DDT Spraying Will Harm Our Exports

By: Ellady Muyambi: The Monitor (Kampala)

Response is made to the article DDT Indoor Spraying Will Not Harm Agricultural Exports (New Vision, April 3) by Dr Myers Lugemwa. He indicates that the Ministry of Health (MoH) is aware of the alternatives to DDT but does not explain to what extent they have utilized those alternatives.

It is also imprudent to cite countries which have used DDT without giving reasons why those countries resorted to using it.

The MoH has failed to act in accordance with the guidelines given by the WHO, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). All that is being done is gambling.

The fact is that, Uganda does not have the technical and financial capacity to handle the DDT exercise. Bundibugyo District is right to reject the use of DDT. DDT is a persistent organic pollutant, its smell lingers in the air and it leaves stains on the walls of people's houses. DDT spraying does not kill cockroaches or bedbugs; rather, it excites such pests making them more active. Scientific studies show that DDT is linked to increased miscarriages, failure to breastfeed, developmental delays in children, male infertility, infertility in daughters of DDT-exposed women, and breast cancer later in life.

Actually, the Stockholm Convention puts it that the WHO should assist countries that are reliant on DDT to move to safer alternatives. This is well outlined in Annex B, Part II of the Convention. Although the MoH is planning to apply DDT in small quantities and cover the whole country by 2010, it doesn't have the expertise on how to prevent contamination of the agricultural products.

I am afraid that the ministry has now turned itself a responsible organ for giving technical advice on agricultural matters. Besides, over 60 per cent of houses in Uganda are temporary and could fall or be demolished even before the chemical ceases to be active after spraying.

The ministry also talks about the ordnance that requires everyone to have a granary. One wonders why this ordinance is not working. The ministry further puts it that DDT is cheap and therefore cost-effective compared to the alternatives. Considering the cost of lobbying, purchasing, disposal as well as the effects on human health and the environment, DDT is the most expensive option.

In fact, as the saying goes, cheap goods are always expensive in the long run. The ministry refers to the Public Health Act, indicating that mosquitoes are a public nuisance.

For heaven's sake, if mosq uitoes are a nuisance, then the MoH should find them in their safe haven "the bush" where they live, but not in people's houses. This law is outdated and can't stand any judicial test. Our health experts need to be educated that this law was made redundant by the Ugandan Constitution of 1995 which entitles the public to a free and healthy environment.

The writer is the General Secretary, Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control

Source: www.allafrica.com