PREVENTIVE MEDICINE 1,400-408 (1972)

Amidst high-voltage controversy between conservationists and scientists,

the positive and negative aspects of the insecticide, DDT, are examined in a
humanitarian light.

Pros and Cons in the Case for DDT

THOMAS H. JUKES
University of California, Berkeley

The insecticide DDT, which has saved more human lives than any chemi-
cal in history, has been banned from use in several countries, and strenous ef-
forts are currently being made to outlaw its use completely in the U. S. A. Ban-
ning DDT has become an emotional objective for many people, especially
those belonging to “environmentalist” organizations who view opponents of
the ban as enemies of the public interest. In these terms, the outlawing of
DDT is considered to be so good a cause that experiments or conclusions
regarding its harmful effects seem often to be accepted without critical evalua-
tion. An appraisal of the pros and cons for the continued use of DDT must be
made carefully, despite the high temperature of the controversy. There are
zoologists and wildlife biologists who view mankind as a destructive intruder
into the biosphere, so that the very survival of life on Earth is threatened. In
contrast, physicians, medically oriented scientists, and humanists tend to re-
tain the viewpoint that disease must be treated, and hunger must be appeased
even at the expense of disturbing the natural environment. Some disturbance
is, of course, inevitable. These conflicting attitudes have produced clashes on
the subject of DDT. A great sociological struggle may be in the making
between environmentalists of the “have” nations and the representatives of
the “have not” countries who want their share of the amenities of tech-
nological civilization.
I can approach the question only in terms of traditional humanitarianism,
for surely the portentous questions of overpopulation cannot be resolved in
terms of restricting the methods necessary to prevent starvation and disease.
Nor can the capricious wishes of a wealthy nation be allowed to take prece-
dence over the vital needs of human beings in developing countries.
There are disturbing undertones that some protagonists of “environ-
mentalism” are proposing that standards of human responsibility be revised.
Ripley, writing on “Conservation Comes of Age” discusses the status of con-
trolling disease and supplying food “for the ever-burgeoning human popula-
tion” (1). He predicts that “morality will increasingly lose its traditional foun-
dation and questions of the sanctity of human life will have to be judged on a
long-term strategic basis. ” I find this macabre concept to be as incompatible
with the future as it was repugnant in the past.
The matter of continued use of DDT must be evaluated on a world-wide
scale; if it is contended that DDT and its relatives are polluting the oceans,
and are detectable in living organisms far from the places where it was used it
is a proven fact that malaria still threatens the health and lives of millions of
400
Copyright 0 1972 hy Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.