Today's subject is considered a controversial one. But I am confident that you have enough brain power to examine the evidence thoughtfully and come to a valid conclusion. My job will be to present the facts. Your job will be to think it through and decide for yourself. Is the intelligence of Naga children at risk? It just might be. Why is that you ask? Because of DDT.
India is the only country in the world still manufacturing DDT. While other developing countries are also continuing to use it for Malaria control, India is the largest consumer. I was absolutely stunned to discover these facts just within the last few days after a visit to Peren Town prompted me to research the subject again after many years. You see, for years I lectured all over the United States, presenting evidence for the lingering negative effects of DDT that remains in agricultural soils almost forty years after it was officially banned in that country. Until I saw the sign outside Peren hospital promoting indoor DDT spraying, I did not realize that the World Health Organization (WHO) had decided that DDT should be used again to fight Malaria.
The WHO had actually begun to phase out indoor spraying of DDT nearly 35 years ago. But according to Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Really? I decided to check out the facts for myself. Here is some of what I found.
First a bit of history. DDT is one of the most well-known synthetic pesticides, having been used all over the world. It was used extensively in agriculture from 1950 to 1980. In 1962, the biologist Rachel Carson published the famous book, Silent Spring. It documented the damage being done to the environment by widespread spraying of DDT in the US. She questioned the wisdom of spraying this chemical in large quantities before a complete study had been made into how it might affect human health and the environment.
The book stirred up widespread public outcry. Silent Spring even caught the attention of President Kennedy the following year. He ordered his Science Advisory Committee to investigate the book's claims. The committee issued a report that thoroughly supported Carson's concerns. Four years later, a team of concerned scientists and lawyers founded the Environmental Defense Fund whose goal was to win a total ban on DDT. That ban was won five years later in 1972. DDT has now been banned worldwide for agricultural use, but has continued to be used in countries where Malaria is a threat.
DDT certainly is effective in the control of Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. The question is, “Is the cure as bad or worse than the diseases we are fighting?” According to a report carried by the Environmental Health News, 15 September 2006, fifteen scientists from the United States and South Africa, with expertise in environmental health, reviewed almost 500 health studies. They responded to the WHO announcement that it would bring back indoor spraying of DDT to kill mosquitoes by saying that, “the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.” According to their conservative conclusions, DDT, “should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available.” They went on to say that, “We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health risks.” They suggest that, “Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be phased out without putting people at risk.”
Their review of the scientific literature on the subject turned up solid evidence that indoor residual spraying of DDT can pose a variety of threats to human health, including reduced fertility, genital birth defects, breast cancer, diabetes and damage to developing brains. DDT breaks down into DDE and DDD which are also toxic and pose many of the same risks as DDT. In addition, DDE can block male hormones leaving the female hormones more dominant than normal. In the Florida Everglades, residual DDT from spraying more than thirty years earlier led to the discovery of same-sex pairing among birds and male alligators with shortened sexual organs. DDT can enter the unborn human baby through the placenta. It has been found in human amniotic fluid, placentas, fetuses, umbilical cord blood and in human milk. All this DDT has the potential to affect sexual behavior in adulthood.
BBC reported on a study that measured DDT blood levels in mothers from a developing country where DDT was banned in the year 2000. The researchers tested the mental and physical development of the women's babies at six, twelve and twenty-four months old. They found a two to three-point decrease in the children's mental development scores for each tenfold increase of DDT levels measured in the mother. Children who had the highest exposure to DDT in the womb suffered a seven to ten-point decrease in test scores. Is the intelligence of your child or grandchild at risk? You decide. And not only intelligence is at stake. When the children's physical skills were tested, they also showed two-point decreases for each tenfold increase of DDT levels in the mothers.
Professor Richard Sharpe, from the Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit in Edinburgh, Scotland noted that the older a woman is before her first pregnancy and breastfeeding, and the longer and higher her exposure to DDT has been, the higher the baby's dose of DDT will be. The first baby gets the worst of whatever poison is stored in the mother's fat. Lead researcher, Dr Brenda Eskenazi said, “People need to consider these data if they are going to continue using DDT or reintroduce it in countries where it's been banned.”
