Killing ourselves slowly(DDT)
With growing calls for the reintroduction of DDT to fight the resurgence of malaria worldwide, we must not forget the reasons why many countries have banned this toxic substance and other dangerous chemicals that cause cancers and other persistent diseases that impair health and possibly prove fatal
Chemicals are so ubiquitous that we often forget about them. They
range from plastics to pigments for use in paint and dyes, to
precursors for pharmaceuticals, computers, toys, perfume, T-shirts,
shoes and products that we use every day. There are now a staggering
100,000 chemicals currently in commercial use. Indeed, with the
proliferation of the IT industry, the spectre of “e-waste” or
electronic waste is now hovering over poor societies.
We are all aware of the ubiquity of chemicals in our daily lives. Or
are we? At a recent meeting of international environmental journalists,
organised by the NGO Greenaccord in Rome, a WWF representative, Eva
Alessi, emphasised how chemicals have permeated every nook and corner
of human existence, often with disastrous consequences.
The WWF took blood samples of 13 families across Europe, across three
generations. To drive the point home, these were not your average
persons-on-the-street, the hoi polloi, but some of the most influential
people in their societies. They included members of the European
Parliament, 14 directors of newspapers and magazines, and other
VIPs.
The findings were nothing short of shocking: all the samples were
contaminated by a cocktail of hazardous chemicals. That is literally
close to the bone.
As Alessi cited: “Blood samples were analysed for more than 100
persistent, bio-accumulative and/or endocrine-disrupting chemicals,
many of which are found in everyday consumer products, like
organochlorine pesticides (including DDT).” At a time when pesticide
companies are renewing attempts to popularise DDT in India, also as a
weapon against malaria, this new evidence from Europe, where DDT has
been banned for several years, will fan the flames of the old
controversy over whether DDT is beneficial or harmful to human
life.
The WWF says: “The results of these surveys show that every person,
from grandmothers to children to VIP to MEP, is contaminated by a
cocktail of at least 20 different man-made chemicals. Some of the
identified chemicals, such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDT,
have been banned for decades but persist in the environment and
continue to contaminate new generations.”
Some key findings are:
- Of the 107 chemicals analysed, a total of 73 were detected in the whole survey. Sixty-three were found in grandmothers, 49 in mothers, and 59 in children.
- Brominated flame retardants, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, perfluorinated chemicals and artificial musks (fragrances) were found in the blood of every family member tested, including children as young as 12.
- The children’s generation had the highest median level of PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) flame retardants, PFCs (perfluorinated compounds) and artificial musks.
- Of the 31 different PBDEs analysed, 17 were found in children compared to 10 in grandmothers and 8 in mothers
Chemicals are so ubiquitous that we often forget about them. They exist
in products that range from plastics to pigments for use in paint and
dyes, to precursors for pharmaceuticals, computers, toys, perfume,
T-shirts, shoes, items that we use every day. There are now a
staggering 100,000 chemicals currently in commercial use. Indeed, with
the proliferation of the IT industry, the spectre of “e-waste” or
electronic waste is now hovering over poor societies. At last year’s
Vatavaran environmental film festival in Delhi, for example, a film
depicted how uninformed recyclers of e-waste in the capital were
salvaging materials from computers that had been junked, at huge risk
to their health.
If, as the WWF alleges, little is known about the impact of these
chemicals in Europe, the situation in this country can well be
imagined. There are 30,000 industrial chemicals in use in Europe, but
the public is not informed about the consequences of using most of
them. While some monitoring of chemicals was introduced after 1981, the
persistent prevalence of chemicals introduced earlier -- as the WWF
survey shows -- is seldom, if at all, addressed.
A growing number of industrial chemicals are known to contaminate
people. Some recent examples:
- Brominated flame retardants: Contaminates people and wildlife across the world. Two were phased out in Europe (penta and octa). Deca is increasingly being used, despite contaminating polar bears, birds of prey and people.
- Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs): Used in Scotchguard, teflon-manufacture. Action to phase out such chemicals has been slow and ineffective.
How should we tackle this problem? A sustainable chemical regulatory
system requires substantial improvements in current systems, to first
ensure availability of safety data on all chemicals. Secondly, there is
a need to create effective methods of restricting and phasing out
problem chemicals. Thirdly, downstream users need to be educated in
safe use (and disposal) of chemicals. Chemical manufacturers should
take more responsibility for what they produce, and safer products or
substitutes must be promoted.
The WWF’s initial concern began when it discovered chemicals like DDT
and PCBs in the bodies of wildlife in the 1990s. It didn’t take rocket
science to conclude that if polar bears and the like were being
affected, humans could not escape this fate. This, among other things,
is what led much earlier to the furore over DDT. While proponents of
its use pointed out that it killed pests that would otherwise deplete
foodgrain stocks and cause starvation, critics alleged that it would,
in the long run, cause cancers and other persistent diseases that would
impair health and possibly prove fatal. It was once cited how Indians
had more DDT in their bodies than any other nationals in the world. One
has only to recall the WHO poster a few decades ago, which showed a
bare breast with the caption: “Milk in these containers is unfit for
human consumption.”
