Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2000 Jul 22;356(9226):330-2.
doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02516-2.

DDT house spraying and re-emerging malaria

D R Roberts  1 , S Manguin, J Mouchet
Affiliations

DDT house spraying and re-emerging malaria

D R Roberts et al. Lancet. .

Abstract

PIP: This article discusses the role of DDT in the re-emerging cases of malaria worldwide. It is noted that malaria is reappearing in urban areas and in countries that previously eradicated the disease, including the Amazon Basin, South and North Korea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. In addition, the frequency of imported malaria has also increased in industrial countries. Although many factors contribute to such a phenomenon, the strongest correlation is with decreasing numbers of houses sprayed with DDT. Early studies of DDT showed repellent, irritant, and toxic actions that worked against malaria vector mosquitoes. Sprayed on house walls, DDT exerted powerful control over indoor transmission of malaria. However, since the ban of DDT in the 1970s and the implementation of alternative malaria-control programs there has been a global outburst of malaria epidemics. In view of this, it is recommended that the global response to burgeoning malaria rates allow for DDT residual house spraying where it is known to be effective and necessary. Regulations and policies of industrialized countries and international agencies that block financial assistance to countries that use DDT for malaria control should be eliminated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • The DDT question.
    Ross GL. Ross GL. Lancet. 2000 Sep 30;356(9236):1189. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02772-0. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11030314 No abstract available.
  • The DDT question.
    Rogan WJ. Rogan WJ. Lancet. 2000 Sep 30;356(9236):1189. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72882-8. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11030315 No abstract available.
  • The DDT question.
    Liroff RA. Liroff RA. Lancet. 2000 Sep 30;356(9236):1189-90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72884-1. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11030317 No abstract available.
  • The DDT question.
    Watterson A. Watterson A. Lancet. 2000 Sep 30;356(9236):1191. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72886-5. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11030319 No abstract available.
  • Caution required with the precautionary principle.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Lancet. 2000 Jul 22;356(9226):265. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11071175 No abstract available.
  • How toxic is DDT?
    Smith AG. Smith AG. Lancet. 2000 Jul 22;356(9226):267-8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02497-1. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11071177 No abstract available.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles