Laissez Faire Today, lazy and unfair as yesterday on issues of DDT

In June [2012] I drew encouragement that Henry I. Miller, the musty old anti-science physician at the Hoover Institution, had not renewed his annual plea to bring back DDT.  Miller is just one of the most predictable trolls of science and history; most years he waits until there are a number of West Nile virus victims, and then he claims we could have prevented it had we just jailed Rachel Carson and poisoned the hell out of America, Africa, Asia and the Moon with DDT.  For years I’ve reminded him in various fora that DDT is particularly inappropriate for West Nile . . .

Rachel Carson Homestead Springdale, PA

Rachel Carson Homestead Springdale, Pennsylvania (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since June, Miller popped up and popped off in Forbes, but using the event of the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s brilliant book Silent Spring.  Brilliance and science and history aside, Miller still believes that protecting wildlife and humans from DDT’s manifold harms is a threat to free enterprise — how can anyone be expected to make a profit if they can’t poison their customers?

Miller is not the only throwback to the time before the Age of Reason, though.  It’s time to put the rebuttals on the record, again.

Comes this morning Jeffrey Tucker of Laissez Faire Today, complaining that the resurgence of bedbugs in America is an assault on democracy, apple pie, free enterprise, and Rachel Carson should be exhumed and tortured for her personal banning of DDT worldwide.  You can read his screed.  He’s full of unrighteous and unholy indignation at imagined faults of Carson and imagined benignity of pesticides.

I responded (links added here):

I’m shocked by your mischaracterizations of Rachel Carson, her great book Silent Spring (which it appears to me you didn’t read and don’t know at all), and pesticide regulation. Consequently, you err in history and science, and conclusion. Let me detail the hub of your errors.

You wrote:

Carson decried the idea that man should rule nature. “Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species — man — acquired significant power to alter the nature of the world.” This anthropocentrism she decried.

Carson was concerned that we were changing things that would have greater effects later, and that those effects would hurt humans. Her concern was entirely anthropocentric: What makes life worth living? Should we use chemicals that kill our children, cripple us, and create havoc in the things we enjoy in the outdoors, especially if we don’t know the ultimate effects?

Exactly contrary to your claim, her book was directed at the quality and quantity of human lives. She wanted long, good lives, for more people. How could you miss that, if you read any of her writings?

She suggested that killing a bedbug is no different from killing your neighbor: “Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is — whether its victim is human or animal — we cannot expect things to be much better in this world… We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature.”

Carson never wrote that there should be difficulty in killing bedbugs. The passage you quote, but conspiratorially do not cite, comes not from Silent Spring, but from a commentary on a compilation of hunting stories.* She’s referring to killing for the sake of killing, in that passage. I think it’s rather dishonest to claim she equates fighting biting bedbugs with killing animals unsportingly. I worry that you find it necessary to so grossly and dishonestly overstate your case. Is your case so weak?

In fact, she spoke of animals in patently untrue ways: “These creatures are innocent of any harm to man. Indeed, by their very existence they and their fellows make his life more pleasant.”

She did not write that about bedbugs. That’s a false claim.**

I guess she never heard of the Black Death.

I guess you never heard of accuracy. On page 266 of Silent Spring Carson directly addressed plague in a list of insect- and arthropod-borne diseases; Carson wrote:

“The list of diseases and their insect carriers, or vectors, includes typhus and body lice, plague and rat fleas, African sleeping sickness and tsetse flies, various fevers and ticks, and innumerable others.

“These are important problems and must be met. No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are making it worse.” (Silent Spring, page 266)

Carson describes abuse of pesticides — such as DDT on bedbugs — that actually makes the insects stronger and tougher to get rid of. That appears to be your stand, now, to do whatever Carson said not to do, in order to poke a thumb in her eye, even if it means making bedbugs worse.

[Tucker continued:] In short, she [Rachel Carson] seemed to suggest that bedbugs — among all the millions of other killer insects in the world — enjoy some kind of right to life. It was a theory that could be embraced only in a world without malaria and bedbugs. But embraced it was.

That’s total fiction. What you write is completely divorced from fact.

By 1972, DDT was banned. And not only DDT. The whole enterprise of coming up with better and better ways to further human life and protect its flourishing was hobbled.

