But the WSU ethics paper poses some convincing arguments of its own; Health implications uncovered by the recent research are endangering individuals "who are not able to have any voice in the decision to use the pesticide." So we must now balance the number of lives being saved from malaria, against the implications that its continued usage will surely have. "There are now many accounts of socially disadvantaged, ethnic groups and the poor, suffering the ill effects of environmental degradation," states the report. "DDT use in the developing world looks set to be yet another case in that sad history. The harm will only fully emerge over the course of a number of generations."
The report concludes that the burden of proof must now shift back to those advocating for its continued use. And the worst thing that could happen would be to carry on with the status quo without careful consideration of the consequences.
Postscript: I asked the Gates Foundation and the World Health Organization for comments on this some time ago. I am still waiting for their responses.
In a future chapter, Larry will explore this.
Is there a new DDT on the horizon?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).