In South Africa, about 60 to 80 grams per household per year is being sprayed for mosquito control. A 2007 study looked at the fertility of South African men whose homes were being sprayed. They were found to have extremely high levels of DDT in their blood and their semen volume and sperm counts were low. Indoor spraying is included in the DDT ban in the US and other developed countries. What we seem to have in effect, then, is a form of involuntary birth control in developing countries only.
As I have already mentioned, India is the only country in the world still manufacturing DDT. India is the largest consumer of DDT in the world. Given the genuine risks to physical health, to fertility, and to the normal mental development of our children, why is this happening? Why not research alternatives to Malaria control as a first alternative and leave DDT to fill a last resort status as those unbiased scientists suggest? And if India won't take the lead in limiting or eliminating the use of this dangerous chemical, then will Nagaland blindly follow the national lead? Are the risks to our Naga children and to future generations of Naga really worth taking? These are extremely important questions to ask ourselves.
You see, DDT, DDE, and DDD don't just disappear from the environment. They will accumulate in homes where indoor spraying is practiced. They stick to the surface layers of the house and to soil particles where they can remain for hundreds of years. DDT can be absorbed by food crops many years after spraying has stopped. Some DDT, DDE, or DDD in the soil gets into rivers and lakes from runoff during the rainy season. Fish, birds, animals and humans all accumulate the pesticide in fatty tissues where they build up over the years to levels far higher than can be found in the environmen t. When the flesh of contaminated fish and animals is eaten, a large dose of pesticide will result. These large accumulations of DDT in the body produce health effects that go far beyond the effects of the small individual doses from indoor spraying.
One of the most telling statements of the panel of fifteen environmental health scientists is the following: “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.”
What will be the fate of our children if we close our eyes to these serious risks? What will be the impact on our own health as we accumulate more and more DDT in our bodies? And what will be the fate of the future generations of Nagas if we do not act?
India is the only country in the world still manufacturing DDT. While other developing countries are also continuing to use it for Malaria control, India is the largest consumer. I was absolutely stunned to discover these facts just within the last few days after a visit to Peren Town prompted me to research the subject again after many years. You see, for years I lectured all over the United States, presenting evidence for the lingering negative effects of DDT that remains in agricultural soils almost forty years after it was officially banned in that country. Until I saw the sign outside Peren hospital promoting indoor DDT spraying, I did not realize that the World Health Organization (WHO) had decided that DDT should be used again to fight Malaria.
The WHO had actually begun to phase out indoor spraying of DDT nearly 35 years ago. But according to Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Really? I decided to check out the facts for myself. Here is some of what I found.
First a bit of history. DDT is one of the most well-known synthetic pesticides, having been used all over the world. It was used extensively in agriculture from 1950 to 1980. In 1962, the biologist Rachel Carson published the famous book, Silent Spring. It documented the damage being done to the environment by widespread spraying of DDT in the US. She questioned the wisdom of spraying this chemical in large quantities before a complete study had been made into how it might affect human health and the environment.
The book stirred up widespread public outcry. Silent Spring even caught the attention of President Kennedy the following year. He ordered his Science Advisory Committee to investigate the book's claims. The committee issued a report that thoroughly supported Carson's concerns. Four years later, a team of concerned scientists and lawyers founded the Environmental Defense Fund whose goal was to win a total ban on DDT. That ban was won five years later in 1972. DDT has now been banned worldwide for agricultural use, but has continued to be used in countries where Malaria is a threat.
DDT certainly is effective in the control of Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. The question is, “Is the cure as bad or worse than the diseases we are fighting?” According to a report carried by the Environmental Health News, 15 September 2006, fifteen scientists from the United States and South Africa, with expertise in environmental health, reviewed almost 500 health studies. They responded to the WHO announcement that it would bring back indoor spraying of DDT to kill mosquitoes by saying that, “the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.” According to their conservative conclusions, DDT, “should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available.” They went on to say that, “We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health risks.” They suggest that, “Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be phased out without putting people at risk.”
