Editing DDT (section)

==History==
[[File:DDT Powder.jpg|thumb|right|Commercial product concentrate containing 50% DDT, circa 1960s]]
[[File:DDTDichlordiphényltrichloréthane7.JPG|thumb|right|Commercial product of [[Ciba-Geigy]] Néocide (powder box, 50 g) containing 10% DDT, made in France.]]
{{external media | width =175px | float = right | headerimage= [[File:Radical DDT.JPG|175px]] | audio1 = [https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/podcast/ddt-the-britney-spears-of-chemicals "Episode 207: DDT"], [[Science History Institute]]}}

DDT was first synthesized in 1874 by [[Othmar Zeidler]] under the supervision of [[Adolf von Baeyer]].<ref>{{cite journal | author = Othmar Zeidler | year = 1874 | title = Verbindungen von Chloral mit Brom- und Chlorbenzol |trans-title=Compounds of chloral with bromo- and chlorobenzene | journal = Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft | volume = 7 | issue = 2 | pages = 1180–1181 | url = http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112025694776;view=1up;seq=231 | archive-url = https://archive.today/20160420035142/http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112025694776;view=1up;seq=231 | url-status = dead | archive-date = 2016-04-20 | doi = 10.1002/cber.18740070278 }} On p. 1181, Zeidler called DDT ''dimonochlorphenyltrichloräthan''.</ref><ref name="augustin">{{cite book |last=Augustin |first=Frank |name-list-style=vanc |title=Zur Geschichte des Insektizids Dichlordiphenyltrichloräthan (DDT) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Leistung des Chemikers Paul Müller (1899–1965) |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hY5btwAACAAJ&pg=PA1 |year=1993 |publisher=Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Leipzig |location=Leipzig |pages=1–77 |access-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-date=July 31, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731150524/https://books.google.com/books?id=hY5btwAACAAJ&pg=PA1 |url-status=live }}</ref><!--Augustin claims that Baeyer synthesized it already in 1872--> It was further described in 1929 in a dissertation by W. Bausch and in two subsequent publications in 1930.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Brand K, Bausch W | title = Über Verbindungen der Tetraaryl-butanreihe. 10. Mitteilung. Über die Reduktion organischer Halogenverbindungen und Über Verbindungen der Tetraaryl-butanreihe | journal = Journal für Praktische Chemie | volume = 127 | pages = 219–239 | year = 1930 | doi = 10.1002/prac.19301270114 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Brand K, Horn O, Bausch W | title = Die elektrochemische Darstellung von 1,1,4,4-''p'',''p′'',''p"'',''p‴''-Tetraphenetyl-butin-2 und von 1,1,4,4-''p'',''p′'',''p"'',''p‴''-Tetra(chlorphenyl)-butin-2. 11. Mitteilung. Über die Reduktion organischer Halogenverbindungen und Verbindungen der Tetraarylbutanreihe | journal = Journal für Praktische Chemie | volume = 127 | pages = 240–247 | year = 1930 | doi = 10.1002/prac.19301270115 }}</ref> The insecticide properties of "multiple chlorinated aliphatic or fat-aromatic alcohols with at least one trichloromethane group" were described in a patent in 1934 by Wolfgang von Leuthold.<ref>Wolfgang von Leuthold, Schädlingsbekämpfung. DRP Nr 673246, April 27, 1934</ref> DDT's insecticidal properties were not, however, discovered until 1939 by the [[Swiss (people)|Swiss]] scientist [[Paul Hermann Müller]], who was awarded the 1948 [[Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine]] for his efforts.<ref name=nobel/>

