Bad Blood

by Kim Larsen

Click for full-size image The Anopheles gambiae mosquito Remi Benali

(Page 3 of 5)

Nairobi-based physician Paul Saoke is chairman of Kenya's DDT and Malaria Expert Committee on implementation of the Stockholm Convention and head of the country's chapter of the international health advocacy group Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has his eye on another serious concern about the toxin: its effects on human health. I first met Saoke in April 2007 at the POPs conference in Dakar. The man has an impish grin and a way with a crowd. To an audience of buttoned-up delegates representing all sides of the POPs question and all corners of the globe, he introduced a presentation on the health risks of DDT with an anecdote from his childhood.

Born in 1961, Saoke grew up in an area near Mbita that used to be "fumigated," as he put it. Through the 1960s and 1970s DDT periodically rained down to control agricultural pests and to combat mosquitoes, ticks, and tsetse flies. Saoke and his boyhood pals would often peel off their clothes to swim in Lake Victoria, and as they grew older they dared one another to leap off a high, rocky ledge into the water. Some of the kids were afraid to jump. So, in a kind of rough-and-tumble, let's-see-what-you're-made-of scramble, they would reach between one another's legs to check. Lo and behold, Saoke recalled to the group of fidgeting dignitaries, by this crude measure a number of the boys were not made of much. His serious point: according to a growing body of evidence, cryptorchidism -- undescended testes -- and other genital malformations can result from in utero exposure to DDT.

Saoke now lives in Nairobi with his wife, a neonatologist, and their three children. Walking on the streets of the capital, or grabbing lunch in a restaurant, he appeared to know just about everyone he meets, from the shoeshine man to the government minister. Over the course of several conversations, Saoke recounted to me the parliamentary machinations by which Kenya very nearly changed course and resumed spraying DDT for disease-vector control. The pro-DDT lobby was powerful, and while Saoke was not alone in raising opposition, it's easy to imagine he was among the more outspoken. He's wary of the influence that global corporate interests can bring to bear on Kenyan national policy. His particular concern is that the international chemicals industry and its promoters are using the millions of African babies they claim DDT can save as a "human shield" behind which to begin rehabilitating an industry with a long history of lousy PR.

In the end, Saoke concedes, it was not concern about the health effects of DDT that carried the day; it was fears about lost trade. The European Union tests agricultural imports for traces of banned chemicals, and it refuses goods that test positive. DDT was not being considered for agricultural use, but wind and water can carry the stuff; moreover, in Kenya, as in most African countries, once the chemical is in distribution it is nearly impossible to monitor and control the manner in which it's deployed (a vexing problem for the Stockholm Convention). The Kenyan government was not about to adopt a policy that could threaten exports. This was fine with Saoke, but it is the health issues that consume him. 

 Some say that these concerns are based on purely anecdotal evidence. But the science has been accumulating for years, and policy makers are beginning to take note. At a high-level Stockholm Convention meeting in October 2007, for example, convened to discuss plans for alternatives to DDT in the fight against malaria, one agenda item read: "New information on DDT toxicity -- is it time to press the panic button?"

A growing number of peer-reviewed studies suggest links between DDT exposure and a range of ills, such as breast and liver cancer, neurological and developmental abnormalities, and a variety of hormonal effects. Some of these conditions may not manifest themselves for years, but others may take a more immediate toll.

DDT can interfere with the feedback loop in the pituitary gland, which releases the milk-producing hormone prolactin. Studies show that exposure to DDT at critical points in pregnancy or just after childbirth can reduce the output of breast milk, or even dry it up. In such instances the mother will turn to formula, which is expensive.And in Africa formula feeding often leads to another death sentence for babies: diarrhea (infants have no immunity to the microbes that abound in contaminated drinking water throughout much of the continent). Here, then, exposure to DDT may cause as swift and bleak an outcome as exposure to a mosquito.

Many of today's DDT promoters concede that the toxin cannot eliminate malaria all by itself. They endorse the idea of Integrated Vector Management (IVM), which combines indoor house spraying with bed nets, larvicides, and whatever other control measures may be applicable in a given area. But they insist that DDT can and should be part of a comprehensive, multifaceted response.

They correctly point out that the amount of DDT necessary to keep mosquitoes from biting inside a house is far less than the amount required for agricultural pest control. However, according to Gina Solomon, associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco and a senior scientist with NRDC, "There's not much reassurance in that argument. These applications occur where people live and therefore involve direct human exposures, so there's still a human health concern." Moreover, she says, "Hormone concentrations are minuscule, by definition. That's the entire point." Hormones are chemical signals released by glands at varying intervals to initiate and modulate an organism's development, and there is compelling evidence that DDT and its metabolite DDE can interfere with that delicate process. Encountered at the wrong time, at a critical moment in the growth of a fetus or a baby, the smallest amount may disrupt the messages that hormones exist to convey (see "Bad Chemistry," OnEarth, Winter 2006).

