A shot in the foot: Could chemical control of malaria vectors threaten food security?

Abstract

Overwhelmingly, contemporary malaria vector control equals the use of chemical pesticides (through insecticide-treated bednets or indoor residual spraying). Gradually, but surely, we have become enslaved to thinking that controlling malaria mosquitoes equals the use of chemical insecticides, and much of the vector control field today is dominated by scientists, lobbyists, chemical companies, funding agencies and (global) institutions that endlessly repeat this dogmatic belief. Although chemical control has undoubtedly saved millions of lives, which, morally speaking would immediately justify its continued use, it has many sides that may ultimately cost more lives than it saves. Not only the cyclical problems with insecticide resistance, but also our increased understanding of the human and environmental health impacts of these chemicals, continue to raise red flags. Furthermore, the millions of kilogrammes of annual bednet waste (polyethylene, polypropylene) and bednet packaging material cannot be ignored. In recent years, an abundance of evidence that the use of chemical pesticides is a prime cause for the global decline in insect biodiversity and abundance has surfaced. The rate at which this decline is happening is frightening and may sooner rather than later threaten food production on a global scale. Should we opt for saving lives in the short term by using chemicals and face devastating and irrevocable long-term consequences or become wise(r) in the way we control malaria mosquitoes?