By 1960, DDT had ceased to work against bedbugs — this was one of the things that worried Carson*** and would worry any responsible person [see Bug Girl’s blog]. In her book, Carson warned that indiscriminate use and abuse of DDT would render it useless to fight disease and other insects and pests. By 1965, super mosquito-fighter Fred Soper and the World Health Organization had to stop their campaign to eradicate malaria when they discovered that abuse of DDT in agriculture and other uses had bred malaria-carrying mosquitoes in central and Subsaharan Africa that were resistant and immune to DDT. Keep in mind that the U.S. ban on DDT applied only in the U.S., and only one other nation in the world had a similar ban. DDT has never been banned in Africa, nor Asia.

Carson sounded the warning in 1962. By 1972, when the U.S. banned use of DDT on agricultural crops (and only on crops), it was too late to preserve DDT as a key tool to wipe out malaria.

Was the pesticide industry “hobbled?” Not at all. EPA’s order on DDT explicitly left manufacturing in the U.S. available for export — keeping profits with the pesticide companies, and multiplying the stocks of DDT available to fight disease anywhere in the world that anyone wanted to use it.

The fact is that DDT was a fortunate find, a bit of a miracle substance, and we overused it, thereby cutting short by decades its career as a human life-saver. That was exactly what Carson feared, that human lives would be lost and made miserable, unnecessarily and prematurely, by unthinking use of chemical substances. Pesticide manufacturers have been unable to come up with a second DDT, but not because regulation prevents it. Carson understood that.

There is no shortage of science-ignorant, and science-abusive websites that claim Rachel Carson erred. But 50 years out, the judgment of the President’s Science Advisory Council on her book remains valid: It’s accurate, and correct, and we need to pay attention to what she wrote. Not a jot nor tittle of what Carson wrote in 1962 has proven to be in error. Quite the contrary, as Discover Magazine noted in 2007, thousands of peer-reviewed studies reinforce the science she cited then.

Malaria deaths today are at the lowest level in human history, largely without DDT, and much due to malaria fighters having adopted the methods of fighting the disease that Carson advocated in 1962. Unfortunately, those methods were not adopted for nearly 40 years. Still, the reductions in malaria are remarkable. At peak DDT use in 1959 and 1960, a half-billion people in the world got malaria every year, one-sixth of the world’s people. 4 million died from the disease. In 2009, about 250 million people got malaria — a reduction of 50% in infections — and fewer than 800,000 people died — a dramatic reduction of more than 75% in death toll. This is all the more remarkable when we realize that world population more than doubled in the interim, and at least a billion more people now live in malaria-endemic areas. Much or most of that progress has been without DDT, of necessity — every mosquito on Earth today now carries the alleles of resistance and immunity to DDT.

You impugn a great scientist and wonderful writer on false grounds, and to damaging effect. I hope you’re not so careless in other research.

Rachel Carson was right. The re-emergence of bedbugs, 50 years after she wrote, is not due to anything Carson said, but is instead due to people who petulantly refused to listen to her careful and hard citations to science, and exhortations to stick to what we know to be true to protect human health and the quality of life.


* Rachel Carson: Legacy and Challenge, by Lisa H. Sideris, Kathleen Dean Moore, citing another of Carson’s writings, a critique of a collection of Aldo Leopold’s essays on hunting, Round River.

**  Here is the full quote, from pages 99-100 of Silent Spring, highlights added here:

Incidents like the eastern Illinois spraying raise a question that is not only scientific but moral. The question is whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized. These insecticides are not selective poisons; they do not single out the one species of which we desire to be rid. Each of them is used for the simple reason that it is a deadly poison. It therefore poisons all life with which it comes in contact: the cat beloved of some family, the farmer’s cattle, the rabbit in the field, and the horned lark out of the sky. These creatures are innocent of any harm to man. Indeed, by their very existence they and their fellows make his life more pleasant. Yet he rewards them with a death that is not only sudden but horrible. Scientific observers at Sheldon described the symptoms of a meadowlark found near death: ‘Although it lacked muscular coordination and could not fly or stand, it continued to beat its wings and clutch with its toes while lying on its side. Its beak was held open and breathing was labored.’ Even more pitiful was the mute testimony of the dead ground squirrels, which ‘exhibited a characteristic attitude in death. The back was bowed, and the forelegs with the toes of the feet tightly clenched were drawn close to the thorax…The head and neck were outstretched and the mouth often contained dirt, suggesting that the dying animal had been biting at the ground.’

***  See page 273 of Silent Spring.


2 Responses to Laissez Faire Today, lazy and unfair as yesterday on issues of DDT

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    As often as I err, according to my critics, you’d think they’d delight in coming over here to whip on my errors.

    Alas, they prefer to do it in other fora.

    Someone operating under the handle “Reading” takes me to task at Laissez Faire Today:

    September 26, 2012 · Reply

    “Mr. Tucker, please read the UK site more closely: It does not say bedbugs were controlled with DDT after the 1950s.”

    So what? The point is that it is generally acknowledged by all but partisans such as yourself that DDT had all but eradicated bedbugs.

    “You’ll notice that site does not recommend DDT now, nor even lament that it is not available.”

    Perhaps you didn’t notice that the purpose of the article was to be largely informational about the current state of bedbugs, not to make moral/ethical proclamations about the situation.

    And your report did not actually conclude anything; it suggested some things and said some things were likely. In scientific terms their stated conclusions are, for the most part, meaningless…until we actually intend to test the theory with a new round of DDT treatments.

    Check your own biases at the door, True Believer.

    I answered:

    Reading, bedbugs became highly resistant to DDT long before they were “eradicated” in the U.S. If you check the professional exterminator literature, you find that the switch to other chemicals — some perhaps nastier than DDT — came in the late 1950s.

    Consequently, Mr. Tucker errs when he claims that DDT was the miracle substance — it wasn’t — and he misleads when he implies that all we need to do is poison our homes with a substance found inherently dangerous to be rid of the bedbugs. It’s simply false to imply, as he does, that DDT is harmless, too. It’s not. It’s a deadly poison to all forms of life, only slow working on large animals like humans.

    The UK site does not rebut in any way my statement that bedbugs were resistant to DDT in the 1950s. Yes, it’s generally informative — but it doesn’t say what Mr. Tucker needed it to say to salvage his argument.

    I referred readers here to a practicing entomologist who has written popularly on bedbugs, with citations to the most recent research. [link not at LFT site in this response] The report “did not conclude” anything? Not to those who are biased against the facts and whose science blinders prevent their seeing: When research indicates that all populations of bedbugs are highly resistant to DDT, genetically, and actual tests show that a month of living in high doses of the stuff do not affect the bedbugs’ feeding on human hosts, mobility or breeding, a reasonable person does not need to be told directly that “Mr. Tucker erred.”

    Only anti-science, anti-history partisans would swallow such inaccuracies. The rant against Carson, and for DDT, is wholly political. It is absolutely ungrounded in reality, in science, or history.

    Biases? I have a powerful bias for using solid facts in issues of science, for using good research, for getting the history right, and for not making claims about laws that never existed. A reasonable person can draw the connections. Let me make them more obvious.

    1. In the U.S. we banned the use of DDT on crops in 1972. 40 years later, we have problems with bedbugs. That 40 year gap suggests that the EPA’s regulatory action had absolutely nothing to do with the current rise of bedbugs.

    2. Rachel Carson wrote a great piece of literature that was determined to be highly accurate, scientifically, by the President’s Science Advisory Council, and by every serious analysis of the work in the ensuing 50 years. She gathered together 25 years of research into the dangers of DDT, and made it clearly understandable. That’s a remarkable achievement by itself.

    3. Carson’s science was solid. It was golden. No one without a political axe to grind has complained about its accuracy since 1963. No one has successfully challenged any piece of science she wrote about in 1962 — few other science books of the time, by anyone, could have withstood such a test of time. Carson’s book remains accurate, scientifically, conclusions only blostered by 50 more years of research.

    4. Under U.S. laws, DDT was banned because it’s an uncontrollable poison in the wild. Of course that regulatory action was challenged, because under U.S. laws agencies cannot act on whims. Both challenges ended with the courts ruling there was ample science to show the harms of DDT, and EPA’s action was scientifically valid, and required by laws passed in the 1950s, not by a modern environmental movement.

