I once bought the lie that DDT was poisonous to both birds and humans. A quick bit of research disproved that to me fairly quickly, and I am rarely one who changes opinions frequently - it's hard to get me to change my stance on anything. Further, I am an avid birdwatcher. Every common argument against it falls with a bit of empirics - and even ones that are true are not good reasons to not use DDT.
So with no reason to not use DDT, what reasons do we have? Using it is worthless if no benefit comes of it. Fortunately, DDT has many benefits, especially in the area of combating malaria.
A helpful example of this is the country of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, an island nation, was being hit hard by malaria, so they turned to DDT for help. DDT reduced the number of deaths from malaria from over 12,000 in 1946 to just 1 death in 1963. But even more astonishing, once Sri Lanka stopped using DDT, the number of deaths from malaria rose dramatically - in 1969, just six years later, over 100 Sri Lankans died from malaria.
It's time to undo the political barriers and remove bans on DDT.
Yes, the developing world should use DDT, because its use saves many human lives, which is more important than a minor problem to the environment. It is unfair of the developed world, who do not have problems like the developing world does, to impose their standards on developing countries, who need DDT to save many lives.
DDT has already blighted our world with its poisoning and sickening effects. Undoubtedly there are economic advantages that can be gained in the developing world by utilizing this insecticide. However, it would be a mistake. I hope that those in charge of making that decision for the inhabitants of the developing world are well informed or become so because it is not likely that those selling this product will be inclined to inform them of the death and destruction that will ensue if they choose to contaminate their world with DDT.