I sympathize with the public health officials in the field who struggle every day trying to prevent suffering from malaria. Their concerns are quite understandable. But the issue has at its core economics, not science. They maintain - DDT exists now, it is on the shelf and can be manufactured in mass quantities cheaply. That makes it good.
Alternatives cost more.
That makes them not as good. A fundamental flaw in the arguments of opponents to the ban is the implied claim that we can separate harm to the environment from harm to people. Even though DDT s direct effect on human health can be debated, its effect on the ecosystem must be considered a direct effect on our health as well. The issue cannot be reduced to humans versus birds. The presence of DDT in birds indicates that the material has thoroughly infiltrated the ecosystem.