Malaria control

Bette Hileman presented compelling reasons for the use of DDT for malaria control in developing countries (C&EN, July 24, page 30). I would agree that the possible harm from the use of DDT sprayed in tiny quantities inside houses is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children's lives. According to Hileman's article, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reports that the resurgence of malaria is causing 1.2 million deaths per year, mostly children, in sub-Saharan Africa.

I would suggest that there are effective substitutes for DDT that are only a fraction more expensive. For example, methoxychlor, a close relative of DDT that was discovered in the late 1940s, is less persistent, is about 500 times less toxic, and breaks down to products that do not accumulate in mammalian tissues. Due to its marginally higher cost, it was never widely used for mosquito control or in agriculture. USAID should now consider the use of methoxychlor for mosquito control and as a parasiticide when other means have been found ineffective or too expensive.

The $1.2 billion pledged by President George W. Bush to reduce malaria deaths by 50% in five years could be most effectively spent by substituting methoxychlor as an insecticide for malaria control. The small added cost for methoxychlor would pay huge dividends.

John L. Neumeyer
Belmont, Mass.