===Use in the 1940s and 1950s===
[[File:1955. Ford tri-motor spraying DDT. Western spruce budworm control project. Powder River control unit, OR. (32213742634).jpg|thumb|An airplane spraying DDT over [[Baker County, Oregon]] as part of a [[spruce budworm]] control project, 1955]]
[[File:BosaDDTlog.jpg|thumb|DDT spray log in [[Bosa]] ([[Sardinia]])]]
DDT is the best-known of several [[chlorine]]-containing pesticides used in the 1940s and 1950s. During this time, the use of DDT was driven by protecting American soldiers from diseases in tropical areas. Both British and American scientists hoped to use it to control spread of [[malaria]], [[typhus]], [[dysentery]], and [[typhoid fever]] among overseas soldiers, especially considering that the [[pyrethrum]] was harder to access since it came mainly from Japan.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web |last=Sonnenberg |first=J. |date=2015-05-02 |title=Shoot to Kill: Control and Controversy in the History of DDT Science |url=https://www.stanford.edu/group/sjph/cgi-bin/sjphsite/shoot-to-kill-control-and-controversy-in-the-history-of-ddt-science/ |access-date=2022-04-09 |website=Stanford Journal of Public Health |language=en-US |archive-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829055112/https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjph/cgi-bin/sjphsite/shoot-to-kill-control-and-controversy-in-the-history-of-ddt-science/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Deadly Dust: The Unhappy History Of DDT |url=https://www.americanheritage.com/deadly-dust-unhappy-history-ddt |access-date=2022-04-09 |website=AMERICAN HERITAGE |language=en |archive-date=April 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220409133455/https://www.americanheritage.com/deadly-dust-unhappy-history-ddt |url-status=live }}</ref> Due to the potency of DDT, it was not long before America's [[War Production Board]] placed it on military supply lists in 1942 and 1943 and encouraged its production for overseas use. Enthusiasm regarding DDT became obvious through the American government's advertising campaigns of posters depicting Americans fighting the [[Axis powers]] and insects and through media publications celebrating its military uses.<ref name="auto"/> In the [[Pacific Ocean|South Pacific]], it was sprayed aerially for malaria and dengue fever control with spectacular effects. While DDT's chemical and insecticidal properties were important factors in these victories, advances in application equipment coupled with competent organization and sufficient manpower were also crucial to the success of these programs.<ref name="Dunlap">{{cite book|first=Thomas|last=Dunlap|title=DDT: Scientists, Citizens, and Public Policy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PLL_AwAAQBAJ|year=2014|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-5385-4|access-date=August 29, 2022|archive-date=October 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019212022/https://books.google.com/books?id=PLL_AwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1945, DDT was made available to farmers as an agricultural insecticide<ref name=EHC009/> and played a role in the elimination of malaria in Europe and [[North America]].<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = de Zulueta J | title = The end of malaria in Europe: an eradication of the disease by control measures | journal = Parassitologia | volume = 40 | issue = 1–2 | pages = 245–246 | date = June 1998 | pmid = 9653750 }}</ref>'''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html |title=About Malaria – History – Elimination of Malaria in the United States (1947–1951) |website=CDC.gov |date=2019-01-28 |access-date=September 9, 2017 |archive-date=May 4, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120504183309/http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html |url-status=live }}</ref>''' Despite concerns emerging in the scientific community, and lack of research, the FDA considered it safe up to 7 parts per million in food. There was a large economic incentive to push DDT into the market and sell it to farmers, governments, and individuals to control diseases and increase food production.<ref name="auto"/>

DDT was also a way for American influence to reach abroad through DDT-spraying campaigns. In the 1944 issue of [[Life magazine]] there was a feature regarding the Italian program showing pictures of American public health officials in uniforms spraying DDT on Italian families.<ref name="auto"/>

In 1955, the [[World Health Organization]] commenced a program to eradicate malaria in countries with low to moderate transmission rates worldwide, relying largely on DDT for mosquito control and rapid diagnosis and treatment to reduce transmission.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Mendis K, Rietveld A, Warsame M, Bosman A, Greenwood B, Wernsdorfer WH | title = From malaria control to eradication: The WHO perspective | journal = Tropical Medicine & International Health | volume = 14 | issue = 7 | pages = 802–809 | date = July 2009 | pmid = 19497083 | doi = 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02287.x | s2cid = 31335358 | doi-access = free }}</ref> The program eliminated the disease in "North America, Europe, the former [[Soviet Union]]",<ref name="AmJTrop"/> and in "[[Taiwan]], much of the [[Caribbean]], the [[Balkans]], parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"<ref name="Gladwell">{{cite news |last=Gladwell |first=Malcolm |author-link=Malcolm Gladwell |name-list-style=vanc |title=The Mosquito Killer |newspaper=The New Yorker |date=July 2, 2001 |url=http://gladwell.com/the-mosquito-killer/ |access-date=August 20, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160416165010/http://gladwell.com/the-mosquito-killer/ |archive-date=April 16, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and dramatically reduced mortality in [[Sri Lanka]] and India.<ref name=Gordon/>

