Attack on DDT (Contd.)

Widely used to control pest-borne diseases, DDT is now everywhere--the land, the sea, the fat tissues of animals and humans. Unfortunately, the miracle spray also kills helpful birds and insects, can sicken farm workers, and has been known to contaminate mothers' milk. Last November the Federal Government decided to phase out all but "essential uses" of DDT by next December. As a first step, it "canceled" four specific uses that account for 35% of the U.S.'s annual consumption. Yet manufacturers still produce as much DDT as ever: 100 million lbs. per year, 20% of which is sold in the U.S.

How can DDT be legally marketed while being officially banned? One answer lies in legislative terminology: "cancellation" only starts a review process, which manufacturers can prolong for years while sales continue. Too, the Agriculture Department is mired in a seeming conflict of interest. Charged with regulating most uses of DDT, the department also urges farmers to use it to increase crop yields.

Zero Tolerance. Two recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia promise to unsnarl these problems. The court ordered Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin to stop all interstate shipments of DDT within 30 days or else show the court why such an absolute ban would be a mistake. In the other case, the court ordered Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Robert H. Finch to publish in the Federal Register a proposal to establish "zero tolerance" levels for DDT residues in foods for humans. In effect, this will force manufacturers to prove to HEW that specific levels of DDT in foods are safe for human consumption. Since DDT, like cyclamates, has been shown to cause cancer in animals, the producers' task may be difficult.

"Both cases are enormously important," says Roderick A. Cameron, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, which joined other plaintiffs in bringing the suits to court. "They will revitalize the regulatory agencies and spur them to do their job."

Charles Halpern, one of three Washington lawyers handling the cases, adds: "The decisions offer a precedent for getting other hard pesticides off the market." Alternatives to DDT include nonpersistent pesticides, which break down faster in nature, and biological controls using insect predators to prey on pests.

Meantime, home gardeners face the growing problem of what to do with unwanted stocks of hard pesticides--not only DDT but also DDD, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, chlordane, heptachlor and others. Such long-lived chemicals could not be safely buried; they would sooner or later get into the water supply. Nor could they be incinerated; the dangerous fumes would carry a considerable distance. In fact, the most sensible solution, says the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, is simply to store the pesticides and wait patiently until someone figures out what to do next.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.