Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane (DDT), a first-generation synthetic pesticide, has long carried a dual identity — once celebrated for its role in controlling malaria vectors and agricultural pests, yet increasingly criticised for its environmental persistence and health hazards. Widely used during and after World War II to combat mosquito-borne diseases, DDT became integral to agricultural and public health programs globally.

However, its classification as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) under the Stockholm Convention, owing to its persistency in the environment, tendency to bioaccumulate, and harmful effects on human and ecological health, has led to international efforts to restrict and phase out its use.

India, a signatory to the Convention, remains committed to gradually eliminating DDT while exploring safer alternatives for vector control.

Globally, DDT has saved millions of lives in its initial years of application. However, scientific studies increasingly highlight its declining effectiveness in controlling malaria and its contribution to toxic burdens in ecosystems.

In the United States, concerns around its ecological impact surged following the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, which linked DDT use to biodiversity loss and cancer. Public pressure eventually led to its ban in the U.S. in 1972, marking a turning point in global pesticide regulation.

In India, DDT’s agricultural use was banned in 1972, but it continues to be manufactured for disease vector control, especially for export to malaria-prone African regions. In 2006, the World Health Organisation (WHO) permitted indoor residual spraying of DDT as a temporary measure until safer alternatives become accessible.

Despite this allowance, rising concerns about DDT’s persistence, mosquito resistance, and toxicity have accelerated the search for alternatives in India and beyond.

Today, DDT is predominantly used in low-income households, raising concerns over unequal exposure. Improper use may contaminate agricultural produce, posing safety risks and trade barriers. Given its status as a POP, the Stockholm Convention restricts its use of vector control in the absence of effective alternatives.

At the sixth Conference of the Parties (CoP-6), a global deadline for DDT phase-out by 2020 was proposed but blocked by India, underscoring the challenges faced by developing countries in transitioning to safer options. Since 2008, India has been the sole global producer of DDT after China ceased its production. Hindustan Insecticides Limited (HIL), a public-sector enterprise, continues to supply DDT for export (GEF 2022;

Although India initially set 2024 as its phase-out deadline, this has now been extended to fulfil export obligations. India’s roadmap for phasing out DDT remains a work in progress, especially given the limited availability of fully proven alternatives. In 2014, India received a 10-year extension for the transition and has now shifted its focus toward developing and commercialising sustainable solutions.

Production of eco-friendly biopesticides is expected to begin by the end of 2025. Supporting this shift, India is currently implementing a GEF-funded project titled “Development and Promotion of Non-POPs Alternatives to DDT,” in collaboration with UNIDO, UNEP, and key national ministries including MoEFCC, MoHFW, MoCF, WHO, and others.

The project includes several components aimed at strengthening the country’s capacity to replace DDT with sustainable alternatives. These include the development of Integrated Vector Pest Management (IVPM) training modules to enhance technical knowledge; standardisation and scale-up of neem-based pesticide formulations as biodegradable alternatives; development and large-scale production of Bt-based biopesticides for mosquito control; propagation of high-yielding neem cultivars through tissue culture techniques; and the manufacturing of Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs), which are treated with pyrethroid chemicals that kill mosquitoes upon contact. Together, these innovations represent a significant step forward in reducing reliance on DDT. 

However, the success of these alternatives hinges on effective commercialisation, strong policy support, and multisectoral collaboration.

Scaling up production, encouraging widespread adoption, and integrating these measures into national vector control programs remain ongoing challenges. Additionally, active engagement from stakeholders — Government agencies, private industry, local communities, and research institutions — is currently limited and must be significantly improved for the initiative to succeed.

India’s phase-out of DDT has now been extended to accommodate continued export demands, with a renewed focus on shifting to safer biopesticides by late 2025. A coordinated approach that combines policy reform, scientific innovation, and inclusive stakeholder engagement is crucial to ensure a successful and sustainable transition. The UNEP-GEF project remains central to this process, but continued efforts from Government agencies, industries, and civil society are vital to achieving a DDT-free future and ensuring environmental and public health protection.

(The writer is an Associate at the Centre for Waste Management, TERI. Views are personal)