Precautionary Principle Archives

Calling Greenpeace to Account

Posted by IMGrant · 23 August 2006 · DDT/Malaria ~Environmental Risk ~International ~Precautionary Principle ~Sustainable Development

In an open letter to Greenpeace International, Richard Tren, Director of the organization "Africa Fighting Malaria", calls on Grenpeace to clarify its stance on the use of DDT for controlling malaria, and asks that it account for what it has done to follow through on its stated commitment "to seeing more effective methods for combating malaria" -- presumably because DDT is either ineffective or is saddled with unacceptable side effects.

Excerpts from the full letter follow:

[O]ver 1 million people, mostly children, die from malaria every year, and the parasites cause approximately 500 million cases annually. A highly effective method of malaria control is to spray small amounts of insecticide on the inside walls of houses -- a process known as Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) â€¦ DDT is one of the most effective public health insecticides for IRS programs ...

Thousands of studies into the possible human health effects of DDT have failed to definitively demonstrate any actual human harm attributable to DDT. [Comment by IMGrant: This is not for lack of trying. Researchers have tried to pin some adverse public health effect on DDT for half a century, and yet failed to come up with something definitive. This suggests that if DDT has an adverse impact on public health, it's pretty minor. In this case, the answer to Sherlock Holmes' question as to "why the dog didn't bark" is that there probably was no dog in the first place.] Given the colossal burden caused by malaria, any rational risk-benefit assessment would conclude that DDT should be used. [Aside: Indeed Richard Tren is right on this one. See: Indur M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001), available from Amazon.]

Due to its ongoing efficacy and its long record of safe use in malaria control, many countries continue to use DDT. Others, such as Uganda and Tanzania, are attempting to revitalize their IRS programs and use DDT, other insecticides and other interventions. The use of DDT in this way is specifically authorized by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

On 2 August, 2006, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) ran a story on the World Health Organization's (WHO) endorsement of the public health insecticide DDT for malaria control. The report quoted Greenpeace scientist Dr David Santillo's reaction to the endorsement:

"That certainly raises some quite substantial concerns and, if there's substantial funding coming from the US to support that, then that does sound very much like a step in the wrong direction â€¦ I think where that funding is better placed is in developing the availability of alternative strategies.

Richard Tren continues:

On 17 October 2004, I received correspondence from Manfred Krautter of Greenpeace Germany. Mr. Krautter was responding to a media report in which I was quoted as saying that environmentalist groups pressured aid agencies not to use insecticides such as DDT. In his letter, attached, Mr. Krautter reminded me that: " â€¦ DDT is in justified cases allowed to be used to combat mosquitoes carrying malaria. Greenpeace has no objections to these regulations on exceptions and supports this part of the Convention too ... It is therefore false to presume Greenpeace had expressed itself opposed to such emergency uses allowed in the POPs Conventionâ€¦[or] to say that Greenpeace has put pressure on other organizations not to use DDT to combat malaria in such cases."
These sentiments seem at odds with the opening sentence of a Greenpeace Statement on the Stockholm Convention and DDT, which Mr. Krautter included in his correspondence. The Statement reads:

"Any attempt to hinder or undermine world agreement to eliminate DDT under the Stockholm Convention would obstruct attempts to break the current cycle of misery related to the use of DDT for malarial vector control." [Italics added by IMGrant]

It is not clear what particular misery Greenpeace refers to with regard to the use of DDT for malaria control â€¦ To characterize the use of DDT to control this disease as â€œa cycle of miseryâ€ is entirely outrageous and seems to show that Greenpeace is at best out of touch with the risks and realities of life in Africa. At worst it demonstrates a callous disregard for human life in malarial areas.

The Greenpeace Statement goes on to call for more money to be invested in alternative solutions to DDT. Mr. Krautterâ€™s letter specifically states that:

"Greenpeace is thus committed to seeing that more effective methods for combating malaria which are more environmentally-friendly and sound with regard to health become devised and made available in the countries affected."

The various inconsistent and contradictory statements beg several questions:

First, if, as Mr. Krautter asserts, Greenpeace should not be characterized as opposed to the use of DDT in malaria control, why should the organization describe its use in malaria control as a "cycle of misery?" Furthermore, why does Dr Santillo consider that the restricted and careful use of DDT for malaria control is "a step in the wrong direction?"

