Through the Broken Window

Hallelujah!!

It's certainly taken them long enough. I salute Arata Kochi (the new head of the WHO's malaria programm) for helping to enlighten the rest of the world on this issue.
 

Chris and Jenna,

I'm a bit confused. From what I can tell from the article, DDT wasn't banned in developing countries (where malaris is still a problem).

According to the article, the use of DDT declined because "of lack of government money but also because of 'general disapproval' of its use for fear of its effect on human and animal health."

That sounds to me like its use declined because the government didn't subsidize it and people were not willing to take on the health risks other wise.

So what is the WHO suggesting development agencies do? I can't tell from glancing through the article.

Subsidies? I thought those morally unacceptable. Re-Education? What ever happened to people knowing what's best for themselves? I thought this was a questionable practice in its own right.

I havn't kept up on the issue. So maybe there is something I didn't see.
 

Admittedly, I have not kept up on the issue. However, I know that at worst, DDT was banned and at best, it was made into such a bogeyman by we holier-than-thou Westerners that even charitable organizations wouldn't use it abroud where it was legal.

So, still not in favor of subsidies, but if the accurate information about DDT gets to people who need it, then the WHO has done a good deed.
 

I am under the same impression that Jenna is. And I think she answered it well.
 

Interesting blog post on the subject from Crooked Timber

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/09/18/the-science-and-politics-of-ddt/#more-5146