However, failure to sustain the program, increasing mosquito tolerance to DDT, and increasing parasite tolerance led to a resurgence. In many areas early successes partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission increased.<ref name=Chapin81>{{cite journal | vauthors = Chapin G, Wasserstrom R | title = Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India | journal = Nature | volume = 293 | issue = 5829 | pages = 181–185 | year = 1981 | pmid = 7278974 | doi = 10.1038/293181a0 | bibcode = 1981Natur.293..181C | s2cid = 4346743 | doi-access = free }}</ref> The program succeeded in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".<ref name="AmJTrop">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sadasivaiah S, Tozan Y, Breman JG | title = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for indoor residual spraying in Africa: how can it be used for malaria control? | journal = The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene | volume = 77 | issue = 6 Suppl | pages = 249–263 | date = December 2007 | pmid = 18165500 | doi = 10.4269/ajtmh.2007.77.249 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was applied in [[sub-Saharan Africa]] by various colonial states, but the 'global' WHO eradication program didn't include the region.<ref>{{Cite book| publisher = Palgrave Macmillan| isbn = 978-1-349-31322-8 | pages = 133–153| editor1-first = Virginia |editor1-last = Berridge| editor2-first=Martin| editor2-last=Gorsky | last = Clarke| first = Sabine| title = Environment, Health and History| chapter = Rethinking the Post-War Hegemony of DDT: Insecticides Research and the British Colonial Empire| location = London| date = 2012}}</ref> Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by ''[[Plasmodium falciparum]]''. Eradication was abandoned in 1969 and attention instead focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation.<ref name=Chapin81/> Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of [[Mosquito net|bednets]] impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.<ref name="AmJTrop"/><ref name=Rogan05>{{cite journal | vauthors = Rogan WJ, Chen A | title = Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT) | journal = Lancet | volume = 366 | issue = 9487 | pages = 763–773 | year = 2005 | pmid = 16125595 | doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67182-6 | s2cid = 3762435 | url = https://zenodo.org/record/1259797 | access-date = June 13, 2019 | archive-date = October 17, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191017205259/https://zenodo.org/record/1259797 | url-status = live }}</ref>

===United States ban===
By October 1945, DDT was available for public sale in the United States, used both as an agricultural pesticide and as a household insecticide.<ref name="Distillations"/>  Although its use was promoted by government and the agricultural industry, US scientists such as FDA pharmacologist [[Herbert O.&nbsp;Calvery]] expressed concern over possible hazards associated with DDT as early as 1944.<ref name="Davis">{{cite book|last1=Davis|first1=Frederick Rowe|title=Banned : a history of pesticides and the science of toxicology|date=2014|publisher=Yale University Press|location=[S.l.]|isbn=978-0300205176|page=26|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kuIdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|access-date=25 July 2017|archive-date=July 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731130621/https://books.google.com/books?id=kuIdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=EPA1975/><ref name="Distillations"/> In 1947, [[Bradbury Robinson]], a physician and nutritionist practicing in [[St.&nbsp;Louis, Michigan]], warned of the dangers of using the pesticide DDT in agriculture. DDT had been researched and manufactured in St.&nbsp;Louis by the [[Michigan Chemical Corporation]], later purchased by [[Velsicol Chemical Corporation]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.velsicol.com/|title=Leading Chemical Company – Manufacture, Distribution & Sales|website=Velsicol Chemical, LLC|access-date=October 23, 2017|archive-date=October 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016054516/http://www.velsicol.com/|url-status=live}}</ref> and had become an important part of the local economy.<ref name= STLH>{{cite web|url=http://www.stlouismi.com/1/stlouis/history_by_decades.asp|title=History by Decades|website=www.stlouismi.com|access-date=October 23, 2017|archive-date=November 18, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061118003950/http://www.stlouismi.com/1/stlouis/history_by_decades.asp|url-status=live}}</ref> Citing research performed by [[Michigan State University]]<ref>American Potato Journal, June 1947, volume&nbsp;24, issue&nbsp;6, pp.&nbsp;183–187. Results of spraying and dusting potatoes in Michigan in 1946.</ref> in 1946, Robinson, a past president of the local Conservation Club,<ref>"Conservation Club, St. Louis, Has Program", ''Lansing State Journal'' (Lansing, Michigan), p.&nbsp;14, March 2, 1931.</ref> opined that:
{{blockquote|perhaps the greatest danger from D.D.T. is that its extensive use in farm areas is most likely to upset the natural balances, not only killing beneficial insects in great number but by bringing about the death of fish, birds, and other forms of wild life either by their feeding on insects killed by D.D.T. or directly by ingesting the poison.<ref>{{cite report | title = A Nutritionist Ponders the D.D.T. Problem | first = Bradbury | last = Robinson | author-link = Bradbury Robinson | name-list-style = vanc | location = St. Louis, Michigan | work = Private Publication | date = 1947}}</ref>}}