Second, please, could you detail the financial commitment that Greenpeace itself has made to developing new malaria control technologies, and include any details of the success achieved? Given that Greenpeace informs us that it is "committed to seeing more effective methods for combating malaria," we assume that it has followed that up with actual investment.

Third, please, could you detail the lobbying and advocacy efforts that Greenpeace has undertaken to ensure that public and private funds are invested in the search for chemical alternatives to DDT?

Africa Fighting Malaria applauds the constructive and positive role that [some other environmental] organizations have taken with regard to DDT for malaria control. The criticism that Greenpeace has leveled at the WHO, and by implication, some of the world's leading malaria experts and scientists is damaging to malaria control programs and ultimately will cost lives in Africa.

It will be interesting to see Greenpeace's response.

Notably, Greenpeace's Donations website (for the USA) carries the following statement: "Greenpeace Inc. is a non-profit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(4) organization. As a result of our effective work for new environmental policies, contributions are not tax-deductible." As a taxpayer, I am heartened by the second sentence, but I wonder what social function is served by providing tax exempt status to an expressly misanthropic organization such as Greenpeace.

« Close It

Comments (0)

Preventing illness and deaths from malaria

Posted by Kendra Okonski · 12 April 2006 · DDT/Malaria ~International ~Precautionary Principle

The folks at Africa Fighting Malaria have written to the Council of the European Union requesting official clarification of their position on the use of DDT in Uganda's malaria control programme.

We therefore request a clear statement on the EUâ€™s position on the use of DDT in malaria control and its position regarding agricultural exports from any country that uses DDT in malaria control. The confusion and misinformation following the EUâ€™s statements in Uganda has cost lives and damaged Ugandaâ€™s malaria control program and this must halt immediately. We would appreciate a response before 25 April, which marks Africa Malaria Day.

AFM has highlighted the fact that US AID recently committed to using DDT in several indoor residual spraying programmes. (See previous posts for background on the topic.)

Comments (0)

Scandalous behaviour by corporates and governments

Posted by Kendra Okonski · 13 October 2005 · DDT/Malaria ~Environmental Risk ~European Union ~Precautionary Principle

At the Campaign for Fighting Diseases website, Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, writes that German chemical company Bayer has supported the European Union's threats against Uganda should the country decide to use DDT in its malaria control programme.

Not only is this scandalous -- it is a major conflict of interest. Tren points out that "[A Bayer representative] sits on the board of the World Health Organization's Roll Back Malaria (RBM) coalition - as do other commercial contractors to US Agency for International Development (USAID)."

Tren is a signatory to the Kill Malarial Mosquitoes Now (KMMN) declaration, what Tren calls "A new coalition which has emerged in the US to focus the minds of USAID in their malaria control efforts."

· TrackBack (46)

Unprincipled precaution

Posted by Kendra Okonski · 13 October 2005 · Environmental Risk ~European Union ~International ~Precautionary Principle

IPN has just published a new book co-authored by Gary Marchant, a professor in both the Arizona State University law school and school of life sciences. The book - Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts - explores how the principle has been employed in over 60 court decisions. Marchant concludes:

No one can argue against being safe rather than sorry. But the precautionary principle is flawed in theory and practice, and its enshrinement sets Europe down a path that will wreak havoc on the economy and public health of not only itself but also its trading partners.’

Today, Gary has an article in the Wall Street Journal Europe - "Unprincipled Precaution" (link to article on IPN's website) - which explores some of the book's themes. [for WSJ subscribers - original link]

· TrackBack (23)

Almost OT: Vioxx, Precautionary Principle, and the Environment

Posted by Carlo Stagnaro · 22 August 2005 · Precautionary Principle

A Texas jury has found the pharmaceutical company Merck liable for the death of a man who took the painkiller Vioxx. The man's widow has been awarded $253.5 million in damages. Actually she will get some 10% of that amount because of a Texas's cap on punitive damage.

While that may have little or nothing to do with environmental issues, it has a lot to do with the principles upon which environmental regulation rests. In particular, the court's ruling stems from an extremistic application of the precautionary principle - its purpose is to "send a message" in the first place - and may have a dramatic impact on the incentives to innovate for both drug and other companies.

The man had taken Vioxx for some 8 months. At the moment of dying his arteries were 70% clogged. According to the death certificate, the cause of death was arrhytmia. There was no mention of heart attack. Alas, the doctor who authored the death certificate testified later that an undetected blood clot could have caused the death - it was just speculation, supported by no evidence.

