GroundTruth Blog

DDT for bed bugs?

  •  
  •  
by Karl Tupper

It was only a matter of time. Lately newspapers have been filled with stories about the return of bed bugs, those nocturnal bloodsuckers that most of us had previously encountered only in our parents' nightly admonition to not let them bite. I grew up thinking that they weren't even real, just something adults made up along the lines of the bogeyman, monsters, and the tooth fairy. But they are indeed real, and they were once common in the U.S., until — as nearly every contemporary article about their resurgence points out — they were eliminated by the use of DDT just after WWII. So it was only a matter of time before people started blaming the current resurgence of bed bugs on EPA's ban on DDT.

Luckily, this erroneous claim has until recently been confined to anti-environmentalist authors on the fringes of the right-wing — those same folks who spread doubt about global warming and the health effects of toxic chemicals, many of whom also used to deny the harms of smoking. I'm thinking in particular about a column that appeared a month ago in the New York Post by Paul Driessen and a July 29th "Dispatch" on the American Council on Science and Health's website.

According to ACSH's Executive Director Dr. Gilbert Ross,

The resurgence of bed bugs ... can be at least partially attributed to the prohibition of DDT and other highly effective pesticides. Unfortunately, because of the draconian restrictions instituted against use of the pesticides — due to superstition and chemophobia — bedbugs now have the upper foreleg here.

Driessen opines that:

New Yorkers want real solutions [to bed bugs], including affordable insecticides that work. Fear and loathing from decades of chemophobic indoctrination are slowly giving way to a healthy renewed recognition that the risk of not using chemicals can be greater than the risk of using them (carefully). Eco-myths are being replaced with more informed discussions about the alleged effects of DDT and other pesticides on humans and wildlife.

... and then spends the rest of the column railing against the EPA's ban on DDT. While he stops short of explicitly blaming the DDT ban for the resurgence of bed bugs, it's strongly implied throughout the column.

The Facts

There are a couple big problems with this narrative. One is that DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972, but it wasn't until just a few years ago that bed bugs returned to our shores. Thirty years is an awfully long lag time. Another is that bed bugs still plague many parts of the world where homes are still sprayed with DDT for malaria control.

But what's most problematic is that bed bugs are resistant to DDT. So even if exterminators could have been using it all this time, it wouldn't have done anyone any good.

As early as 1948 DDT-resistant bed bugs were noted in Hawaii, and a 1958 paper in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization found resistance in bed bugs collected from sites around the world. A few years later, as documented in an excellent post at New York vs Bed Bugs, the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency Medical Entomology Division was noting DDT-resistance emerging elsewhere in the U.S., and by 1982 the World Health Organization was reporting that bed bugs were resistant to DDT "almost everywhere." An EPA/CDC joint statement notes that bedbugs were "widely resistant" by the mid 1950's —15 to 20 years before the EPA banned domestic DDT use.

And these blood suckers haven't lost their resistance since we stopped using DDT. Two recent studies from the Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology and Pest Control Technology confirm as much. And by the way, there are more effective, less toxic solutions.

Driessen and ACSH have a long history of distorting the facts on DDT and other environmental issues, so it's not surprising that they've gotten the bedbug story wrong. What worries me is that this misconception will spread and will be used as a launchpad for jumping to another misguided conclusion: that DDT should be brought back to fight bed bugs.

In fact that's already happening. Just last month, the New York Times repeated the myth ("Bed bugs, once nearly eradicated, have spread across New York City, in part because of the decline in the use of DDT"), and the Washington Post recently made the same mistake. And now calls for bringing back DDT are starting to be heard in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, myths are easier to start than they are to correct — even when the facts are readily available. Let's hope the calls for renewed use of DDT against bed bugs fizzle in the blogosphere, and don't infest the mainstream media.

1

hlarnette wrote:

I am 60, had never seen bedbugs until recently.  I went to the doctor (rash?), he told me to monitor my diet.  I was changing the pad on my bed and found what I thought were baby roaches.  I sprayed them good and cleaned my bed and sheets. Hearing about how bedbugs are becoming more and more common I googled and learned my baby roaches were bedbugs.  I am poor.  I live in a mobile home that wouldn't sell for $3,000.   The pesticide companies wouldn't talk to me once it was known I live in a mobile home.  Treatments start at well over $1000.   Phone inquires, googling led to know pesticides have limited effect.  I (me) brought up the temperature in my home to 140 degrees for several hours.  No bites for a while but then slowly started again and now I am eaten up nightly.
       My daddy told me the reason we had no bedbugs was because of DDT.  They were extinct, or so he thought.   A WWII vet told me as soon as they liberated a Concentration Camp, the survivors and the entire area were heavily dusted with DDT to control lice.  He also told me that before any Gi was allowed back in the US  he was dusted, his duffel bag was emptied searched and dusted while repacked.  Pack a layer dust, pack a layer dust.  When one would empty that bag the floor would be white with DDT.   He and others swore to no ill effects of all that DDT on them.  I remember how bad DDT was on the birds back in the 60s.   But ,I don' want to dust the environment, I just want to dust my bed and get red of my infestation.   I say bring back DDT for limited use.

2

hughjackman wrote:

Many families will be traveling on vacation or to visit relatives this summer. While vacations are supposed to be carefree and relaxing, if you are not cautious you may end up bringing more than just souvenirs back with you.

3

BadErEAcid wrote:

You missed allot of facts that completely disprove your hole post....
first off a huge one why it toke so long to start being a bedbug epidemic, even up to now, is everyone knew large amounts of DDT can stay in the environment for months to years to decades 30 years ain't even close to a century there are still animals that are effected by the use of DDT 40 years after its ban

secondly every insect has had strains of immunity even strains of mosquito's had many cases of DDT being ineffective

third fact yes DDT was a huge part of the almost eradication of bedbugs and its banned use is one of the largest contributions to their return
BUT
lastly i'm not supporting bringing back DDT as it is a big environmental price to pay for something that could be controlled other ways if anything the most i would maybe say fine to is use in properly licensed exterminator companies in instances that are controlled and indoors only and even that's a big maybe, but either way in the end if your going to write an blog on DDT don't just write the facts that support only your opinion

More posts by this author