In Africa, airtight longitudinal health studies of any kind are extremely difficult to execute, given the continent's ramshackle health care infrastructure, its migratory populations, and the sheer multiplicity of medical issues that challenge any long-term attempt to isolate and track the factors involved in disease. But a crowded spectrum of reports, studies, and anecdotes like Paul Saoke's link DDT exposure to low birth weight, increased miscarriages, impaired neural development in children, low sperm count in men, and a long list of other ailments.

Continued...

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Comments

  • Apta Good wrote on January 07, 2008, 11:22PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    As impossible as it may seem, given the millions of dollars spent on malaria research without any results, a humble scientist stumbled upon an effective cure for malaria about ten years ago. The ingredient for the cure is a common one, sodium chlorite, which is cheaply available throughout the world.

    Jim Humble (aerospace engineer as well as inventor of the automatic garage door opener), discovered and tested the formulation while working in a malaria infested mining area in South America. He went on to verify 100% cures in thousands of cases in Africa.

    Rather than collect earnings from his discovery, Jim has striven to freely publicize this cure throughout the world. His website is http://www.miraclemineral.org/ . Anyone in a malaria stricken location can easily test the remedy and verify for themselves its effectiveness. No doubt those with vested interests in continuing the flow of money into fruitless malaria research will strive to hide or ridicule this cure but its formula is now open for the whole world to benefit. Anyone with malaria (or other parasites) has nothing to lose by trying it since it's perfectly harmless to the body.

  • Larry Zuckerman wrote on January 23, 2008, 11:56PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    As a former Peace Corps volunteer in Central Africa, I'm glad to see that malaria is getting the attention from Western researchers that has been long overdue. I've been interested in the DDT question particularly, because it seemed, at least until I read this article, that environmentalists in the developed world were deciding what was best for people they'd never seen or lived among, and whose struggles they had no concept of. I stand corrected on the merits of DDT, but I still wonder whether the solutions proposed have as much validity as all that, given the circumstances I witnessed. For instance, the bed nets I used (and those I saw) would have been useless among most of the general population. They were suspended from poles stuck into a bed frame and tucked under the mattress. But most African homes I saw had no mattresses, no bed frames, and no bed poles. They were huts with packed dirt floors, and people slept on straw mats. Granted, much may have changed in thirty years, but unless the nets come in different designs, I'd doubt that they'd be worth much in that country. Similarly, the author of this article talks of ponds stocked with tilapia, and how wonderful they'd be, and if we only spent a fraction of the money on keeping the ponds that we spend on malaria R&D or development, we'd get somewhere. Maybe, but my Peace Corps buddies who taught African farmers to create ponds and raise tilapia in them--and whom I admired because I thought their work more important than mine, which was teaching English--told me that after they left the country, the ponds quickly fell into disuse. Finally, the author of this article speaks about the necessity of eradicating places where mosquitoes breed. That's all well and good, and my hat off to anyone who does it. But when every tire mark on a road leaves a rut where rainwater can gather, it's not so easy as that. I got a lesson in this my first year in-country when I decided I'd raise an avocado plant in an empty can on my window sill. Avocadoes were plentiful, the plants were pretty, and I liked the idea of greenery in my house. Within two days, I abandoned the project; the mosquitoes were landing and taking off from that can of water like planes at a busy airport.
    I don't mean to sound defeatist; there's no choice about doing what you can. Only it's not so simple, which may explain why DDT seems like an attractive option to the people who are struggling with the alternatives.

  • James Mutunga wrote on October 09, 2008, 03:37PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    As a Kenyan working on Malaria, I throw my weight behind DDT. The disadvantages of DDT have just been politicized and many 'quack' researchers have continued to earn fat salaries at the expense of a dead child, every 30 sec! Its the high time we face the reality. Malaria is a disease of the poor BUT the poor have not been involved in decision making when it comes to what they may support as the best measure to control malaria. While the poor may not have the most informed answers, the 'educated' has used this chance to expand their knowledge on malaria through research, with no impact to disease transmission. We have enough tools to fight the disease, but politics and influence from the west under the guise of doing 'sophisticated' research has thwarted such efforts. The poor will continue to be 'guinea pigs', and suffer more as the rich undermine the effectiveness of DDT for malaria control. I am suprised that the GoK may see ease in having nuclear waste dumped into our country much better than having DDT for mosquito control. How many people will die if we spray tons of DDT in our land? Maybe < 100/year which is statistically far much significantly less than 2/min due to malaria! Lets get serious!
    kamanikiole@yahoo.com

View All 4 Comments

Comment on this article


Subscribe to Magazine | Site Map | About OnEarth | All Authors | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Contact the Editors | NRDC Home

NRDC