Yet that was a key testimony: Vioxx had been retired from the market by Merck itself because the company's own research showed it might increase the risk of heart attack if taken in heavy doses for more than 18 months. No risk was found in taking it for less then 18 months, as it was the case of the Texas man.

Moreover, the commercialization of Vioxx had been authorized by FDA, and its withdrawal had not been requested. Merck gave up its blockbuster in the name of patients' safety, despite the negative reactions of shareholders.

Now, after the Texas ruling new suits are expected - over 4,000 in the US and others to come in Canada, Europe, Brazil, Israel, and Australia. Obviously Merck will have to face rising legal costs .

I am concerned of the unintended consequences that may stem from the ruling. The unwritten message is what follows: Beware of you, drug producers, because you may be held liable of the death of whoever has used a medicine that is not 100% safe. And of course no medicine is 100% safe. The obvious result is to deter companies from innovate and sell new drugs. Guess who's worse off - you and me, as actual or potential patients.

University of Chicago's Richard Epstein has a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal [Subscribers only]. He writes:

Understand that no future drug will be free of adverse side effects, nor reach market, without the tough calls that Merck had to make with Vioxx. Your implicit verdict is to shut down the entire quest for new medical therapies. Your verdict says you think that the American public is really better off with just hot-water bottles and leftover aspirin tablets.

Ah, you will say, but we're only after Vioxx, and not those good drugs. Sorry, the investment community won't take you at your word. It realizes that any new drug which treats common chronic conditions can generate the same ruinous financial losses as Vioxx, because the flimsy evidence on causation and malice you cobbled together in the Ernst case can be ginned up in any other. Clever lawyers like Mr. Lanier will be able to ambush enough large corporations in small, dusty towns where they will stand the same chance of survival that Custer had at Little Big Horn. Investors can multiply: They won't bet hundreds of millions of dollars in new therapies on the off-chance of being proved wrong. They know they'll go broke if they win 90% of the time.

« Close It

· TrackBack (56)

Sunstein and Hahn Rip the Precautionary Principle

Posted by J. Bishop Grewell · 29 June 2005 · Precautionary Principle

Cass Sunstein and Bob Hahn write in the recent edition of The Economists' Voice that "the precautionary principle does not help individuals or nations make difficult choices in a non-arbitrary way. Taken seriously, it can be paralyzing, providing no direction at all." See the whole article here.

Also, a couple of other economists give the Clear Skies program a thumbs up with a few modifications.

Both of these articles are short, well-written, academic pieces that might make for nice handouts to classrooms or friends who could use a new perspective. If this is the approach that The Economists' Voice plans to follow, it will be something to watch.

Spiking Eco-Economics

Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 22 December 2004 · Precautionary Principle

Daniel Ben-Ami takes on environmental economics with a vengeance:

One of the most striking but least noticed aspects of the rise of environmentalism is the way that it has helped to redefine economics. Economic production and consumption are viewed in a fundamentally different way than they were before environmentalism became central to the dominant worldview. . . .

This development isn't just important at the level of ideas. A gloomy view of economic development plays an important role in holding back human potential. At its starkest, the acceptance of the idea that economic growth has to be curtailed is a tragedy in a world where billions of people still live in dire poverty. . . .

There is environmentalist confusion between the mastery over nature and the destruction of nature. Control over nature means reshaping the natural world to meet human needs - for example, developing medicines to fight against disease or building dams to prevent flooding or generate electricity. This is not the same as destroying rain forests or making animal species extinct. . . .

Nature has sometimes been destroyed as a side-effect of economic growth. But the aim of economic development is to benefit humanity rather than to destroy the natural world. It is important to remember that richer societies are in a much stronger position to create a positive environment for human beings than poor ones.

The remainder of this essay will examine the key tenets of environmentalist economics in more detail. It will argue that, in addition to being undesirable, the environmentalist worldview is based on fatally flawed assumptions.

Hat tip: Hit & Run.

Comments (1) · TrackBack (39)

Nature Is "Mankind's Gravest Threat"

Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 9 August 2004 · Precautionary Principle

The BBC reports that British researchers claim that gargantuan natural disasters are a greater threat than international terrorism and deserve more attention from policy-makers. One of the reported threats comes from asteroids. This prompts me to wonder: Do all those who support precipitous government action to address various environmental threats out of "precaution" also support the development of defensive systems to prevent an asteroid from hitting the earth?

Comments (8) · TrackBack (56)

By Author:

By Category:

By Month:

Precautionary Principle Archives