Their review of the scientific literature on the subject turned up solid evidence that indoor residual spraying of DDT can pose a variety of threats to human health, including reduced fertility, genital birth defects, breast cancer, diabetes and damage to developing brains. DDT breaks down into DDE and DDD which are also toxic and pose many of the same risks as DDT. In addition, DDE can block male hormones leaving the female hormones more dominant than normal. In the Florida Everglades, residual DDT from spraying more than thirty years earlier led to the discovery of same-sex pairing among birds and male alligators with shortened sexual organs. DDT can enter the unborn human baby through the placenta. It has been found in human amniotic fluid, placentas, fetuses, umbilical cord blood and in human milk. All this DDT has the potential to affect sexual behavior in adulthood.
BBC reported on a study that measured DDT blood levels in mothers from a developing country where DDT was banned in the year 2000. The researchers tested the mental and physical development of the women's babies at six, twelve and twenty-four months old. They found a two to three-point decrease in the children's mental development scores for each tenfold increase of DDT levels measured in the mother. Children who had the highest exposure to DDT in the womb suffered a seven to ten-point decrease in test scores. Is the intelligence of your child or grandchild at risk? You decide. And not only intelligence is at stake. When the children's physical skills were tested, they also showed two-point decreases for each tenfold increase of DDT levels in the mothers.
Professor Richard Sharpe, from the Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit in Edinburgh, Scotland noted that the older a woman is before her first pregnancy and breastfeeding, and the longer and higher her exposure to DDT has been, the higher the baby's dose of DDT will be. The first baby gets the worst of whatever poison is stored in the mother's fat. Lead researcher, Dr Brenda Eskenazi said, “People need to consider these data if they are going to continue using DDT or reintroduce it in countries where it's been banned.”
In South Africa, about 60 to 80 grams per household per year is being sprayed for mosquito control. A 2007 study looked at the fertility of South African men whose homes were being sprayed. They were found to have extremely high levels of DDT in their blood and their semen volume and sperm counts were low. Indoor spraying is included in the DDT ban in the US and other developed countries. What we seem to have in effect, then, is a form of involuntary birth control in developing countries only.
As I have already mentioned, India is the only country in the world still manufacturing DDT. India is the largest consumer of DDT in the world. Given the genuine risks to physical health, to fertility, and to the normal mental development of our children, why is this happening? Why not research alternatives to Malaria control as a first alternative and leave DDT to fill a last resort status as those unbiased scientists suggest? And if India won't take the lead in limiting or eliminating the use of this dangerous chemical, then will Nagaland blindly follow the national lead? Are the risks to our Naga children and to future generations of Naga really worth taking? These are extremely important questions to ask ourselves.
You see, DDT, DDE, and DDD don't just disappear from the environment. They will accumulate in homes where indoor spraying is practiced. They stick to the surface layers of the house and to soil particles where they can remain for hundreds of years. DDT can be absorbed by food crops many years after spraying has stopped. Some DDT, DDE, or DDD in the soil gets into rivers and lakes from runoff during the rainy season. Fish, birds, animals and humans all accumulate the pesticide in fatty tissues where they build up over the years to levels far higher than can be found in the environmen t. When the flesh of contaminated fish and animals is eaten, a large dose of pesticide will result. These large accumulations of DDT in the body produce health effects that go far beyond the effects of the small individual doses from indoor spraying.
One of the most telling statements of the panel of fifteen environmental health scientists is the following: “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.”
What will be the fate of our children if we close our eyes to these serious risks? What will be the impact on our own health as we accumulate more and more DDT in our bodies? And what will be the fate of the future generations of Nagas if we do not act?
(Ian Anthony Jones is a health educator and missionary from the US now married to a Naga and residing in Dimapur. He will be contributing every Friday to the Morung Express under the column: Health & Healing. You may contact the Health and Healing columnist and give him feedback at: edenbarak.ngo@gmail.com)
