Basic HTML Version
September
197 1
A brief history of well-knowo chem–
ical tragedies bears this out.
The Uolearned Lessoo of DDT
DDT was first developed, marketed,
and used widely in the early 1940's as
an anti-malaria drug in countries rav–
aged by World War Il. After the war,
it
was used for the same health
purposes in many underdeveloped
lands. Its proponents daim that DDT
has saved almost a
billion
lives in these
healtb campaigns alone. (Hence the
population explosion ?)
But, beginning in 1946, DDT began
its more widespread use as a crop–
protective pesticide. (Hence greater
crop yields, and
more
population explo–
sion.) For a quarter of a century, DDT
was used in such a massive scope that
one billion pounds of it are still active in
the environment, and perhaps every liv–
ing animal now has DDT stored in its
fat. The average American has 12 parts
per million DDT in his fat; the average
!odian has 25 parts per mi11ion.
But here's the lesson. lt took scien–
tists about
15
years
to realize that DDT
was dangerous to
man and beast,
as
well as insects. Dr. lrving Bengelsdorf,
Science Editor for the
Los A11geles
Times,
wrote, "No other global con–
taminant has such four characteristics
rolled into one material: broad toxicity,
long persistence, extreme mobility, and
fat-solubility."
Fifteen long years elapsed - with
three billion human guinea pigs exposed
- before these facts
could
come to light.
lt would have been impossible to test
DDT for "long persistence," for in–
stance, without
decades
of research. l t
would have been impossible to test for
"extreme mobi lity" (between species)
without infecting a broad-based animal
population. In short, it is virtually im–
possible to test chemicals economically
and
scientifical ly before they are widely
used. It takes too much time and
money.
It took about 5 years to develop
ÓDT, 15 years to reali ze how harmful
it was, 5 years to research and publicize
those facts (Rache! Carson worked
steadily from 1958 through 1962 on
Si–
lent Spring,
which exposed DDT's dan–
gers), and another 10 years to finally
BAN
DDT. Only by December of 1970
The
PLAIN TRUTII
was DDT banned in the U. S., except
for the disease-control use for whicb it
was originally designed.
Early in 1971, the DDT ban began
to be li fted, since no other chemical
could kill pests so economically, and the
effect on humans was not yet "proveo."
The effect on birds, fish, and other ani–
mals - death -
is
proveo.
In the 1950's, attacking DDT was
like attacking Science personified. How
"kooky'' could you get? Every family
had their little black and red spray
pump that junior used on the roses each
Saturday.
1t
was as "safe as blowiog
bubbles." It took twenty years to sway
public opinion to the opposite -
correct - belief, that DDT is harmful.
This magazine
has spoken out against
pesticides for many years.
lt
used
to be an unpopular message, but no
more.
Thalidomide, Smoking and
Mercury - The Same Lesson
Remember thalidomide -
those
thousands of deformed babies, now
about 7
oc
8 years old attending special
elementary schools all over the U. S.
lt took about five years
to develop DDT, fifteen
years to realize how
harmful it was , f ive
years to research and
publicize those facts.
and Europe? Thalidomide is another
case of a chemical which would have
been economically, morally, and scien–
tifically impossible to test without ac–
tually waiting nine months until one
child, an unfortunate guinea pig, was
boro under its use.
The same lesson of course applies to
smoking - it evidently took 50 years
of study to finally prove that the to–
bacco weed causes cancer. Meanwhile,
millions of human beings were all-too–
willing guinea pigs. Marijuana research,
likewise, may still be goiog on 20 years
from now, still deadlocked with "in–
conclusive results." TI1e same story is
true of mercury poisoning. As a recent
P LAIN
TRUTH article showed, industrial
11
mercury pollution has beeo around for
decades, but it took about 40 years for
the public to become aware of its
harm.
AH these are similar examples of a
dangerous kind of chemical roulette.
But "why gamble ?"
"If
in doubt,
DON'T." But let's focus on your familiar
household chemicals. First, how are
they researched and deveJoped? What
are the economics involved?
Over 40 companies spend at least $60
million a year on research and develop–
ment of 80,000 new chemicals for in–
secticides, all of which gross $1.7
billion in consumer prices, growing in
volume
1
7 percent per year. (The
U. S. government spends an additional
$100 million.)
So
much for the big
oumbers. Here's how
one
chemical is
developed.
How Chemicals
Are
Tested
A chemicaJ firm starts by synthesizing
a new chemical, usually a chemical
"cousin" of an established killer. Then
they "screen" it - seeing if it kills. At
this point
99
out of 100 chemicals are
eliminated. After a
few
other tests, the
l in 100 that "survives" (that is,
kills
best) goes through a series of eval–
uations and test marketings.
According to a survey by the Arthur
D. Little Company, ooly 1 out of 36,-
000 products synthesized reaches the
market.
Even then, no one knows
why
it tuorks.
"lt is a striking fact," wrote
entomologist E. H. Smith, in 1966,
"that knowledge of mode of action has
rarely preceded the use of any insecti–
cide." Nor does such knowledge irnme–
diately
f ollow.
"Eveo today," Smith
wrote, "we do not know precisely how
DDT induces
its
toxic action"
(Science,
166:1384, December 12, 1969).
That's the
knowledge
risk. The
fi–
nancia/
risk is just as imposing. Accord–
ing to the National Agricultura!
Chemicals Association, it costs a firm
$2.5 to $6 million, and anywhere from
6 months to 8
years,
to develop one new
pesticide for the market.
Virtually
al1
of
that
time and money
is spent on festing toxicity (how well it
kills insects) and marketability ( how
well it will
sell) .
There is very little
research on its "selectivity," that is, its
reJative safety to humaos and animals,