As its production and use increased, public response was mixed. At the same time that DDT was hailed as part of the "world of tomorrow", concerns were expressed about its potential to kill harmless and beneficial insects (particularly [[pollinators]]), birds, fish, and eventually humans. The issue of toxicity was complicated, partly because DDT's effects varied from species to species, and partly because consecutive exposures could accumulate, causing damage comparable to large doses. A number of states attempted to regulate DDT.<ref name="Distillations">{{cite journal |last1=Conis |first1=Elena |title=Beyond Silent Spring: An Alternate History of DDT |journal=[[Distillations (magazine)|Distillations]] |date=2017 |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=16–23 |url=https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/beyond-silent-spring-an-alternate-history-of-ddt |access-date=20 March 2018 |archive-date=November 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191122192729/https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/beyond-silent-spring-an-alternate-history-of-ddt |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=EHC009>{{EHC-ref | id = 009 | name=DDT and its derivatives | date = 1979 | isbn = 92-4-154069-9 }}</ref> In the 1950s the federal government began tightening regulations governing its use.<ref name=EPA1975/> These events received little attention. Women like Dorothy Colson and Mamie Ella Plyler of [[Claxton, Georgia]], gathered evidence about DDT's effects and wrote to the Georgia Department of Public Health, the National Health Council in New York City, and other organizations.<ref name="Conis">{{cite news|last1=Conis|first1=Elena|name-list-style=vanc|title=DDT Disbelievers: Health and the New Economic Poisons in Georgia after World War II|url=https://southernspaces.org/2016/ddt-disbelievers-health-and-new-economic-poisons-georgia-after-world-war-ii|access-date=25 July 2017|work=Southern Spaces|date=October 28, 2016|archive-date=August 6, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170806021326/https://southernspaces.org/2016/ddt-disbelievers-health-and-new-economic-poisons-georgia-after-world-war-ii|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1957 ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported an unsuccessful struggle to restrict DDT use in [[Nassau County, New York]], and the issue came to the attention of the popular naturalist-author [[Rachel Carson]] when a friend, [[Olga Huckins]], wrote to her including an article she had written in the Boston Globe about the devastation of her local bird population after DDT spraying.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Knox |first=Robert |date=2012 |title=Duxbury celebrates Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2012/05/23/duxbury-celebrates-local-nature-lover-voice-rachel-carson-silent-spring/uhxGAO38m3kHbDMlYQfPqO/story.html |access-date=2023-12-16 |website=BostonGlobe.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Johnson |first=Jenn |date=2018-02-22 |title=Her Heart's Home {{!}} Timeless New England |url=https://newengland.com/yankee/magazine/her-hearts-home-timeless-new-england/ |access-date=2023-12-16 |website=New England |language=en}}</ref> [[William Shawn]], editor of ''[[The New Yorker]]'', urged her to write a piece on the subject, which developed into her 1962 book ''[[Silent Spring]]''. The book argued that [[pesticide]]s, including DDT, were poisoning both wildlife and the environment and were endangering human health.<ref name="Lear"/> ''Silent Spring'' was a best seller, and public reaction to it launched the modern [[environmentalism|environmental movement]] in the United States. The year after it appeared, [[John F. Kennedy|President John F. Kennedy]] ordered his Science Advisory Committee to investigate Carson's claims. The committee's report "add[ed] up to a fairly thorough-going vindication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring thesis", in the words of the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'',<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Greenberg DS | title = Pesticides: White House Advisory Body Issues Report Recommending Steps to Reduce Hazard to Public | journal = Science | volume = 140 | issue = 3569 | pages = 878–879 | date = May 1963 | pmid = 17810673 | doi = 10.1126/science.140.3569.878 | bibcode = 1963Sci...140..878G }}</ref> and recommended a phaseout of "persistent toxic pesticides".<ref name="Michaels2008">{{cite book |last=Michaels |first=David | name-list-style = vanc | title = Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|year=2008|isbn=978-0-19-530067-3|title-link=Doubt is Their Product }}</ref> In 1965, the U.S. military removed DDT from the military supply system due in part to the development of resistance by body lice to DDT; it was replaced by [[lindane]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Technical Guide No. 6 – Delousing Procedures for the Control of Louse-borne Disease During Contingency Operations |publisher=[[United States Department of Defense]] Armed Forces Pest Management Board Information Services Division|date= November 2011|url= https://perma.cc/HY4A-ENXM }}</ref>