Perhaps the most startling finding by the WWF (and Greenpeace) is the
emergence of endocrine-disrupters. Because these toxic chemicals hit
humans -- more particularly macho males! -- where it hurts most (below
the belt!) by lowering fertility or even causing changes in sex, they
have caused worldwide alarm. The WWF and Greenpeace have been accused
by the chemicals industry of spreading unnecessary alarm about these
chemicals, but their consequences cannot be simply dismissed as
scare-mongering. It is now common knowledge that the sperm count of
males worldwide is declining.
Alessi observed: “These chemicals, which have recently attracted great
public and scientific attention, are a structurally diverse group of
compounds that may adversely affect the health of humans and wildlife
and/or their progeny, by interacting with the endocrine system, and
particularly influencing reproductive function. They can mimic
endogenous hormones, disrupt reproductive functions and cause
developmental abnormalities (such as intersexes) in wild animal
populations. They include chemicals heavily used in the past, in
industry and agriculture, such as polychlorinated biphenyls and
organochlorine pesticides, and chemicals currently used as plasticisers
and surfactants.” Sources of these chemicals include farming,
livestock, forestry, industrial chemicals, waste incineration, consumer
products, food, pharmaceuticals and sewage discharge.
In Stockholm, at the recent annual congress of the International
Federation of Environmental Journalists, participants were taken to a
marine research station some distance away from the city where
researchers provided a graphic example of such processes at work. Since
Sweden is largely composed of islands, and the people there are
sea-loving, they tend to go boating a great deal. When the Swedes found
that their boats were getting encrusted with shellfish and other marine
life, which impeded speed, a special paint was devised which deterred
these creatures from attaching themselves to the vessels. However, when
the researchers began examining life in the shallow Baltic Sea, they
found that the paint had begun to lead to sex changes in snails and
other marine life. This led to a ban on such paints in Europe.
One of the little known facts about DDT is that it is also an
endocrine-disrupter, according to research carried out only last year.
It was developed in the 1940s and used as an insecticide against a very
wide range of pests, particularly malarial mosquitoes, and as an
agricultural insecticide. It is a long-lasting toxic chemical that
builds up in the tissue of living organisms like plants and in the
fatty tissue of animals and humans. According to the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, it may cause cancer in humans. The US
Environment Protection Agency too states that DDT probably causes human
carcinogens. DDT sticks to soil, can travel long distances and causes
widespread global dispersion. It has been banned in many countries,
including the EU, since 1970 (regulated by international treaty as a
“POP” or persistent organic pollutant). It is still used in some
developing countries.
The dilemma of whether to ban toxics like DDT or restrict and control
their use has been compounded by climate change. At the Rome meet, Dr
Andrew Githeko of the Kenya Medical Institute listed how the 1990s was
the hottest decade in the world’s recorded meteorological history (and
1998 the hottest year since 1861). We are witnessing the resurgence not
only of malaria, but also dengue, chikungunya and even the dreaded
yellow fever. North America is experiencing cases of Lyme disease and
West Nile fever due to very warm summers; malaria has raised its head
in eastern Europe. All this has revived demands for the use of DDT and
similar chemicals -- very much a Faustian bargain.
Without sounding alarmist, the WWF points to the need to take proper
measures. As Alessi said: “A new principle for guiding human
activities, to prevent harm to the environment and to human health, has
been emerging during the past 10 years. It is called the ‘principle of
precautionary action’, or the ‘precautionary principle’. In order to
protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely
applied. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation
(as endorsed at the Wingspread conference in Wisconsin in the US in
1998). In view of the magnitude of the potential risks associated with
endocrine-disrupters, scientific uncertainty should not delay
precautionary action on reducing the exposure to and from the
risks.”
Needless to say, all this is a far cry from the situation in this
country where the indiscriminate use of pesticides like endosulphan in
cashew nut plantations in Kerala has caused the most horrific
abnormalities. While these cases have been documented to some extent,
the “slow poison” associated with widespread use of chemicals is
proceeding unabated. In 2001, the UN Environment Programme laid down a
treaty on POPs, which also governed the “dirty dozen” -- 12 chemicals
that include DDT, aldrin and chlordane. Apart from pesticides and
fungicides, there are PCBs, which are primarily used in capacitors and
transformers, paint, adhesives, as well as dioxins, by-products of
combustion, of chlorine bleaching and paper bleaching. These chemicals
surround us “every step we take”.
The Delhi-based NGO, Toxics Link, has done some pioneering work in
making us aware of this slow poison. But much more needs to be done.
For a start, the chemicals industry needs to become more proactive in
disclosing the ingredients of its products and by-products, and what
these may entail. And, to draw a parallel with the earlier phase of the
campaign against child labour, the more hazardous occupations involving
toxics, like ship-breaking and recycling waste, ought to be strictly
monitored, if not banned outright. The counter argument, that we cannot
afford to do this in a poor country, will not wash. On the contrary, if
people are poor, illiterate and undernourished, their degree of
protection against such contamination should be enhanced rather than
lowered.