Despite how long the debate has raged over DDT, the scientific community has still not come to an unanimous decision over whether the risks outweighs the benefits. DDT was applauded as a miracle pesticide at its invention, but slowly evidence of the harm it can cause came to the surface, culminating in a ban on its use in the United States in the early 1970's.
However, in some countries, DDT's use is being debated, particularly because of its potential to kill malaria spreading mosquitos in places like Africa. Opponents of DDT bring up the heath risks that DDT creates, such as fertility issues. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria)
This debate reminds me of the debate over GMO's. GMO's were applauded when they were created, but, much like DDT, concerns began to be raised about their safety. However, since certain GMO products can assist greatly in countries that have food shortage issues, so this is also a cost/benefit analysis between a major worldwide cause of mortality versus scientific manipulation that does not have completely substantiated proof of the harm it causes. However, GMO's have not been around as long as DDT which concerns me. One of the main points in the debate over GMO's is that there have not been enough studies of the harm GMO's cause. I'm sure this point was raised when people initially became concerned about DDT, and since it has been proven to be harmful, I am skeptical of what GMO studies will eventually conclude.
L.J.
No comments:
Post a Comment