In the mid-1960s, DDT became a prime target of the burgeoning [[environmental movement]], as concern about DDT and its effects began to rise in local communities. In 1966, a fish kill in [[Suffolk County, New York]], was linked to a 5,000-gallon DDT dump by the county's mosquito commission, leading a group of scientists and lawyers to file a lawsuit to stop the county's further use of DDT.{{r|n=CARTERLJ19671222|r={{cite journal | author-last=Carter |author-first=Luther J. | journal=Science | title=Environmental Pollution: Scientists Go to Court | volume=158 | issue=3808 | pages=1552–1556 | publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science | date=22 December 1967 | url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.158.3808.1552 | doi=10.1126/science.158.3808.1552 |pmid=6060359 |bibcode=1967Sci...158.1552C | access-date=26 October 2024}}}} A year later, the group, led by [[Victor Yannacone]] and [[Charles Frederick Wurster|Charles Wurster]], founded the [[Environmental Defense Fund]] (EDF), along with scientists [[Art Cooley]] and [[Dennis Puleston]], and brought a string of lawsuits against DDT and other persistent pesticides in [[Michigan]] and [[Wisconsin]].{{r|n=PRIMACKJR_VONHIPPELF1974|r={{cite book | author-last1=Primack |author-first1=J. R. | author-last2=Von Hippel |author-first2=Frank | date= 1974 | title=Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena | chapter=The Battle Over Persistent Pesticides: From Rachel Carson to the Environmental Defense Fund | publisher=Basic Books | pages=128–142 | chapter-url=https://sgs.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/2019-10/Advice-and-Dissent-Chapter10.pdf | isbn=978-0-465-00090-6}}}}<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Sue the Bastards |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910111-2,00.html |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=October 18, 1971 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119181231/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910111-2,00.html |archive-date=January 19, 2012 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref> 

Around the same time, evidence was mounting further about DDT causing catastrophic declines in wildlife reproduction, especially in birds of prey like [[peregrine falcons]], [[bald eagles]], [[ospreys]], and [[brown pelicans]], whose eggshells became so thin that they often cracked before hatching.{{r|n=HENKINH_MERTAM_STAPLESJM1971|r={{cite book | author-last1=Henkin |author-first1=Harmon | author-last2=Merta |author-first2=Martin | author-last3=Staples |author-first3=James M. | date=1971 | title=The Environment, the Establishment, and the Law | publisher=Houghton Mifflin | isbn=978-0-395-11070-6}}}} Toxicologists like [[David Peakall]] were measuring [[Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene|DDE]] levels in the eggs of [[peregrine falcons]] and [[California condor]]s and finding that increased levels corresponded with thinner shells.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=David B.|last1=Peakall|first2=lloyd F.|last2=Kiff | name-list-style = vanc |title=Eggshell thinning and dde residue levels among peregrine falcons falco peregrinus: a global perspective|publisher=Wiley Online Library|date=April 1979|doi= 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1979.tb04962.x|volume=121|issue = 2|journal=Ibis|pages=200–204}}</ref> Compounding the effect was DDT’s persistence in the environment, as it was unable to dissolve in water, and ended up accumulating in animal fat and disrupting hormone metabolism across a wide range of species.{{r|n=DUNLAPTR1978|r={{cite journal | author-last=Dunlap |author-first=Thomas R. | journal=Wisconsin Magazine of History | title=DDT on Trial: The Wisconsin Hearing, 1968-1969 | volume=62 | issue=1 | pages=3–24 | date= 1978 | url=https://content.wisconsinhistory.org/digital/collection/wmh/id/33630 | issn=1943-7366 | access-date=11 December 2024}}}}

