when applied in colloidal
dispersion, less toxic as an oil emulsion and least toxic as a dust. Other tests showed that DDT applied in oil against
pest mosquitoes in quantities sufficient to obtain residual toxicity would also kill practically all other aquatic insects.
In some cases snakes and frogs have also been killed. Eide et al (1945) have obtained some what similar toxicity data.
(Studies referred to: Tests Conducted by the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine to Appraise the Usefulness of DDT as
an Insecticide. Jour. Econ. Ent, 37, 125-159 (1944).
Eide, P. M., C. C. Deonier and E. W. Burrell, "The Toxicity of DDT to Certain Forms of Aquatic Life." Journal of Economics and
Entomology, 38, 492-493 (1945).
Ginsburg, J. M., "Toxicity of DDT to Fish." Journal of Economics and Entomology, 38, 274-475 (1945).)
DDT spraying for mosquitoes kills fish

professor in entomology at Rutgers (The State University of NJ), Ph.D. from Rutgers, distinguished professor in the College
of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Researcher at International Health Center Laboratories of the Rockefeller
Foundation, Associate in Agriculture New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.) Sewage Works Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May,
1947), pp. 513-517 Published by Water Environment Federation http://www.jstor.org/stable/25030487 Accessed: 08/02/2010
To get a residual toxicity from the use of DDT in larval mosquito control it has been necessary to use 1 per cent DDT
in mosquito oil. Such an application results in a deposit of 2 to 5 lb. of DDT per acre, an amount at least four times as
great as the Vo lb. per acre which kills fish. It is therefore evident that the material cannot be used where fish are
present
Fish Rock
Fish provide jobs for 45 million Africans
The Global Fish Alliance (A partnership between USAID, Darden, AED and other organizations to promote sustainable
fisheries management and biodiversity conservation) August 10 2009 “The importance of capture fisheries in food security in
Africa”http://globalfishalliance.com/pdfs/01_Africa_G-FISH_Food_Security_8-10-09.pdf
Up to 45 million Africans are dependent upon fish for their way of life. About 50% of those employed in the fisheries
sector are estimated to be women, with 95% of fishers involved in small-scale fisheries. In many parts of Africa,
small-scale fisheries and related activities (trade, processing) provide income to rural communities where alternative
employment opportunities are scarce or even non-existent. In these situations small-scale fisheries, fish processing
and trade provide people with an important, and sometimes crucial, form of safety-net that helps protect them against
the effects of agricultural product price volatility, macro-economic crises, structural reforms, harvest failures,
political turmoil and other factors that threaten rural stability and food security.
Fish help fight HIV/AIDS

The Global Fish Alliance (A partnership between USAID, Darden, AED and other organizations to promote sustainable
Fish provide essential nutrition and protein for those infected. Fisheries products contain 12 of the 15 vitamins and
minerals most important for the health of HIV/AIDS affected persons
Fish are the main way to fight malnutrition

The Global Fish Alliance (A partnership including USAID, Darden, AED and other organizations to promote sustainable
About 60% of deaths in the under-five age group are attributed to malnutrition, with mineral, vitamin and protein
deficiencies standing out as the leading causes. In many parts of the continent, fish has been the main source of these
vital nutrients, especially among the poor.
Fish are important in fighting poverty

An analysis of the African Development Bank of 29 poverty reduction strategy plans revealed that fisheries play an
important role in poverty reduction in Africa
Fish are essential to food security in Africa

Fisheries are essential for food security, nutrition, and cultural diets throughout Africa, often serving as the staple
food. The proportion of dietary protein that comes from fish is extremely high in some countries, such as Senegal
(47%), Gambia (62%), Sierra Leone (63%), and Ghana (63%). In Africa, fish caught along the coasts and waterways
are often dried and sent inland throughout the continent.
Fish prevent starvation

For those who cannot afford to buy food---especially not meat---fish obtained through the households own efforts
(subsistence) is essential; it can make the difference between good and bad nutrition, between recovered health and
prolonged illness, or between food security and starvation.
DDT bio-accumulates in the food chain

DDT is toxic and works its way up the food chain destroying fish and birds.
The pesticide DDT was banned in the United States in 1972 because it contributed to the near extinction of birds,
including the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. DDT is a persistent chemical that becomes concentrated in animal
tissues, rising in concentration in animals that are higher in the food chain. It is particularly toxic to fish, aquatic
invertebrates and insects (including some that are beneficial).
DDT accumulates through biomagnification, the more you get the worse the odds are for you
Journey North, an educational curriculum of The Annenberg foundation, Copyright © 1997-2010 (The Annenberg
Foundation is a private foundation established in 1989. It is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School at Radnor,
Pennsylvania founded in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg. The Annenberg Foundation exists to advance the public well-being
through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving this goal, the Foundation encourages the development of
more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge. Wallis Annenberg is the Chairman of the Board, President and CEO of the
Annenberg Foundation. She is the longest serving Trustee at the University of Southern California and has been honored by
numerous organizations such as the Americans for the Arts, the Shoah Foundation, the House Ear Institute and the California
African American Museum. Wallis serves on a number of Boards including the Museum of Modern Art in New York; the USC
Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education's Board of Councilors; the California Science Center; the
Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County; the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County). “DDT” http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/DDT.html
DDT sprayed in yards, gardens, farm fields and mosquito swamps fell to earth. Rain didn't dissolve it, but it did wash
it down deep into the soil, and run-off carried it into lakes and streams. Worms feeding in the soil took it up in their
bodies. Small creatures in lakes and streams took it up in their bodies. When larger animals such as fish ate these
insects and worms, the DDT collected in their fatty tissue--this is called bioaccumulation. Fish, birds and mammals
don't break down DDT easily, and it doesn't come out with their urine or poop--it simply remains in their fat. The
more they ate, day after day after day, the more DDT collected. Which meant that the DDT was becoming more and
more concentrated in their bodies. This is called biomagnification. Chemicals like DDT are often measured in parts
per million. (To understand this, see our lesson on parts per million). In an estuary off Long Island Sound, Rachel
Carson learned that in the water the DDT measured only three parts per trillion (that's only 0.000003 ppm!). That was
so low that it didn't seem dangerous at all. But tiny animals called zooplankton ate it and it concentrated in their fatty
tissues thanks to bioaccumulation and biomagnification, and the DDT in their bodies measured 0.04 ppm. Still not so
bad. But the animals that ate the zooplankton, minnows, concentrated it even more, and the DDT in their bodies
measured 0.5 ppm. Larger fish concentrated the DDT even more, their bodies having 2.0 ppm. Finally, osprey that ate
these fish had the most concentrated levels of all, 25.0 ppm. No wonder osprey and eagles were disappearing!
DDT is toxic and works it’s way up the food chain, but the US ban stopped it
Since DDT is not soluble in water, it is not washed away by the rain, adding to its persistence in the environment. But
since DDT is lipid-soluble, it tends to concentrate in the body fat of animals. The following sequence of events shows
how DDT can become a problem for many animals in a food web. [They go on to say in the same context] Once
sprayed on the lake, DDT does not disappear very quickly. Instead, it is taken up by plants and animals that live in the
lake. Studies have shown that the concentration of DDT in the lake itself is only 0.002 parts per billion. But algae in
the lake have a concentration of 2.5 parts per million. Other members of the food web also accumulate DDT from the
organisms they eat. Fish that feed on the algae have DDT levels of 2 parts per million; tiger-fish and cormorants (both
of whom live on the algae-eating fish) have levels of 5 and 10 parts per million, respectively; and crocodiles (who eat
both tiger-fish and cormorants) have levels as high as 34 parts per million. Bans on the use of DDT in the United
States and some other nations have given ecosystems in those countries a chance to recover. Populations of peregrine
falcons, for example, have begun to stabilize and grow once again. Many other animal species are no longer at risk
from DDT.
Argument Turns and Responses
AT: “DDT won’t get into the environment because we only legalize it for indoor spraying” up to 82%
of DDT will find its way into the outdoor environment.
WWF (world wide fund for Nature) study report on DDT JUNE 1998 (same as below)
Between 400 to 550 grams (60 to 82%) of the total DDT applied is physically removed from the walls and transferred
outdoors. The model assumed that, because of its crystalline form, DDT would flake off the walls and onto surfaces,
and would ultimately be mopped or swept outdoors. Alternatively, the DDT could be removed from the walls by
washing and transferred to the outdoor environment via washwater, as surveys conducted by WWF in Mexico
indicate.
AT: “DDT harms animals but helps humans, Humans are more important” To regard the established
effects that DDT has on wildlife as a different problem than adverse effects on human health is
to create a false dichotomy:
To regard the established effects that DDT has on wildlife as a different problem than adverse effects on human health
is to create a false dichotomy. The weight of scientific evidence regarding the connection between wildlife health and
human health is growing. Adverse health impacts observed in wildlife and laboratory animals from concentrations of
DDT and other POPs are indicators of the potential human situation because biological processes of the endocrine,
immune, nervous, and reproductive systems are common to all animals.
Bio-D Rocks:
Biodiversity loss empirically causes conditions that threaten human survival – increased loss
threatens ecosystem collapse and humanity’s very existence. David Diner ’94
[JD Ohio State, Military Law Review, Winter, Lexis] (HEG)
Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is better than simplicity. As the current
mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs
within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of
individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized
by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are
more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist
stress... like a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist
collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which is cut anywhere breaks down as a
whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As
biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa,
and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly
perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new
extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's
wing, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Accepting biodiversity loss is like playing Russian Roulette…with humanity’s existence. Paul Warner
94
[American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences,
1994, p 177] [brackets in original] (HEG)
Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable
to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to
each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the
planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the
system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The
ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that
no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with
our collective future as the stakes.
Species Loss Threatens Planetary Survivability and Diversity

Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, PLAN B 2.0 – RESCUING A PLANET UNDER STRESS AND A
CIVILIZATION IN TROUBLE, 2006, p. 95
As various life forms disappear, they diminish the services provided by nature, such as pollination, seed dispersal,
insect control, and nutrient cycling. This loss of species is weakening the web of life, and if it continues it could tear
huge gaps in its fabric, leading to irreversible changes in the earth's ecosystem. Species of all kinds are threatened by
habitat destruction.
Species Loss Threatens Humans

ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH, May 23, 1999, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1256)
Whether we realize it or not, every one of us depends directly on the Earth's living systems -- the plants, animals,
fungi and micro-organisms that have made the air we breathe, the soil, the landscapes we enjoy each day. All of our
food comes directly or indirectly from plants, and more than half of it from just three members of the grass family:
corn, wheat and rice. The great majority of medicines also are derived from plants; many of the remainder from fungi
and bacteria. And almost all of the rest have been improved through knowledge gained about other naturally occurring
compounds, applied experimentally to the development of other drugs it continues.
DDT Fails
DDT Doesn’t repel Mosquitoes
How DDT works: DDT is supposed to kill mosquitoes, it doesn’t repel them.
professor in entomology at Rutgers (The State University of NJ), Ph.D. from Rutgers, distinguished professor in the College of
Agriculture and Environmental Science, Researcher at International Health Center Laboratories of the Rockefeller Foundation,
Associate in Agriculture New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.) Sewage Works Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May, 1947), pp.
513-517 Published by Water Environment Federation http://www.jstor.org/stable/25030487 Accessed: 08/02/2010
DDT is different from standard insecticides in one important respect? Its residual action. If a deposit of DDT is
properly applied it will continue killing insects which come in contact with it for as much as a year and in some cases
even longer. [He goes on in the same context to explain how DDT works] The material is both a contact and a
stomach poison. As a contact insecticide it affects the nervous system. Shortly after the insect rests on a treated
surface it becomes restless, movements become jerky, tremors develop and finally there is paralysis which ends in
death. This process is a slow one and death may come hours after the insect has received a lethal dose of the poison.
Consequently, the effects of the chemical often can be measured only by the absence of the insect rather than by the
presence of dead ones.
DDT doesn’t repel mosquitoes.

professor in entomology at Rutgers (The State University of NJ), Ph.D. from Rutgers, distinguished professor in the College of
Agriculture and Environmental Science, Researcher at International Health Center Laboratories of the Rockefeller Foundation,
Associate in Agriculture New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.) Sewage Works Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May, 1947), pp.
513-517 Published by Water Environment Federation http://www.jstor.org/stable/25030487 Accessed: 08/02/2010
In 1945 mosquito breeding was controlled in catch basins for 6 to 8 weeks by using 2% and 4 per cent DDT in No. 2
fuel oil applied at the rate of about V2 pint to each basin. The constant flushing of basins by the heavy rains in July and August
probably materially lessened the residual effect obtained. It is likely that in a drier season breeding would be prevented for a much
longer period. Adults were not repelled from such basins, for DDT is not a repellent.
Mosquitoes are resistant

Mosquitoes are getting so resistant that they aren’t even repelled
The US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Walter J Rogan, Aimin Chen, “Health risks and benefits of
bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1- trichloroethane (DDT)” Lancet 2005;
http://depts.washington.edu/molmed/courses/conj504/2007/session2/rogan_lancet2005.pdf
However, the effectiveness of DDT can be compromised by insecticide resistance and social resistance to DDT indoor
spray. Because of the irritating, excito-repellent nature of the DDT residue, some mosquitoes tend to leave before they have
absorbed a lethal dose, or tend to avoid entering the house or resting on the wall at all.131 By the end of Global Malaria
Eradication Campaign, some mosquito species had developed resistance to DDT, especially in India and Sri
Lanka.131 In 1968, high amounts of resistance to DDT in Anopheles gambia was reported in Upper Volta (now
Burkina Faso); shortly thereafter, DDT had no effect on mosquito mortality, biting frequency, or resting in houses in
trials undertaken in Togo and Senegal.131 (131 Bruce-Chwatt LJ. Lessons learned from applied field research activities in Africa
during the malaria eradication era. Bull World Health Organ 1984; 62 (suppl): 19–29.)
Mosquitoes are increasingly resistant to DDT

Prior to the bans on DDT in the U.S., Europe and other developed countries, mosquitoes were already becoming
increasingly resistant to DDT. As a result, mosquito control experts in those countries were already searching for
more effective alternative pesticides and other mosquito-control measures. Recent articles in Science magazine
document that mosquitoes throughout the developing world are also now increasingly resistant to DDT. Thus, its
effectiveness is limited, and its use will not accomplish public health goals
Mosquitoes are resistant to DDT