    5. DDT has been constantly available to fight malaria, around the world (including in the U.S.).

    6. DDT’s great utility against malaria-carrying mosquitoes began to fade before 1950. By 1965, abuse and overuse of DDT, by advocates such as Mr. Tucker, rendered DDT unfit for the WHO’s ambitious campaign to eradicate malaria from the world. There was no substitute by then, sadly. While Mr. Tucker claims Ms. Carson and environmentalists should be blamed for malaria deaths after 1972, they were the ones fighting to keep DDT useful, and available.

    7. Despite the screwup of the malaria fighting by DDT advocates, malaria fighters did not give up. They continue the battle today, and malaria deaths are at the lowest level in human history. Ironically perhaps, much of the progress against malaria comes using integrated vector management methods Carson advocated in 1962 (if we had listened then . . .). Consequently, claims that Rachel Carson is somehow complicit in the deaths of millions, are dead wrong; she should be credited with the three million lives saved annually with the reduction in malaria deaths.

    The level of denial required to argue the case Mr. Tucker argues is truly breathtaking. One needs to deny evolutionary biology, chemistry, entomology and entomology history. One needs to deny U.S. laws and regulation, and the history of their application. One needs to deny African law and history, medical history, medicine and law. One needs to deny the calendar, claiming that a 1972 ban on DDT traveled back in time to 1965. One needs to deny geography, claiming that a ban on DDT use in Texas increased disease in Subsaharan Africa. On needs to accuse Africans of a lack of sense, claiming that despite their having plenty of DDT, they all read Rachel Carson’s book and, contrary to her urgings, decided not to use it to fight malaria though the disease was killing their children. Do I need to mention the not-really-implicit racism inherent in that claim?

    Six impossible things before breakfast was the Red Queen’s record — you’re requiring far too many impossible beliefs, all the time, in the face of facts. We are not the Red Queen.

    Biases? My bias for accuracy cannot be checked.


  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Doubling down on error: Mr. Tucker responded to my comment at his site:

    Jeffrey Tucker

    September 25, 2012 · Reply

    Thanks for this note. Actually, every non-ideological expert agrees that DDT controlled bed bugs. that’s not even in dispute.

    As for Rachel, she was a Rousseauian, imaging a world of happy mutual coexistence between mankind and nature before the 20th century when we arrogantly decided we should control nature more aggressively. In her view, that was the snake in the Garden. This is pretty much her whole thesis, and everything follows from that.

    She condemns the power we have over nature, from the opening pages! Her admissions that bugs are dangerous are mostly perfunctory and prelude to arguing that chemicals only make the problem worse. She paints a picture of a world being poisoned by chemicals and nothing else. She offers ZERO mention of how insects wiped out half the population of Europe. Mostly she thinks insects control themselves provided that we live far enough apart. She ends by pleading for “reasonable accommodation between the insect hordes and ourselves.”

    So, there you go.

    Fifty years experience show us that she was wrong.

    I answered:

    Mr. Tucker, please read the UK site more closely: It does not say bedbugs were controlled with DDT after the 1950s. You’ll notice that site does not recommend DDT now, nor even lament that it is not available. Responsible professionals know DDT can’t work.

    Recent research shows that all populations of bedbugs are extremely resistant to DDT (see Bug Girl’s Blog, she’s the resident internet expert).

    The conclusion of the paper:

    “This evidence suggests that the two mutations are likely the major resistance-causing mutations in the deltamethrin-resistant NY-BB through a knockdown-type nerve insensitivity mechanism.”


    “Because DDT has been used indiscriminately to control many insect pest species including bed bug, the widespread and frequent use of DDT is likely to have predisposed bed bug populations to pyrethroid resistance through the neuronal insensitivity mechanism.“

    So, what does this new information tell us?

    DDT will be utterly useless against bed bugs, so people should stop asking for it.

    Rachel Carson was no more “a Roussouian” [oy, spelling] than you are a Rasputinist. You obviously did not read her books, nor did you even bother to read where I show you have mis-cited her and edited her quotes to something quite different from what she wrote. She was writing about kittens, cattle and songbirds when she wrote about creatures that give humans pleasure, not bedbugs.

    Your misquoting of a fine scientist is worrisome. What else do you spy with such jaundice? Fifty years of crude attempts to rebut Carson, like yours here today, remain incorrect and fruitless. I dare you to cite a single error in the science she cited — and I plead with you to quote and cite her accurately.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: