Home | Cover | America | World

Cover Story

Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund should turn donations over for DDT

by Judi McLeod,

February 9, 2005

Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund--who used public donations to fight the use of life-saving DDT in Third World countries--may be looking at reversing their stand.

The Internet surfing JunkScience.com noted first hints of the sudden reversal.

While a reversal coming 43 years later would undoubtedly save lives, how many tens of millions have died for nothing during the well-publicized DDT ban?

In his New York Times January 8 column, Nicholas Kristof quotes Greenpeace and WWF spokesmen as now being in support of the use of demonized DDT in anti-malarial programs.

"I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he would accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs. `South Africa was right to use DDT', he said. `If the alternatives to DDT aren't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives.'"

Ditto on DDT from Greenpeace, where Rick Hind, while noting there are reasons to be wary of DDT, added: `If there is nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."

Unfortunately, one of the most high-profile health agencies in the world, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) continues to be dogmatic about the use of DDT in the global fight against malaria.

In reality, the epiphany of Greenpeace and WWF could be much longer on words than action.

As JunkScience.com discovered, the WWF continues to maintain on its website the message that, "DDT should be phased out and ultimately banned."

Greenpeace has long led the call for banning DDT, and has been a leading advocate of the POPs Treaty, which would make DDT more difficult to use in anti-malaria programs, if not ban it outright.

The rhetoric in the argument against DDT has always been about the destruction of the butterflies, birds and the devastation of entire ecologies. The human emotion this argument tapped filled Greenpeace and WWF coffers with the generosity of public donations.

Was it possible that Liroff and Hind were both misquoted in Kristof's New York Times piece?

Or is it a question of empty words from the leaders of environmental lobbies?

There have been 43 years of what JunkScience.com calls "Eco-hysteria" over DDT, and with WHO party to it, global prospects of relief from malaria look bleak.

From the safety of nations where malaria is not a threat, those who have allowed the politics of modern-day environmental hype to claim the lives of so many others, leave a legacy of indelible guilt.

Well-meaning as they may have been when they started out on their demonizing of DDT, Greenpeace, WWF, their icon Rachel Carson, et al have hands that drip with the blood of millions, including children.

If leaders of the anti-DDT movement like Liroff and Hinds are for real, they should consider the multi-millions they receive from the generosity of public donors, who would, if only asked, want to see their millions going to ensure that not another single death occurs that can be prevented by proven malaria preventive, DDT.


Canada Free Press founding editor Most recent by Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Judi can be reached at: [email protected]


Most recent by Judi McLeod
Previous articles by Judi McLeod