DDT enjoyed great success until the development of chemically-induced resistance by mosquitoes. Resistance
developed in insect populations because all of the insects exposed to DDT were not killed by the chemical. A few
resistant individuals remained, they bred, and their offspring proved more resistant to the effects of DDT—this is
evolution at work. In following applications, more DDT was sprayed. Eventually, the insects became so resistant that
it became impractical to try to control them with DDT. This necessitated substitutions with other chemicals,
DDT fails, mosquitoes are resistant

The WHO malaria eradication program of the 1950s and 1960s helped to control malaria in many places, but wiping
out malaria with DDT was an unrealistic goal. One of the many reasons for the failure of this ambitious effort was
resistance to DDT among malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Taking into account that resistance arose largely from
agricultural use and cross-resistance to pyrethroid insecticides, by 1972 19 species of mosquitoes were resistant to
DDT in Africa. Resistance will continue to be a problem.
Africans don’t want DDT

DDT use should be terminated for three reasons:
(Note: can be cross applied under other areas of DDT fails)
The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2001 Pirom Kamolratanakul, Piyarat Butraporn, Malinee
Prasittisuk, Chusak Prasittisuk, and Kaemthong Indaratna (Faculty of medicine, Chulalongkorn university, Bangkok, Thailand;
faculty of tropical medicine, Mahidol university, Bangkok, Thailand; world health organization regional office for south east
Asia, New Delhi, India; faculty of economics, Chulalongkorn university, Bangkok, Thailand; malaria division, ministry of public
health, Bangkok, Thailand) “Cost-effectiveness and sustainability of Lambdacyhalothrin-treated mosquito nets in comparison to
DDT spraying for malaria control in western Thailand” http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/65/4/279.pdf
We contend that administration of DDT for vector control operations in Thailand should be terminated for several
reasons: e.g., residual DDT spraying was not sufficient to interrupt the transmission of malaria. In addition, DDT
dirties houses and cannot cover migrant populations. Furthermore, the public’s increased concern with environmental
contamination and toxicity to humans and animals has led many countries to ban the use of DDT.
DDT has serious implementation problems.

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2001 Pirom kamolratanakul, piyarat butraporn, malinee
prasittisuk, chusak prasittisuk, and Kaemthong indaratna (Faculty of medicine, chulalongkorn university, bangkok, thailand;
faculty of tropical medicine, mahidol university, bangkok, Thailand; world health organization regional office for south east asia,
new dehli, india; faculty of economics, Chulalongkorn university, bangkok, thailand; malaria division, ministry of public health,
bangkok, Thailand) “Cost-effectiveness and sustainability of lambdacyhalothrintreated mosquito nets in comparison to ddt
spraying for malaria control in western thailand” http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/65/4/279.pdf
Control of malaria vectors by expensive conventional DDT spraying has encountered serious setbacks for 2 reasons: a
low level of acceptability by communities; and a failure for DDT to sufficiently interrupt malaria transmission in the
highly endemic areas. Therefore, establishing locally cost-effective malaria control measures for use by communities
as part of a primary health care strategy to replace DDT spraying would be of major public health significance
Empirics prove: locals don’t want DDT spraying, and will thwart US efforts to further DDT
The World (a newspaper) August 7, 2009 “DDT use provokes political battle in Uganda”
http://www.theworld.org/2009/08/07/ddt-use-provokes-political-battle-in-uganda/
With encouragement and financing from the United States, Uganda’s government sent out spray teams last year to the
swampy northern districts of Apac and Oyam. They wanted to see how this pilot project worked before taking DDT
nationwide. But what was intended as a campaign to protect the locals, the locals didn’t perceive that way.
Betty Okullu Okullu: “They came with their chemicals and they were asking us to open our house, that they want to
spray.” Betty Okullu is a second hand clothing merchant in Apac. Okullu: “I asked them, why do you want to spray my house?
But they did not explain. Then I refused. I rejected. I told them I am not ready for it, unless you explain to me and I
understand.” Okullu was far from the only person to be wary. Many farmers feared the DDT could ruin their
livelihoods. A lot of farmers here grew organic cotton and sold it – at a premium – to the international market. After
harvesting, they stored the crops in their homes – in the very same space where the DDT was to be sprayed.
Alex Fokkens is a Dutch organic cotton buyer.
He worried the spraying would mean he’d no longer be able to sell the cotton to his European customers.
Fokkens: “If they find out there are any traces of DDT, it would be sent back, and it would be a very big claim on us.”
So proponents of organic agriculture mounted a vocal campaign to thwart the government’s DDT plan. They took to
the airwaves. Journalist Ronald Odongo had some of the organic activists on his local radio show. He says they
warned about more than just economic harm.
[The article goes on in the same context to say]
Many villagers didn’t buy what the government was saying. They considered DDT an unacceptable risk, says radio
journalist Ronald Odongo. Odongo: “In fact, according to them, they said they’d rather die of malaria than DDT.”
As public concern grew, it wasn’t long before politicians stepped into the fray.
[The article goes on in the same context to say]
In the end there was no violent uprising against the spray teams, but there was considerable resistance. And a group of
organic companies sued the government. They won a court injunction that forced the DDT spraying to stop. And that
means the malaria control effort was halted before it reached the entire district of Apac. The whole experience left
government officials baffled and frustrated.
DDT spraying causes crops to be rejected by international markets (impacts: 1) hurts poor, 2) violates
self government because farmers don’t want it.)
The World (a newspaper) August 7, 2009 “DDT use provokes political battle in Uganda”
http://www.theworld.org/2009/08/07/ddt-use-provokes-political-battle-in-uganda/
Those who fought DDT are also frustrated by the experience. Just the one round of spraying was enough to ruin the
export market for the area’s organic cotton – possibly for a decade or more. Adoko: “People are not happy. There is
no money.” Richard Adoko, outside his storehouse, can't sell cotton to the organic market anymore
Richard Adoko, a struggling farmer, says he wishes the government had considered alternatives to DDT. He says the
government could have handed out mosquito bed nets. Or it could have sprayed a different insecticide that wouldn’t
have caused his crops to be rejected by the European cotton buyers. But government officials – he says – never asked
what people like him wanted. Adoko: “They never consulted. It was only dictated.”
Argument Turns and Responses Re: malaria resurgence

AT: “In what is now Sri Lanka malaria cases rose after DDT was banned” It’s not that simple,
Mosquitoes developed resistance to DDT
Jim Norton, writer for Info-pollution.com (no date available or necessary since it is quoting another study that disproves the
claim) “More DDT myths” http://www.info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm
Andrew Spielman, who investigated the resurgence, found that things were not that simple. Many people lived in
temporary shelters that were not being treated with DDT. The US government's funding stopped in 1963, not for
environmental concerns but because it was felt that after five years insect resistance would build up. Anti-malaria
drugs were overused, and the parasites built up resistance to them. And in spite of all the care, the mosquitos did
develop resistance to DDT
AT: “DDT ban caused malaria resurgence in South America” No there were other factors; the
resurgence actually proves that large scale house spraying is unsustainable.
Certain observers blame the malaria resurgence in some South American countries on decreasing DDT use. That may
produce the mistaken impression that there are no effective alternative chemicals for house spraying. The decrease in
DDT use in South America was produced by a decrease in anti-malaria house spraying operations overall, which in
some cases contributed to increased malaria transmission. This reflects the fact that large-scale house spraying is
unsustainable in most developing countries,
Malaria resurgence happened because mosquitoes became resistant

