Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner

Canary Islands -- pesticide (DDT) problem

4K views 35 replies 9 participants last post by  Whisperer 
#1 ·
Is anyone familiar with the DDT pesticide problem in the Canaries? I've read that the population of Gran Canaria and Tenerife show very high levels of the pesticide DDT which causes cancer. The evidence actually points to continued use of the chemical even though it was outlawed in the 70s or 80s. Would it be possible to live on certain parts of these islands (away from banana agriculture?) to avoid the problem?
 
#13 ·
Personally I found the document very interesting. There is a very high incidence of breast cancer hereabouts in females 45-80. Now whether DDT was used in great quantities in the 50s-70s I don't know but we are surrounded by millions (probably billions or more) olive trees. They are sprayed a t least a couple of times each year. Whether the pesticides used were DDT and similar, IDK but it is food for thought.
 
#14 ·
Hi ExpatRocks:

Thank you very much for that extremely informative site.

Wow! We have come a long way but have a much longer way to go. Maybe 1 million years from now, I can hardly wait to see all the wonderful healthy changes.

Thank you again, got any more interesting information to pass on about the beautiful Canary Islands?

Whisperer
 
#17 ·
Here's an interesting point. If you consider this quote from page 57:

"These results are consistent with the data published previously in the sense that p, pV -DDT breaks down at a relatively rapid pace in the environment...."

along with the p, pV -DDT levels in table 2 on page 55 broken down by island, it is glaringly obvious that DDT was still being used on Gran Canaria and Tenerife when this study was conducted which is almost 30 years after DDT was banned in Spain.
 
#18 ·
I don't understand why urban areas are so badly affected by this. Agriculture can't be taking place in urban areas, right? From page 56:

"...people from urban areas showed higher levels of the non-metabolized pesticides ( p, pV -DDT and o, pV -DDT) and the Total DDT body burden, and also o, pV -DDD (Table 2)."

My wife and I are headed to Las Palmas de Gran Canaria tomorrow and we were planning on having a baby there. Now I'm not so sure.
 
#19 · (Edited by Moderator)
expatrocks...do you use another forum... Lonely Planet?

The same original question, word for word, comes up in the Lonely Planet Forum and the information you supplied in the form of that report comes directly from someone elses response to that question.

The report is dated 2004 based on data collected in 1999, so one has to question the validity of the report some 14 years after the event.
The whole question of the banning of DDT is arguable; there is no wholesale worldwide ban in fact, in the USA its use in agriculture was banned in 1972 but thirty years elapsed before its use in agriculture was banned worldwide. It is still in use for disease control; It is still routinely used in some African countries, in India and in parts of Asia.
It has been firmly established that in the case of DDT vs Malaria, DDT is / was the lesser of two evils. Thousands upon thousands of people died from Malaria and, strangely enough, visceral leishmaniasis in regions were it was temporarily banned. Reports that DDT resistant mosquitos evolved have been proven to be untrue.
One has to wonder if the rise in cases of canine visceral leishmaniasis in the Mediterranean areas is due to the discontinued use of DDT... The timescales involved certainly fit... The sandfly, a misnomer if ever there was one, because it's not a fly at all but a mosquito, is thought to be the main carrier of Leishmaniasis, it is in fact a very close relative of the malaria carrying mosquito.

It has never been categorically proven that there is a link between DDT and cancer, the sample figures used in the trials were, by the admission of the W.H.O., too small to be conclusive.

For the tin foil hat conspiracy folks it was even rumoured that the Big Pharma used the ban on DDT as a form of population control in Africa; when it was was withdrawn, as stated earlier thousands of people in the 3rd world died from diseases carried by the mosquito.

When the US ban on DDT was introduced, one major US company, (M******o) producing DDT, switched from producing pesticides to manufacturing herbicides instead; having established itself as the worlds largest manufacturer of herbicides they then started producing genetically modified seeds that were resistant to their herbicidal product. They had to do this... their herbicide killed everything, weeds, grass, and crops and trees.
Guess what... they are now the worlds biggest producer of GM seeds...
The same company also did extremely well out of the Vietnam War as the manufacturer of 'Agent Orange', a radical variation of their leading herbicidal product which has had devastating results on humans.
You don't need to dig very far to find that overall, DDT was and continues to be, beneficial to mankind as a whole, especially in combating Malaria and Leish. DDT residues can be found all over the world, carried on the winds. Not really surprising then that there may be some residual levels in the Canary Islands but there is no current information available; my opinion is that the information carried in the report is long since invalid and does not reflect the current situation.
 
#20 ·
It would be nice to see another study conducted today. In the absence of that, I appreciate the study that was conducted and the facts it provides. The "Results" section starts on page 54 of the report. It's not long and it's very informative.

