DDT Wars

Author(s):  
Charles F. Wurster

DDT Wars is the untold inside story of the decade-long scientific, legal and strategic campaign that culminated in the national ban of the insecticide DDT in 1972. The widespread misinformation, disinformation and mythology of the DDT issue are corrected in this book. DDT contamination had become worldwide, concentrating up food chains and causing birds to lay thin-shelled eggs that broke in the nests. Populations of many species of predatory and fish-eating birds collapsed, including the American Bald Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon and Brown Pelican. Their numbers recovered spectacularly in the decades following the ban. During the campaign DDT and five other insecticides were found to cause cancer in laboratory tests, which led to bans of these six pesticides by international treaty in 2001. This campaign produced lasting changes in American pesticide policies. The legal precedents broke down the court "standing" barrier, forming the basis for the development of environmental law as we know it today. This case history represents one of the greatest environmental victories of recent decades. DDT is still "controversial" because it has been deceptively interjected into the "climate wars." This campaign was led by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), founded in 1967 by ten citizens, most of them scientists, volunteers without special political connections or financial resources. Their strategy was to take environmental problems to court. There were many setbacks along the way in this exciting and entertaining story. The group was often kicked out of court, but a few determined citizens made a large difference for environmental protection and public health. Author Charles Wurster was one of the leaders of the campaign. The first six years of EDF history are described as it struggled to survive. Now EDF is one of the world's great environmental advocacy organizations defending our climate, ecosystems, oceans and public health.

DDT Wars ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Wurster

Nearly five decades ago a group of volunteer scientists and citizens launched a campaign to save birds from the ravages of DDT. They went to court at the local level, then through several states and finally to Washington, DC, overcoming legal barriers and challenging unexpected new issues along the way. By the 1970s, DDT and five other pesticides had been banned. Viewed from the 21st century, these actions produced significant and permanent accomplishments: Preventing cancer—Techniques and procedures for evaluating and regulating carcinogens, which followed the DDT precedents, have been adopted by international treaty. Citizen standing in court—The DDT case broke down the standing barrier, allowing citizens to go to court to protect their environment. It fostered the development of environmental law as we know it today. Recovery of the birds—Populations of iconic bird species, including the Bald Eagle, that had been decimated by DDT, have now recovered their former abundance. Creation of the Environmental Defense Fund—EDF, spawned by the “DDT wars,” has grown into one of the nation’s largest and most influential environmental advocacy organizations. Top authorities in chemical carcinogenesis testified that DDT caused cancer in laboratory animals and that it was, therefore, a possible carcinogen in humans. The precedents set by DDT for identifying and regulating carcinogens then became the basis for banning another five dangerous chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides: aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane, and mirex (see Chapter 12). EDF had established a very high standard for protection of public health against these carcinogens, as confirmed by two EPA administrators. In 2001 the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (the POPs Treaty) was signed by 151 nations to ban the “dirty dozen,” which included all of the “dirty half-dozen” singled out and banned thanks to EDF’s actions 23 years earlier. There was one exception to the total bans: DDT could be used for only malaria control. In 2009, nine additional POPs were added to the list. By 2013, 179 nations were party to the POPs Treaty, although the United States has not yet ratified it.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeonsoo Kim ◽  
Mari Luz Zapata Ramos

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how stakeholders perceive the motives behind fast food companies’ public health-related corporate social responsibility (CSR) and general social issue-related CSR initiatives, and their responses toward CSR in terms of supportive communication intent, investment intent, and purchase intent. The authors further examine the impact of perceived CSR motives on intent and whether a healthier chain image has an effect on stakeholder responses. Design/methodology/approach An online experiment was conducted. This study employed a randomized 2 (CSR type: health-related CSR vs generic social issue-related CSR)×2 (chain image: healthier chain vs general fast-food chain) full factorial design using general stakeholder samples. Findings For an ordinary fast food restaurant, generic social issue-related CSR programs elicited significantly more positive perceptions of CSR motives, supportive communication intent and investment intent, than public-health related CSR. When a company has a healthier image, stakeholders do not distinguish between CSR types. Stakeholders perceive both CSR types as stemming from mutually beneficial motives and show neutral to slightly positive reactions to both CSR. A positively perceived CSR motive plays a determinant role in anticipating communication, investment, and purchase intents. Originality/value This is the first study that examines stakeholder perception of motives behind and responses toward fast food chains’ health-related vs generic social issue-related CSR initiatives, in light of corporate image. The study findings help public relations practitioners, public health professionals, parent groups, and legislators understand stakeholders’ reactions toward CSR initiatives in the fast food industry and help them monitor practices for improvements.


Neuroethics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen M. Bradfield

AbstractRapid growth in structural and functional brain research has led to increasing ethical discussion of what to do about incidental findings within the brains of healthy neuroimaging research participants that have potential health importance, but which are beyond the original aims of the study. This dilemma has been widely debated with respect to general neuroimaging research but has attracted little attention in the context of neuromarketing studies. In this paper, I argue that neuromarketing researchers owe participants the same ethical obligations as other neuroimaging researchers. The financial resources available to neuromarketing firms and the social value of neuromarketing studies should command greater attention to the elucidation and management of incidental findings. However, this needs to be balanced against finite resources available within most public health systems.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-57
Author(s):  
James Flowers

Abstract This article reveals an important, yet hidden, Korean response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 that goes beyond the actions of the state. It focuses on the Korean medicine doctors who were excluded from any government-led public health or treatment plans for COVID-19. Bypassing the state, they used telehealth to provide herbal medicines to 20 percent of COVID-19 patients in South Korea. Traditional medicine doctors volunteered their services and financial resources to fill a gap in COVID-19 care. Most observers attribute Korean success in controlling COVID-19 to the leadership of the technocratic state with buy-in from the population. However, the case of Korea offers an example of bottom-up healthcare in a community where people chose their own native cultural resources and helps to explain how doctors were able to take the initiative to autonomously work with people in the community to help to stop the otherwise rapid transmission of the virus.


This book will be of interest to public health professionals from various public health disciplines, bioethicists, legal scholars, and members of nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and health advocacy organizations. It will be an invaluable resource for the thousands of Master of Public Health students across the world. It also aims to make students, epidemiologists, and health professionals aware of situations that require moral reflection, judgment, or decision, while pointing to ways in which justified moral conclusions can be reached. The book will also be of use to persons interested more broadly in bioethics and health policy. It will include the foundations, key values and principles, methods, and issues related to ethics and epidemiology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (14) ◽  
pp. 5636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Aguila

The Global Pact for the Environment is a project for an international treaty that seeks to recognize the environmental rights and duties of citizens, states, and businesses. The text of the initial Pact project was drafted in June 2017 by a network of over 100 environmental law experts from more than 40 countries. In May 2018, the United Nations General Assembly paved the way for its negotiation by adopting the resolution “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment”. These talks resulted in a recommendation for states to adopt a “political declaration” in 2022 for the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference. This article retraces the origins of the Global Pact project and makes the case for its adoption. It argues that a Global Pact is the missing piece to implement the 2030 Agenda and would help to “constitutionalize” fundamental environmental principles. The article further responds to concerns raised about the Global Pact project, such as interactions with existing instruments, the applicability of broad principles at the national level, as well as the risk of regression. It ultimately asserts that all stakeholders would reap benefits from its procedural and substantive provisions, should it be adopted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document