Both CORE and Africa Fighting Malaria claim the incidence of malaria skyrocketed after DDT was banned in the
United States and the developed world. This is not true either. Key to the resurgence of malaria was that mosquitoes
developed resistance to DDT because of its widespread use in agriculture. Ironically, rather than improving life, using
DDT actually resulted in the resurgence of malaria.
As early as the mid-'50s, researchers noted that DDT was losing its effectiveness. The rapid evolution of DDT-
resistant mosquitoes was widely reported by such establishment media as The Economist, the Washington Post, and
The Globe and Mail. Immunity to DDT was said to be the main cause of malaria’s comeback, yet this information
seems to have fallen into a rabbit hole as far as current media coverage of the issue is concerned.
AT: “DDT ban causes malaria resurgence” Nope there are lots of reasons.
The resurgence of malaria in certain regions of the developing world has been related to many factors, such as
increases in international travel, population growth and ecosystem shifts that bring people more into contact with
mosquitoes, and growing resistance of the malaria parasites to medicines. Most important, there have been widespread
decreases in funding for the public health measures that had successfully controlled malaria earlier, including tracking
and treating malaria cases, educating people on mosquito-avoidance measures and implementing integrated mosquito
management plans. To attribute the resurgence in malaria to a failure to use one specific pesticide is not only
misleading, it's incorrect.
Malaria was already almost completely gone by the time DDT came into usage
Margaret Humphreys (Department of history at Duke University) Mar., 1996 “Kicking a Dying Dog: DDT and the
Demise of Malaria in the American South, 1942-1950” Isis, Vol. 87, No. 1 (Mar.1946), pp. 1-17 Published by: The University of
Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/235732
From 1942 to 1950 U.S. public health officials at the state and federal level spent more than $50 million to control
malaria. Yet there was so little malaria in the United States by 1943 that Researchers had trouble finding it, except in
a few well-known foci of the disease. Why was so much money spent in eradicating a disease that was almost gone?
American medical historiography offers little insight into this conundrum.
AT: “DDT eliminated malaria in US” nope, draining wetlands was the main reason
The drainage and elimination of wetlands, permanently or temporarily, played a major role in the eradication of
malaria in the southeastern United States by the early 1950s
SQ Alternatives work/better
Alternative advocacy: “We can stop DDT AND Malaria”
Safer alternatives are available so we should phase out DDT
Environment
While banned decades ago in industrialized countries, thousands of tons of the deadly pesticide DDT are still used
each year, mainly to fight malaria. Citing the availability of safer and often more effective alternatives, WWF is
calling for a global phaseout and eventual ban on DDT production and use
What works for one country might not work for another, we should aggressively advocate a host of
alternatives to DDT
Janet. Raloff Science News July 1, 2000 “What do you do when a dreaded environmental pollutant saves lives”?
http://www.malaria.org/raloff.html
Because malaria and its carriers are so wily, countries should also begin aggressive new research campaigns to
explore other means to curb this tropical killer. Indeed, "it would be really stupid of us to rely on a single tool" to fight
malaria, Clark [Member of World Health Organization's Roll Back Malaria program] says. "You need a host of
alternatives, because what works in one country won't necessarily translate to the next." While research should focus
on increasing those alternatives and customizing them to local needs—with the goal of eventually phasing out DDT.
We must stop both malaria and DDT

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.
We can solve malaria without DDT

Solutions do exist. They are community-based, integrated solutions already at work in places as diverse as Mexico,
Kenya and Vietnam. Successful malaria control programs have been built all over the world using a variety of
approaches that share four common traits: community involvement, appropriate technology, public health education
and a recognition that the costs of DDT outweigh its benefits.
SQ is working on Alternatives that work

The UN is working on cost effective and environmentally-friendly alternatives to DDT
UN News Centre 3 November 2008 “Safer alternatives to malaria-controlling DDT focus of UN-backed meeting”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28793&Cr=Chemical&Cr1=
Some 80 delegates from governments, industry, research institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
today kicked off a three-day United Nations-backed meeting in Geneva focusing on cost effective and
environmentally-friendly alternatives to DDT, a controversial chemical used to control malaria.
DDT is one of 12 substances controlled under the Stockholm Convention, which is designed to control and eliminate
persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
While the chemical can be effective at controlling the mosquitoes that carry the deadly malarial parasite, there is
concern that DDT and its break-down products can have a damaging effect on human health.
UN is furthering alternatives to Cut malaria by 60% while also eliminating DDT
UN News Centre 6 May 2009 “UN agencies launch DDT-free anti-malaria initiative”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=30713&Cr=malaria&Cr1=&Kw1=DDT&Kw2=&Kw3=
The United Nations today announced a renewed round of international efforts to combat malaria with a reduced
reliance on the controversial synthetic pesticide Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT).
A number of projects, involving some 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, are set to
test non-chemical methods of eradicating the deadly disease, ranging from eliminating potential mosquito breeding
sites and securing homes with mesh screens to deploying mosquito-repellent trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae.
The new projects follow a successful five-year pilot programme using alternatives to DDT in Mexico and Central
America, where pesticide-free techniques and management procedures have helped cut cases of malaria by over 60
per cent.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are spearheading the ten new
projects, with close to $40 million in funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
The agencies aim to cut DDT use by 30 per cent worldwide by 2014 and phase out the use of the pesticide completely
by the early 2020s while staying on track with WHO malaria eradication targets.
“The new projects underline the determination of the international community to combat malaria while realizing a
low, indeed zero, DDT world,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. “Today we are calling time on a
chemical rooted in the scientific knowledge and simplistic options of a previous age.”
Alternatives to DDT are working great and saving lives

Environment
WWF studied a range of insect-borne disease control programs in Africa, India, the Philippines, South America and
Mexico. A variety of alternative techniques proved to be effective and financially feasible, including pesticide-
impregnated bednets (reducing the need for airborne interior spraying); odour-baited cloth targets to attract and
destroy disease-carrying insects; lower-risk pesticides used in rotation to avoid the development of resistance; and
widespread elimination of mosquito breeding grounds and introduction of natural predators and sterile insects.
The results include 34 million people in West Africa protected from river blindness; 700,000 Indians protected from
malaria; a reduction of malaria incidence in certain Tanzanian villages by 60 percent; and a 50 percent reduction in
malaria cases in the Philippines that also reduced malaria-fighting costs by 40 percent
Alternative methods are working to control malaria

Mexico, the rest of Central America and parts of Africa have combated malaria without DDT by using alternative
methods, such as controlling stagnant ponds where mosquitoes breed and using bed nets treated with pyrethroid
insecticides.
Gates’ foundation is combating malaria on several fronts

"Our malaria work is driven by a belief in the power of innovation to improve health," she [Rabinovitch] [Leader of the
Gates foundation's infectious-disease programs] says. Vaccines get the most money, but the foundation also funds
research on malaria drugs, better bed nets, new insecticides and ways to combat drug resistance. A program in Zambia
aims to cut malaria deaths 75 percent with low-tech approaches, such as bed nets and mosquito spraying. The vaccine
program is working with African nations to find out what it will take to get the drug to those who need it, and looking
for ways to streamline the approval process. And if the vaccine doesn't make sense in areas where malaria can be
controlled more cheaply with nets and sprays, that's fine, Rabinovitch says. "While I am a proponent of vaccines, I
will do whatever works in malaria."
There are safe alternatives to DDT that are better and are still acceptable cost wise
Fortunately, there are disease control programs that are safer both for people and for the environment that maintain or
improve protection from disease at acceptable cost, eliminate DDT, and reduce insecticide dependence. These often
employ IVM principles, incorporating non-chemical vector control measures without adverse conservation impacts.
People are working to stop malaria without DDT in the status quo
In March 1998, USAID announced a $50-million global attack on infectious diseases, including the promotion of
bednets and methods for the early diagnosis and treatment of malaria
Alternatives work, Example: the Philippines

In 1993, DDT use was banned in the Philippines for environmental reasons, no significant malaria mosquito resistance to the
chemical having been documented. The Malaria Control Service replaced DDT with alternative insecticides that proved
equally effective: fenitrothion, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, lambda cyhalothrin, and bendiocarb. These chemicals were used in
rotation to delay the development of insecticide resistance. In order to simplify logistics and training, however, these five
chemicals are now being phased out in favour of a single insecticide. The synthetic pyrethroid ethofenprox was chosen
because it is safer, cheaper, and as effective, and has a longer residual effect. Also in 1993, and for similar economic and
logistic reasons, the MCS reduced its dependence on residual house spraying by turning to bednets impregnated with
deltamethrin or permethrin as its primary vector control measure. The MCS is working with communities to find
acceptable and effective cost-sharing schemes. House spraying is further minimized through stratification of target areas
according to disease transmission pressure, geographic and socio-economic factors, and population stability. Although alternative
insecticides are more expensive than DDT, bednets require less insecticide and application expense than house spraying.
Average annual Philippine expenditures for malaria control insecticides have dropped over 40 percent since DDT was
banned in 1993. That decrease might have been less but for the termination in the same year of a World Bank support project,
which reduced the malaria control budget from a 1991–92 average of US$5.62 million/year to a 1993–96 average of $2.04
million. Reduced resources have hampered operations and led to the allocation of scarce insecticides among provinces according
to malaria case numbers. Even in the face of that challenge, this new control strategy has reduced malaria incidence. From
1993-1996, the number of malaria cases per 100,000 population sank from 97 to 55.
More Effective and safer alternatives exist and they are working
More effective and safer approaches to malaria control are now being used in many countries.
(Note: the following examples immediately proceed after the previous quote in the order in which I have provided
them, you may read them as one piece of evidence but I have separated them for convenience sake)
Examples: Mexico
Since 2000 Mexico eliminated the need for DDT and significantly reduced the incidence of malaria. After collecting
entomological and epidemiological data to characterize the behavioural patterns of mosquitoes and their interaction with people, a
strategy was implemented that combines three main elements: a) primary health care to eliminate parasites in people with a new
single dose treatment regimen of prophylaxis drugs administered only to the detected positive malaria cases b) improvement of
personal and household hygiene c) use of environmental management practices to eliminate mosquito breeding sites This
systematic approach has reduced costs, and in some areas negated the need for indoor application of pyrethroid
insecticides. Community participation is a key element: health workers and trained volunteers diagnose cases of malaria and
administer curative treatment; local efforts eliminate mosquito larvae through the cleanup of algae and trash from rivers and
streams; and education has improved hygienic conditions in the home.22 The success is a result of cooperative efforts under the
North America Regional Action Plan from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 23
22. Chanon, E.K., Mendez-Galván, J.F., Galindo-Jaramillo, J., Olguín-Bernal H., Borja-Aburto V.H., Cooperative Actions to achieve malaria
control without the use of DDT. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 206, 387-394 (2003); and Bejarano-González, F., The Phasing Out of DDT in
Mexico, Pesticide Safety News, 2001 Milan, Italy, International Center for Pesticide Safety, vol. 5, num. 2, 2001, p.5; and Bejarano González,
F., Participación ciudadana y alternativas al DDT para el control del la malaria. Memorias. RAPAM. World Wildlife Fund. Julio 1998.
Texcoco, México; and Bejarano González, F.,Situacion actual de la malaria y uso del DDT in Mexico. Centro Nacional de Salud Ambiental.
Centro de Vigilancia Epidemiologica. Secreteria de Salud. Diciembre 2000.
23. A GEF project has been developed to phase-out DDT and reduce the long term effects of exposure in Mexico and Central America with the
support of the CEC, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and UNEP.
Example: Kenya
A program in the central region of Kenya is successfully focusing on reducing malaria by working with the rice-
growing community to improve water management, use livestock as bait, introduce biological controls and distribute
mosquito nets in affected areas.24
24. International Development Research Center. Malaria and Agriculture in Kenya: A New Perspective with Links between Health and
Ecosystems. Case Study: Health and Ecosystem Approach. 2003. See http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-
S/10530071320Ecohealth_2_Kenya_e.pdf
Example: Vietnam
Vietnam reduced malaria deaths by 97% and malaria cases by 59% when they switched in 1991 from trying to
eradicate malaria using DDT to a DDT-free malaria control program involving distribution of drugs and mosquito
nets along with widespread health education organized with village leaders.25
25. World Health Organization. A Story to be Shared: The Successful Fight Against Malaria in Vietnam. 2000. See http://www.afronets.org/fi
les/malaria.pdf
Example: India
The World Wildlife Fund has documented success in the Kheda district in India, where non-chemical approaches
were demonstrated to be cost-effective.26
26. NAMP, DGHS, Govt. of India: Malaria and its Control in India – Country Scenario, 1999.
Example: the Philippines

In the Philippines, the national program phased out and eventually banned DDT with no increase in the incidence of
malaria.27 The program owed its success primarily to investment in communities to assist their participation in the strategies
adopted.
27. Matteson P.C., The Philippine National Malaria Control Program, in P.C. Matteson, ed. Disease Vector Management for Public Health
and Conservation, Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1998.
(Note: example list ends here)
Bed nets
Nets work better and are cheaper than DDT at preventing malaria
The cost-effectiveness of lambdacyhalothrin-treated nets in comparison with conventional DDT spraying
for malaria control among migrant populations was evaluated in a malaria hyperendemic area along the Thai-Myanmar
border. Ten hamlets of 243 houses with 948 inhabitants were given only treated nets. Twelve hamlets of 294 houses
and 1,315 population were in the DDT area, and another 6 hamlets with 171 houses and 695 inhabitants were in the
non–DDT-treated area. The impregnated net program was most cost-effective (US$1.54 per 1 case of prevented
malaria).
DDT has serious implementation problems. Bed nets are better and avoid DDT’s problems
Control of malaria vectors by expensive conventional DDT spraying has encountered serious setbacks for 2 reasons: a
low level of acceptability by communities; and a failure for DDT to sufficiently interrupt malaria transmission in the
highly endemic areas. Therefore, establishing locally cost-effective malaria control measures for use by communities
as part of a primary health care strategy to replace DDT spraying would be of major public health significance.
Among available control measures, personal protection by means of insecticide-impregnated bed nets has shown
promising results in a number of countries. Moreover, the use of impregnated bed nets has been proved appropriate
both in terms of acceptability and affordability among migrant workers in eastern Thailand. This control measure was
found to be useful among migrant populations along the frontier areas because the community can treat nets with
appropriate chemicals under the direction of local health workers, which can then easily be carried to the forest or
farm hut.
Bed-nets work
African studies show, however, that bednets treated with synthetic pyrethroid insecticide can reduce malaria incidence
and child illness and death. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Canadian International Development
Research Centre (IDRC) have issued a call for operational research on how best to promote the use of insecticide-
treated nets or bednets on a large scale.
Bed-nets work
Children in communities with bednets had 60 percent fewer episodes of malaria-related fever, 50 percent less malaria
infections, anemia, and treatments for malaria, and grew more than unprotected children. As of 1997, Village
Mosquito Net Committees were still functioning, with active revolving funds.
Bed nets are more effective than DDT

[referring to a study, details in a previous card from the same source] One hundred fifteen episodes of malaria were found
among subjects in the treated bed net group compared with 136 in the DDT spraying group and 275 in the control
group
Bed nets are cheaper than DDT

[referring to a study, details in a previous card from the same source] The cost of DDT spraying was 2.4 times higher than
that of net impregnation, when adjusted for the standard population.
Bed nets can be cheaper than DDT spraying

ITN [insect treated nets] can be inexpensive compared to house spraying with DDT, because nets are treated with a very
low dose of insecticide and operations are simple and quick.
Vaccines
Vaccines would be much better than DDT because resistance to DDT is inevitable.
New drugs still work, but history shows resistance is inevitable. "This is why we need a vaccine," Abdulla [Tanzanian
physician, who leads the vaccine trials in Bagamoyo] says, spreading his arms to emphasize a point he considers
obvious.
Vaccines would be much better than DDT

Dave Taylor November 3, 2008 (involved with the Internet since 1980 and is widely recognized as an expert on both technical
and business issues. He has been published over a thousand times, launched four Internet-related startup companies, has written
twenty business and technical books and holds both an MBA and MS)
http://www.intuitive.com/blog/malaria_kills_child_every_thirty_seconds.html
It's safe to say that, yes, malaria is a major health problem, and it's really amazing that in the 21st century when we
have cellphones with more technological capabilities than the original Apollo lander and a global Internet that makes
sharing information unbelievably simple and efficient that a disease transmitted by mosquitoes remains such a plague
around the planet.
If you're a cool-hearted businessperson and can read these statistics without any sort of emotional reaction, think
about this: "Because malaria causes so much illness and death, the disease is a great drain on many national
economies. Since many countries with malaria are already among the poorer nations, the disease maintains a vicious
cycle of disease and poverty."
Break these cycles of poverty and the world will unquestionably be a safer and better place.
This is the perfect example of a diseases where a vaccine would be a good solution (certainly better than DDT).
A new malaria vaccine has been discovered

One India (Indian newspaper) February 4, 2010 “New anti-malaria vaccine found effective in children”
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/04/newanti-malaria-vaccine-found-effective-inchildren.html
An international team of researchers has concluded that a new malaria vaccine shows promise in protecting young
children.
The study led by the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine Development (CVD) and the
Malaria Research and Training Center at the University of Bamako in Mali, West Africa, has appeared online in the
Feb. 4 issue of PLoS ONE, the journal of the Public Library of Science.
It was seen that the vaccine 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. Christopher V.
Plowe, professor and chief of the Malaria Section of the CVD and a lead author of the study, said: "These findings
imply that we may have achieved our goal of using a vaccine to reproduce the natural protective immunity that
normally takes years of intense exposure to malaria to develop."
New malaria vaccine works

ScienceDaily Feb. 6, 2010 “New Malaria Vaccine Is Safe and Protective in Children, Scientists Find”
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
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 (CVD) and the Malaria Research and Training
Center at the University of Bamako in Mali, West Africa.
New malaria vaccine works better than even naturally developed protective immune responses to the
parasite over lifelong exposure to malaria.
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.
"These findings imply that we may have achieved our goal of using a vaccine to reproduce the natural protective
immunity that normally takes years of intense exposure to malaria to develop," says Christopher V. Plowe, (M.D.,
M.P.H. [masters of public health, highest medical degree available] professor and chief of the Malaria Section of the CVD.
Dr. Plowe, a lead author of the study to be published online in the Feb. 4 issue of PLoS ONE, the journal of the Public
Library of Science, also is an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a Doris Duke Distinguished
Clinical Scientist.)
Details and further advocacy for the vaccine from University of Maryland School of Medicine's
Center for Vaccine Development (CVD)
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.
A new Malaria vaccine exists, and it works!

The turning point came with the addition to the team in 1987 of a soft-spoken researcher born in Egypt, educated in
France and once employed in Pennsylvania. Joe Cohen left academia for the drug industry so his discoveries would
have more impact. The problem with the early vaccines was that the main ingredient — small proteins from the parasite's outer
membrane — evoked only a weak immune response. Not nearly enough to disable the parasites, which Ballou likens to stealth
battleships. "You have to have a lot of hits on them," he says. Revving up the immune response is Cohen's specialty. His
breakthroughs have earned patents and helped revitalize GSK's vaccine division. He started his upgrade of the malaria
vaccine by hooking the small parasite proteins to much larger particles — the shell of the virus that causes hepatitis B. The
combination forms a ball studded with malaria proteins and big enough to set off all the immune system's warning lights. Cohen
and his colleagues boosted the vaccine's potency even more by adding a mixture that includes an oily emulsion, bits of
bacteria and soapy molecules derived from tree bark. Vaccine makers call such substances adjuvants and aren't sure exactly how
they work. But the results are clear: Like the crew of the Starship Enterprise shifting to warp speed, they jolt the immune
system into high gear. [They go on in the same context to say] The team persisted. In 1995, the vaccine protected six
out of seven volunteers.
Bill Gates is working toward defeating malaria and has already developed a vaccine that could
potentially stop 70% of malaria deaths
The Gates Foundation money transformed the landscape. Its Malaria Vaccine Initiative, managed by the Seattle-based
nonprofit PATH, supports 10 vaccine projects. As in a business bent on quick results, promising candidates get fast-
tracked and losers weeded out. The foundation is putting up nearly $110 million for field trials. Abdulla [Tanzanian
doctor, who leads the vaccine trials in Bagamoyo] and researchers at nine other sites across Africa will track more than
16,000 children to see how well the leading vaccine candidate works. The answers should be in by early 2011. One
analysis says an effective vaccine could reduce malaria deaths by nearly 70 percent.
Bill Gates is working toward defeating malaria and has already developed a vaccine that works
Gates Foundation money was the lifeline. To many nonprofits, an alliance with the drug industry is akin to a pact with
the devil. But Bill Gates didn't become the world's richest man by disdaining capitalism. His foundation takes the
view that industry's expertise is vital to push products through to market and accomplish goals where others have
fallen short. The foundation put up $6 million, matched by $2 million from GSK, for a study in 2,000 children in
Mozambique. The vaccine prevented malaria in 35 percent. Nearly 50 percent of children were protected from the
severe form of the disease most likely to kill.
Bill Gates is working toward defeating malaria and has already developed a vaccine that could be on
the market as soon as 2012
With an unprecedented infusion of cash and a businesslike approach, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has kicked
the quest for a malaria vaccine into high gear. Since 1999, no single government agency or organization has spent
more on the effort. Of all the diseases the foundation has tackled, only AIDS gets more money than the $1.14 billion
committed to malaria so far — and Bill Gates vows to keep the funds flowing. "This is the time period where malaria
can be largely conquered," he said in an interview. "Whatever it takes, we're just going to stay at it." The Gates
Foundation has almost single-handedly revitalized malaria research, says retired Maj. Gen. Philip K. Russell, a
medical doctor who oversaw the Army's malaria research for more than 15 years. "It was not on anybody's agenda
until Gates put it there." The vaccine project embodies the Gateses' conviction that science and technology hold the
best solutions to the health problems of the world's poor. A malaria vaccine would be the ultimate technological fix
for a disease so entrenched in Africa that health crusaders once abandoned it as a lost cause. A malaria vaccine would
also represent the young Gates Foundation's first grand-slam: a breakthrough treatment for one of the world's great
killers. "Malaria is a disease where they're determined to win," says Melinda Moree, former director of the Gates-
funded Malaria Vaccine Initiative. If a final round of field trials goes well, the drug being tested in Tanzania could be
ready as early as 2012.
Gates is attacking Malaria with several promising vaccines

The Gsk Vaccine Gets the most attention, because it's so far ahead of the pack. "This is going to sound cocky and
immodest," Cohen [the vaccine’s developer] says, "but there is nothing else out there today that is even close."
The Gates Foundation rarely bets on a single horse, though. Several other possibilities are in the pipeline.
Patrick Duffy, of Seattle Biomedical Research Institute (SBRI), is tracking 5,000 Tanzanian children to understand
and tap the partial immunity that develops naturally by age 5.
SBRI is also exploring a vaccine to protect pregnant women from a form of malaria that attacks the placenta and can
kill both mother and fetus.
The Gates Foundation has license to bet on even longer shots, such as the project run by Duffy's SBRI colleague
Stefan Kappe. In an insectary near Lake Union, Kappe isolates parasites from malaria-infected mosquitoes. He's
looking for a way to genetically cripple the parasites so they aren't able to make people sick. The harmless parasites
could then be used in a vaccine.
Another Gates-funded scientist is using radiation to neuter parasites.
Others are exploring ways to prevent the parasite from destroying blood cells or block reproduction inside the
mosquito. The ultimate goal is a vaccine that is at least 80 percent effective. That will probably mean a combination
drug that attacks the parasite on several fronts, Rabinovitch [Leader of the Gates foundation's infectious-disease programs]
says.
Other alternatives to DDT

Possible alternative: Traps
Various kinds of vector traps can be deployed as relatively specific, low- or no-insecticide components of IVM
strategies. For example, the tsetse fly control program in Botswana uses host odor-baited traps with a small amount of
insecticide, and a variant, insecticide-treated cloth “targets,” for targeting trypanosomiasis vectors effectively with a
minimum amount of chemical insecticide. Other tsetse control programs deploy fly traps that contain no insecticide at
all.6 Similarly, visual, chemical, and sound clues are being investigated for attracting mosquitoes to traps that would
sterilize or kill them.
Possible alternative: Methoprene

Methoprene, an insect growth regulator, has been identified as an alternate product for application to water to kill
larvae.
New effective non toxic alternatives to DDT: Methoprene, Neem, and Insect-killing bacterium
New and traditional botanical and biological insecticides and repellents are being identified which are both effective
and less toxic to humans and wildlife than the synthetic pesticides currently in use. Examples include formulations of
the natural toxins of specific types of the insect-killing bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t;. ), methoprene, a
synthetic insect growth regulator that can be applied to water to kill mosquito larvae and is harmless to fish; the
burning of cakes of the botanical pesticide neem inside homes as a mosquito repellent in India; and exploratory use of
neem as a mosquito larvicide.
One natural way to fight malaria is to introduce natural predators of mosquitoes, several countries
are doing this
Vectors can be controlled by enhancing the distribution and density of their natural parasites or pathogens, and/or
predators. This is most effective at the larval stage; animals that eat the larvae of mosquitoes and other vectors are
often labelled larvivorous For example, Central American “mosquito fish” (Gambusia affinis), South American
guppies (Poecilia reticula)t,a African Tilapia, and other larvivorous fish have been seeded into artificial and natural
wetlands and bodies of water as part of disease control programs in many countries. Some national malaria control
programs, such as the one in the Philippines, have inherited the distribution of exotic larvivorous fish as a long-
standing component of IVM. New initiatives, such as the production of Tilapia in Philippine streams and a malaria
control program that produces and distributes guppies in Karnataka, India,3 are being undertaken as well.
Working alternative: Sterilize the bugs (seriously, it works)

The sterile insect technique entails the mass release of sterilized vector individuals to control field populations by
blocking their reproduction. This approach, combined with traps, targets, and/or cattle dipping appears to have
eradicated tsetse flies from some regions of Africa.
DDT alternative: Synthetic pyrenoids

Synthetic pyrethroids are the most commonly used substitutes for DDT in public health programs, including for house
spraying to kill malaria vectors. Pyrethroids are generally less acutely toxic to humans than, for example,
organophosphates and no exceptional safety precautions, protective clothing, or frequent monitoring of people who
apply them for signs of poisoning, has been officially recommended.
Source indicts
Roger Innis, Paul Drissen, The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and the Committee for a
constructive tomorrow
In 2003, Innis formed a partnership with one of the most aggressive anti-environmental organizations to launch a
campaign to popularize the term "eco-imperialism." The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE) had earlier
claimed credit for coining the term "eco-terrorism" and creating the so-called wise-use movement. Its funding comes from
conservative foundations, forest-products companies, ExxonMobil and DuPont, a leading producer of DDT.
Leaning heavily on the use of symbolic days for their propaganda value, the two groups formed the Economic Human
Rights Project on Martin Luther King Day, 2004, and kicked off their campaign on Earth Day with the publication of
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death by Paul Driessen, who is a fellow at the CDFE. Driessen is also a senior
fellow at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian think-tank whose researchers and advisers are
prominent industry-backed global warming deniers. (Roger Bate is on this organization’s board of advisers.) The
committee received $540,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2003.
CORE
In recent years CORE used its African-American facade to work with conservative groups to attack organizations like
Greenpeace and undermine environmental regulation. It’s fair to say that CORE was for sale to anyone with a need
for visible black cheerleaders in its campaign. CORE also engaged in campaigns supporting genetically engineered
foods. Innis could be seen leading a pro–free market, anti-Kyoto Accord counter-demonstration outside the
ExxonMobil annual shareholders' meeting in Dallas, Texas, after CORE received $40,000 from the oil giant.
Africa Fighting Malaria and Congress for Racial Equality

They set up one special-purpose organization -- Africa Fighting Malaria -- and utilized an existing one -- Congress of
Racial Equality -- to put a poor, black face on their efforts.
But behind the facade was a network of free market, libertarian think-tanks and their corporate sponsors pulling the
strings.
Africa Fighting Malaria

The answer lies, perhaps, in a document that came to light as a result of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement
between U.S. state attorneys general and the tobacco industry. Among the 40 million pages of industry documents
posted on the Internet were two letters from Africa Fighting Malaria’s Roger Bate to Philip Morris executives
requesting funding for an anti-malaria campaign and a six-page document outlining AFM’s strategy of falsehood and
misrepresentation.
Africa Fighting Malaria was formed during the negotiations that led to the Stockholm Convention. The name is
misleading. The organization is based in Washington, D.C., not Africa. And the board of directors comprises not
Africans, but Americans. Its staff and directors have links, not to African health and social movement organizations,
but to Western libertarian and neoconservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Institute for
Economic Analysis, Tech Central Station, the Liberty Institute and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. The
anti-malaria campaign was intended to beat back environmental regulation. Using the plight of poor people was the
vehicle to achieve this goal.
Additional credentials for referenced studies

Additional credentials for the study by the U.S. Department of health and human services
Peer reviewed study by the U.S. Department of health and human services “Public Health Service Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry” September 2002 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf
CONTRIBUTORS: CHEMICAL MANAGER(S)/AUTHORS(S):
Julie Louise Gerberding, MD, MPH, Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
Obaid Faroon, Ph.D.; M. Olivia Harris, M.A.; ATSDR, Division of Toxicology, Atlanta, GA; Fernando Llados, Ph.D.
Steven Swarts, Ph.D.; Gloria Sage, Ph.D.; Mario Citra, Ph.D.; Daniel Gefell, M.S.; Syracuse Research Corporation,
North Syracuse, NY
THE PROFILE HAS UNDERGONE THE FOLLOWING ATSDR INTERNAL REVIEWS:
1. Health Effects Review. The Health Effects Review Committee examines the health effects chapter of each profile
for consistency and accuracy in interpreting health effects and classifying end points.
2. Minimal Risk Level Review. The Minimal Risk Level Workgroup considers issues relevant to substance-specific
minimal risk levels (MRLs), reviews the health effects database of each profile, and makes recommendations for
derivation of MRLs.
3. Data Needs Review. The Research Implementation Branch reviews data needs sections to assure consistency across
profiles and adherence to instructions in the Guidance.
PEER REVIEW: A peer review panel was assembled for DDT, DDE, and DDD. The panel consisted of the
following members: 1. Dr. D. Andrew Crain, Assistant Professor, Maryville College, Maryville, TN;
2. Dr. Donald Michael Fry, Director, Center for Avian Biology, University of California at Davis;
3. Dr. Christopher Metcalfe, Professor and Chair, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University,
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; and
4. Dr. Mary S. Wolff, Professor of Community Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York,
NY.
These experts collectively have knowledge of DDT, DDE, and DDD's physical and chemical properties,
toxicokinetics, key health end points, mechanisms of action, human and animal exposure, and quantification of risk to
humans. All reviewers were selected in conformity with the conditions for peer review specified in Section 104(I)(13)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended.
Additional credentials for the UC Berkley study

Other authors of the study are Amy Marks, statistician, and Asa Bradman, associate director of CHAMACOS, both
with the Center for Children's Environmental Health Research at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health; Caroline
Johnson, pediatric neuropsychologist in private practice in Berkeley; Nicholas Jewell, professor of statistics and
biostatistics at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health; Laura Fenster, epidemiologist in the Occupational Health
Branch at the California Department of Health Services; and Dana Barr, research chemist at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
Credentials for the vaccine study by University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine
Development (CVD)
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.
[Later on in the same context]
"The University of Maryland employs hundreds of researchers worldwide in 23 countries outside of its home campus
in Baltimore," says E. Albert Reece, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., dean of the School of Medicine, vice president for medical
affairs of the University of Maryland and the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor. "Dr. Plowe is a
world-leading malaria researcher, and this groundbreaking work is representative of the global impact of the Center
for Vaccine Development and the rest of the University of Maryland School of Medicine.”

Legalize and Promote DDT-NEG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legalize and Promote DDT-NEG

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joshua Wilson Legalize and promote DDT – Neg brief Page 1 of 65

Legalize and promote DDT – Neg brief

Passing the affirmatives plan undermines rule of law..................................................................................................................10

Impact Link: Nations get mad at us................................................................................................................................................11

COUNTER PLAN MATERIAL.........................................................................................................14

Redirect funds to malaria vaccines.................................................................................................................................................15

DDT CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS.............................................................................................16

DDT causes cancer............................................................................................................................................................................16

DDT harms the liver.........................................................................................................................................................................19

DDT causes neurological damage....................................................................................................................................................20

DDT messes up the nervous system................................................................................................................................................21

DDT harms the reproductive system..............................................................................................................................................22

DDT increases preterm birth and decreases lactation..................................................................................................................24

DDT Degrades the Immune system.................................................................................................................................................26

General lists of DDT health Harms.................................................................................................................................................26

Argument Turns and Responses.....................................................................................................................................................30

DDT production plants poisons people that live near them.........................................................................................................32

DDT HARMS ANIMALS AND BIO-DIVERSITY.............................................................................33

DDT hurts birds................................................................................................................................................................................36

DDT hurts fish...................................................................................................................................................................................39

DDT bio-accumulates in the food chain..........................................................................................................................................42

Argument Turns and Responses.....................................................................................................................................................44

Africans don’t want DDT.................................................................................................................................................................48

Argument Turns and Responses Re: malaria resurgence............................................................................................................49

SQ is working on Alternatives that work.......................................................................................................................................52

Other alternatives to DDT...............................................................................................................................................................61

ADDITIONAL CREDENTIALS FOR REFERENCED STUDIES.....................................................64

DDT still present in 90% of Americans

USAID already allows spraying of DDT when no alternatives are available

DDT is still allowed and used in 25 countries.

Passing the affirmatives plan undermines rule of law

Impact: Passing the affirmatives plan undermines rule of law

America must uphold the rule of law

We must act morally, even if it means our own death

Impact Link: Nations get mad at us

Hypocrisy harms America's standing in the world

Breaking and Failing to ratify international treaties Isolates us and harms us

Internal Link 2: Western morality is inherently consistent with “natural law”

C. Impact/Voter: International Law is key to permeation of “natural law”. Western morality

Counter plan material

Counter plan advocacy: Ratify the Stockholm convention

Failing to ratify the Stockholm convention harms US leadership

Redirect funds to malaria vaccines

Counter plan Advocacy: Redirect funds to Malaria vaccines

Countries need funding to fight malaria

DDT causes health problems

DDT causes cancer

Cancer risk increases with each generation exposed to DDT

DDT causes breast cancer

DDT causes breast cancer

Testicular cancer kills about 380 people per year

DDT harms the Liver

DDT significantly increases risk of liver cancer mortality

DDT harms the brain

DDT harms mental and physical development in babies

DDT harms mental and physical development in babies

DDT harms neurodevelopment in children

DDT messes up the nervous system

DDT harms the reproductive system

DDT harms reproductive capabilities

DDT messes with hormones