Opponents of a pending international pesticide treaty are cloaking their anti-environment stance in humanitarian rhetoric. 2001 DDT is a nasty chemical with a nasty history. So supporting worldwide restrictions on the stuff would seem like a slam-dunk for a president seeking to rescuscitate his tarnished environmental image at home and abroad. Because DDT also happens to be especially cheap, and especially good at killing mosquitoes and other carriers of malaria. But what's driving the pro-DDT lobby isn't just heartfelt concern for human lives in Third World.
Industry has an undeniable stake in the pesticide debate.
According to the United Nations Children's Fund, much of the upswing in malaria infections since DDT use was restricted can be traced to industrial practices , such as mining and large-scale irrigation. But curtailing those practices to help prevent malaria would hurt corporate profits in a way that spraying DDT won't. While directed household applications of DDT are highly effective in killing malarial bugs, there is nothing preventing the chemical's escape into the surrounding environment, especially in rural areas. Malaria is not coincidentally common in tropical regions, home to some of the world's key havens of biodiversity. If we are willing to risk entire species in the fight against disease, we should be certain that there are no other options.