In response to an EDF suit, the U.S. District Court of Appeals in 1971 ordered the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] to begin the de-registration procedure for DDT. After an initial six-month review process, [[William Ruckelshaus]], the Agency's first [[Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency|Administrator]] rejected an immediate suspension of DDT's registration, citing studies from the EPA's internal staff stating that DDT was not an imminent danger.<ref name=EPA1975/> However, these findings were criticized, as they were performed mostly by [[economic entomologist]]s inherited from the [[United States Department of Agriculture]], who many environmentalists felt were biased towards [[agribusiness]] and understated concerns about human health and wildlife. The decision thus created controversy.<ref name=Dunlap/>

The EPA held seven months of hearings in 1971–1972, with scientists giving evidence for and against DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDT{{snd}} exempting public health uses under some conditions.<ref name=EPA1975/> Again, this caused controversy. Immediately after the announcement, both the EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against EPA. Many in the agricultural community were concerned that food production would be severely impacted, while proponents of pesticides warned of increased breakouts of insect-borne diseases and questioned the accuracy of giving animals high amounts of pesticides for cancer potential.<ref name=":0">Susan Wayland and Penelope Fenner-Crisp. [http://www.epaalumni.org/hcp/pesticides.pdf "Reducing Pesticide Risks: A Half Century of Progress"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412070256/https://www.epaalumni.org/hcp/pesticides.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161022222635/http://www.epaalumni.org/hcp/pesticides.pdf |archive-date=2016-10-22 |url-status=live |date=April 12, 2019 }}. EPA Alumni Association. March 2016.</ref> Industry sought to overturn the ban, while the EDF wanted a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]]  ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.<ref name=EPA1975/> During the late 1970s, the EPA also began banning organochlorines, pesticides that were chemically similar to DDT. These included aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, toxaphene, and mirex.<ref name=":0" />

Some uses of DDT continued under the public health exemption. For example, in June 1979, the California Department of Health Services was permitted to use DDT to suppress [[flea]] vectors of [[bubonic plague]].<ref name="urlAEI – Short Publications – The Rise, Fall, Rise, and Imminent Fall of DDT">{{cite web |url=http://www.aei.org/outlook/27063 |publisher=AEI |title=The Rise, Fall, Rise, and Imminent Fall of DDT |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110102120306/http://www.aei.org/outlook/27063 |archive-date=January 2, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref> DDT continued to be produced in the United States for foreign markets until 1985, when over 300 tons were exported.<ref name="ATSDRc5"/>

===International usage restrictions===
In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with [[Hungarian People's Republic|Hungary]] in 1968<ref name="Cheremisinoff-Rosenfeld-2011">{{cite book | editor1-first=Nicholas P. | editor1-last=Cheremisinoff | editor2-first=Paul E. | editor2-last=Rosenfeld | title=Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry | chapter=6 DDT and Related Compounds | publisher=[[William Andrew (publisher)|William Andrew]] | year=2011 | isbn=978-1-4377-7825-0 | pages=247–259}}</ref><ref name="Nagy-Vajna-1972">{{cite journal | last1=Nagy | first1=B. | last2=Vajna | first2=L. | title=The Increasing Possibilities of the Application of Integrated Control in Plant Protection in Hungary | journal=[[EPPO Bulletin]] | publisher=[[European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization]] ([[Wiley Publishing|Wiley]]) | volume=2 | issue=6 | year=1972 | issn=0250-8052 | doi=10.1111/j.1365-2338.1972.tb02138.x | pages=95–96 | s2cid=84111430}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fvm.hu/main.php?folderID=1564&articleID=6169&ctag=articlelist&iid=1&part=2 |title=Selected passages from the history of the Hungarian plant protection administration on the 50th anniversary of establishing the county plant protection stations |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090110025539/http://www.fvm.hu/main.php?folderID=1564&articleID=6169&ctag=articlelist&iid=1&part=2 |archive-date=January 10, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> {{ndash}} although in practice it continued to be used through at least 1970.<ref name="ag-use-stats-1979">{{cite book | title=Environmental Health Criteria 9 - DDT and its Derivatives | date=1979 | location=[[Geneva]] | isbn=92-4-154069-9 | hdl=10665/39562 | oclc=67616765 | pages=194}} {{OCLC|1039198025}}. {{OCLC|504327918}}. {{ISBN|978-92-4-154069-8}}. {{OCLC|1158652149}}. {{OCLC|882544146}}. {{OCLC|5364752}}.</ref> This was followed by [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]] in 1970, [[West Germany]] and the United States in 1972, but not in the [[United Kingdom]] until 1984.