Again, the p, pV -DDT levels broken down by island in table 2 on page 55 clearly indicate that DDT was being used on Gran Canaria and Tenerife when samples were gathered. DDT residue "carried on the winds" would not have singled out those two islands.

As for DDT's affect on human health, here's what Wikipedia has to say:

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Attachments

#21 ·
Here's an interesting point. If you consider this quote from page 57:

"These results are consistent with the data published previously in the sense that p, pV -DDT breaks down at a relatively rapid pace in the environment...."

along with the p, pV -DDT levels in table 2 on page 55 broken down by island, it is glaringly obvious that DDT was still being used on Gran Canaria and Tenerife when this study was conducted which is almost 30 years after DDT was banned in Spain.
Another contradiction here because

The use of DDT in agriculture was banned worldwide in 2004 under the auspices of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants...

The report to which you refer suggests that DDT breaks down at a 'relatively rapid rate in the environment.'

That being so, it can hardly be classed as 'persistent' and therefore your suggestion that DDT was still in use between the 70's and the final ban in 2004 doesn't really stand up...

Strangely enough (or not as the case may be), the US is not a signatory to the Stockholm Convention... a bit like that other major environmental Convention, Kyoto. Proof, I think, that commercial interests in the US will always take precedence over environmental issues, no matter what health issues may be involved..
 
#22 ·
Another contradiction here because

The use of DDT in agriculture was banned worldwide in 2004 under the auspices of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants...

The report to which you refer suggests that DDT breaks down at a 'relatively rapid rate in the environment.'

That being so, it can hardly be classed as 'persistent' and therefore your suggestion that DDT was still in use between the 70's and the final ban in 2004 doesn't really stand up...
You're misunderstanding. p, pV -DDT breaks down at a relatively rapid rate. That's why you can measure it to figure out if DDT is still being used. DDT metabolites such as p, pV -DDE are very persistent and break down relatively slowly which is why they can be measured to determine long-term exposure to DDT. From page 57:

"These results are consistent with the data published previously in the sense that p, pV -DDT breaks down at a relatively rapid pace in the environment to become the most persistent form of this pesticide (p, pV -DDE) (Safe, 1994; Ecobichon, 1995). The levels of this metabolite are frequently used to evaluate chronic exposure to DDT."

Again, I recommend reading the "Results" section which starts on page 54.

Strangely enough (or not as the case may be), the US is not a signatory to the Stockholm Convention... a bit like that other major environmental Convention, Kyoto. Proof, I think, that commercial interests in the US will always take precedence over environmental issues, no matter what health issues may be involved..
No doubt about it.
 
#25 ·
Don't believe all what you read in Wikepedia, the organic production of Bananas and other products in the Canary Islands is now big business.

I have stayed in Tazacorte in Puerto Naos, completely surrounded by Banana plantations, I'm still alive and the place attracts many tourists, I would go back.

Be careful crossing the road, there is more chance of you getting injured, from traffic than getting hit by an organic Banana grown in La Palma.

FreshFruitPortal.com » Canary Islands banana growers want ‘organic’ label to edge out competition
 
#26 ·
This is not meant to be argumentative... just a general observation.
The statement regarding the 'high incidence of cancer in Tazacorte' made in the link appears to have been adopted verbatim by everyone when referring to Tazacorte. (Google search).
Given the popularity of Wikipedia one must assume that this has been accepted the source.
The reference to cancer does not appear in the much longer es version of the Tazacorte wiki... Tazacorte - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
The reference document quoted in the English wiki is no longer available.
The English version of the wki does not appear to have been factually updated for many years, if the last available population figures are anything to go by.
A little research reveals that the en wiki referenced document was published in 2004.
So it's old news.
I'm not suggesting that it isn't relevant... just that the information contained therein may be substantially out of date...
 
#29 ·
Hi - whilst browsing this thread I recalled an article from Greenpeace on the subject of DDT and Malaria. It makes sense to me..!

vhttp://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-ddt-and-malaria

BTW, the UK's RSPB org. website includes links to previous references of its own re. DDT and the devastation caused to populations of certain species of birds through the widespread use of DDT in the 6o's and 70's. I can remember seeing evidence of the thinning of eggshells which was blamed on this insecticide.

I would certainly hope that the UK never rescinds its ban on DDT!

Saludos,
GC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whisperer
#32 ·
100 Things You Should Know About DDT | JunkScience.com

The problem is.. science is hard. When it's simplified for the layman it usually ends up with a bias.
You can say that again. I don't think my university studies were ever easy. But dumbing down science for the layman is birthplace of pseudo scientific hogwash and the preserve of the conspiracy theorist. I've met a few CTs and all of them were convinced they were experts in science. Not one of them knew anything but the psh referred to above....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top