Presented byRita Pakalniskyte

Marie-Helene PechMarcin Otorowski

Iris MüllerAnne-Laure Mairesse

Case backgroundDDT – Dichloro – Diphenyl - TrichloroethaneDDT as a way of preventing malariaMalaria facts:

2-3 million deaths annualy350 – 500 million people affectedEconomic loss (1/2 billion dollars per year)Threat of 40% world populationMostly affect poor, developing countries

Since 1939 DDT is commonly used for fighting against malaria

The problemLong half-life length (up to 15 years),Bio-accumulates in human body and environment,Passed from mother to infants during breast

feedingNo one ever died from sprayed DDTNo proofs that it cannot lead to death nor

environment pollution (asbestos example).UNO considers banning usage of DDT -> less

polluted environment but higher amount of malaria infections.

Environment vs human life

Principal values for decision• Human health and life• Natural environment• Financing

Possible options

Why to use, why not to use DDT?

The choice

„We should not ban DDT. It can save many people. I am aware of risk, but the benefits are definitely worth it”

Marie:

„We should ban DDT. We can’t afford such a high risk, and be responsible for its effects”

Marcin:

Two methods of making this decision

Risk / Benefit analysis

Precautionary principle

Risk/benefits analysis vs precautionary principleRisk / benefit analysis Precautionary principle

You must prove the potential benefit is valuable enough to take some risk connected.

You must prove it is completely safe to introduce particular technology

Focuses on proper management of the risk

Focuses on eliminating the risk

With precautionary principle, there wouldn’t be such invention like cellular phones, nuclear power plants etc.

With precautionary principle, there wouldn’t be ozone depletion, harmful effects of asbestos and haloalkanes etc.

The decisionAwareness of difficulty of choiceComplex issueChoosing less evil solutionEthical and moral problemConsequencesOur solution – to limit usage of DDT