In contrast to West Germany, in the [[East Germany|German Democratic Republic]] DDT was used until 1988. Especially of relevance were large-scale applications in forestry in the years 1982–1984, with the aim to combat [[bark beetle]] and [[Lymantria monacha|pine moth]]. As a consequence, DDT-concentrations in eastern German forest soils are still significantly higher compared to soils in the former western German states.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aichner |first1=Bernhard |last2=Bussian |first2=Bernd |last3=Lehnik-Habrink |first3=Petra |last4=Hein |first4=Sebastian |date=2013 |title=Levels and Spatial Distribution of Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Environment: A Case Study of German Forest Soils |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256836176 |journal=Environmental Science & Technology |language=en |volume=47 |issue=22 |pages=12703–12714 |doi=10.1021/es4019833|pmid=24050388 |bibcode=2013EnST...4712703A }}</ref>

By 1991, total bans, including for disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example, Cuba in 1970, the US in the 1980s, Singapore in 1984, Chile in 1985, and the Republic of Korea in 1986.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pic.int/Portals/5/DGDs/DGD_DDT_EN.pdf|title=DDT, Decision Guidance Document, Joint FAO/UNEP Programme for the operation of Prior Informed Consent, UNEP/FAO, Rome, Italy, 1991.|access-date=August 24, 2014|archive-date=April 13, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200413043928/http://www.pic.int/Portals/5/DGDs/DGD_DDT_EN.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants]], which took effect in 2004, put a global ban on several [[persistent organic pollutant]]s, and restricted DDT use to [[vector control]]. The convention was ratified by more than 170 countries. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible in the absence of affordable/effective alternatives, the convention exempts public health use within [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) guidelines from the ban.<ref name="Stockholm">{{Cite web|url=http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/convention_text/UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT-FULL.English.PDF|title=Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.|access-date=August 24, 2014|archive-date=June 5, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605092808/http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/convention_text/UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT-FULL.English.PDF|url-status=live}}</ref> Resolution 60.18 of the [[World Health Assembly]] commits WHO to the Stockholm Convention's aim of reducing and ultimately eliminating DDT.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.who.int/ipcs/capacity_building/ddt_statement/en/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090404040645/http://www.who.int/ipcs/capacity_building/ddt_statement/en/|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 4, 2009|title=WHO &#124; Strengthening malaria control while reducing reliance on DDT|website=WHO}}</ref> Malaria Foundation International states, "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations. For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html |title=MFI second page |publisher=Malaria Foundation International |access-date=March 15, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101026080133/http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html |archive-date=October 26, 2010 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref>

Despite the worldwide ban, agricultural use continued in India,<ref>{{cite news |title=Concern over excessive DDT use in Jiribam fields |agency=The Imphal Free Press |date=May 5, 2008 |url=http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=42015&typeid=1 |access-date=May 5, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081206120016/http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=42015&typeid=1 |archive-date=December 6, 2008}}</ref> North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.<ref name="DDTBP.1/2"/> As of 2013, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 [[ton]]s of DDT were produced for disease [[vector control]], including 2,786 tons in India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://chm.pops.int/Implementation/DDT/DDTMeetings/DDTEG62016/tabid/5348/Default.aspx |title=Report of the Sixth Expert Group Meeting on DDT |publisher=UNEP/POPS/DDT-EG.6, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants |date=November 8, 2016 |access-date=March 4, 2018 |archive-date=March 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180305063542/http://chm.pops.int/Implementation/DDT/DDTMeetings/DDTEG62016/tabid/5348/Default.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref> DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitoes. This intervention, called [[indoor residual spraying]] (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage. It also reduces the incidence of DDT resistance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html |title=Is DDT still effective and needed in malaria control? |publisher=Malaria Foundation International |access-date=March 15, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721175925/http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref> For comparison, treating {{convert|40|ha|acre}} of cotton during a typical U.S. growing season requires the same amount of chemical to treat roughly 1,700 homes.<ref name="Roberts 1997">{{cite journal | vauthors = Roberts DR, Laughlin LL, Hsheih P, Legters LJ | title = DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America | journal = Emerging Infectious Diseases | volume = 3 | issue = 3 | pages = 295–302 | date = July–September 1997 | pmid = 9284373 | pmc = 2627649 | doi = 10.3201/eid0303.970305 }}</ref>