MALARIA  AND  DDT

San Francisco Chronicle, December 11, 2000

122 NATIONS AGREE ON TOXICS BAN

By Susanna Loof
ASSOCIATED PRESS

JOHANNESBURG - After a week of negotiations culminating in all-night
talks, U.N. officials announced yesterday that 122 countries have agreed
on a treaty banning 12 highly toxic chemicals.

Greenpeace called the agreement the "beginning of the end of toxic
pollution," and the World Wildlife fund described it as "a real solid
foundation for the future."

Despite disagreements that kept negotiators awake most of Friday and
Saturday nights, all welcomed the final text, said John Buccini,
chairman of the summit organized by the U.N. Environment Program.

"The treaty enjoyed the broadest possible support," he said. "People not
only felt that we have a treaty, but that we have a good treaty."

PCBs, dioxins and other chemicals on the list are known as persistent
organic pollutants, or pops. They break down slowly, travel easily in
the environment and have been linked to cancer, birth defects and other
genetic abnormalities.

Production and use of nine of the 12 chemicals will be banned as soon as
the treaty takes effect, probably four to five years after the signing
ceremony, set for May in Stockholm.

About 25 countries, including South Africa, would be allowed to use one
of the 12 chemicals – DDT – to combat malaria in accordance with World
Health Organization guidelines pending development of safer solutions.

The treaty calls for reducing releases of dioxins and furans -toxic
byproducts of waste burning and industrial production  – "with the goal
of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate
elimination."

Using electrical equipment containing PCBs would be allowed until 2025,
as long as the equipment doesn't leak the chemical, which can cause
cancer and harm the immune and reproductive systems.

The most contentious issues were provisions for expanding the treaty to
include other chemicals and a way for industrialized nations to transfer
about $150 million a year to developing countries to offset the costs of
using cleaner alternatives.

The donor countries wanted to use an existing Global Environment Fund
for the transfer, under which they would retain. more control over how
the money is used. Developing countries wanted a new mechanism likely to
give them more control.

In the end, the treaty assigned the Global Environment Fund as a
temporary mechanism but added conditions as to how the fund must improve
its work. No amount has been specified.

COMMENTS

If one were to list what is most threatening to our environment, it
would be difficult to pick the top of the list. Certainly pesticides
would be included as possibly being the one on the top. It is
encouraging that the Global Environment Fund is progressing towards its
control.

Considerable attention has been given to pesticides by environmentalists
and rightly so. However, sometimes they go overboard. Sometimes they
leave no room for uncertainty, saying all pesticides are bad. Such is
not the case.

All our pesticides are the result of scientists’ research. But their use
is out of scientists’ hands and rests in the hands of entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs are no less virtuous than the public; as a whole they are
solid citizens. But when virtuous considerations interfere with profits,
many (most?) times, entrepreneurs compromise them

Let consider the above article in reference to the Global Environment
Fund’s decision on DDT. Some 35 years ago, Rachel Carson’s writings on
DDT left one to feel that its use was an abomination. Her acolytes have
left no stone unturned to promote Carson’s condemnation of DDT.

It’s well worth one’s time to consider just why the Global Environment
Fund – despite almost a universal condemnation for DDT – singled it out
and gave approval for its use. Indeed, the approval does have some
restrictions and rightly so. Perhaps Carson was off base?

Malaria kills people and DDT is a preventative. It’s the best
preventative known. Yes, there are negative effects of this pesticides
but it’s obvious that the good outweighs the bad. What more can one say?