Note as of June 17, 2015: I shouldn’t be so rah-rah about their reversing this decision because there could be more to the story. Measures should not be forced on others collectively–this could be a problem–but this reversal seems to be a good human-centered decision. However, I’m even more suspicious of the reason they banned DDT for malaria use because I know there have been ongoing depopulation efforts. Governments allow toxic chemicals in everything else however (fluoride, BPAs, etc., in water, food, vaccines, perfumes, personal care, plastics) that would be in effect banned or restricted in a society based on natural rights protections in which people were held accountable via the legal system for causing harm.
WHO backs DDT for malaria control
news.bbc.co.uk, Sep 15 ’06
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reversed a 30-year policy by endorsing the use of DDT for malaria control.
…WHO says there is no health risk, and DDT should rank with bednets and drugs as a tool for combating malaria, which kills more than one million each year.
…A number of countries banned it, and in 2004 the global treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) made the prohibition global – except for a clause allowing its manufacture and use in disease control.
Permission has been granted by WHO for millions of people to live again!
WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides to fight malaria
www.who.int, Sep 15 ’06
Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease.
So will the governments and agencies who banned this chemical be held accountable? No.