coefficientgiving.substack.com/p/how-banning-toxic-pesticides-could
2 corrections found
Those aren’t in use now, but instead we have organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids.
This is too absolute. DDT—an organochlorine—has not disappeared from use; it is still officially produced or used in some countries for disease-vector control.
Full reasoning
The sentence says DDT and organochlorines "aren’t in use now," but authoritative sources show that is not correct.
- DDT is still listed for current use under the Stockholm Convention. The Convention’s official DDT Register includes countries that have notified ongoing production or use for disease-vector control. For example, the register says Ethiopia has notified that "DDT is being produced and used ... for malaria vector control," and India is listed for production and use as well.
- WHO guidance also says DDT is still used. WHO’s malaria guidelines state that the Stockholm Convention provided an exemption for the production and use of DDT for disease vector control, that DDT use has declined, but that "in some areas, the use of DDT may be warranted."
Because DDT itself is an organochlorine insecticide, evidence that DDT remains in use is enough to show the blanket claim that DDT and organochlorines "aren’t in use now" is false.
2 sources
- Stockholm Convention DDT Register (official)
The official DDT Register lists current notifications including: "Ethiopia ... DDT is being produced and used in Ethiopia for malaria vector control" and "India" with production and use notifications.
- WHO Guidelines for malaria – 25 November 2022
WHO states that the Stockholm Convention provided an exemption for the production and use of DDT for disease vector control, that "DDT use for malaria vector control has declined over the years," and that "In some areas, the use of DDT may be warranted."
Even if distressed people consume a different chemical, they will not die, and that makes a world of difference to the victim, their family, and the community.
This overstates the effect of pesticide substitution. Replacing the most lethal pesticides reduces deaths, but other pesticides can still be fatal, so switching chemicals does not guarantee survival.
Full reasoning
The evidence supports a reduction in deaths after highly hazardous pesticides are removed, but not the absolute claim that people who ingest a different chemical "will not die."
A 2024 JAMA Network Open study of Sri Lanka found that pesticide bans substantially lowered case fatality, but deaths from pesticide self-poisoning continued after the bans. The study reports that in 2015–2019 there were still 460 deaths, with many caused by unknown organophosphates and profenofos. That directly contradicts the statement that people who consume a different chemical will not die.
WHO guidance makes the same point more generally: pesticide products vary greatly in lethality. WHO notes that some less hazardous pesticide products kill less than 1% of people who ingest them. "Less than 1%" is much safer than highly hazardous pesticides, but it is not zero. So the accurate conclusion is that removing the most toxic pesticides can save many lives by making attempts less likely to be fatal—not that alternative chemicals are non-lethal in every case.
2 sources
- Restrictions on Pesticides and Deliberate Self-Poisoning in Sri Lanka (JAMA Network Open, 2024)
The study reports that pesticide case fatality fell after bans, but deaths continued: in 2015–2019, most of the 460 deaths were caused by unknown organophosphate and profenofos.
- Preventing suicide: a resource for pesticide registrars and regulators (WHO, 2019)
WHO states that pesticide products vary in toxicity and that some pesticide products kill less than 1% of those who ingest them, showing that lower-toxicity substitutes reduce risk but do not make death impossible.