DDT May Cause Premature Births

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The pesticide DDT¿which was banned in the U.S. in 1972, but is still used elsewhere today¿may cause premature births, according to a new study published in the current issue of The Lancet. "The findings of our study strongly suggest that DDT use increases pre-term births, which is a major contributor to infant mortality," lead author Matthew Longnecker of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences says. Longnecker collaborated with scientists from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The team studied samples of blood drawn from women who had given birth between 1959 and 1966 and stored as part of the U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project, a program of the National Institutes of Health and 12 universities. The scientists selected 44,000 samples and analyzed them for DDE, a breakdown product of DDT. They also had available additional information about 2,380 children from the original study: 361 of these children were born prematurely and 221 were born smaller than usual. As it turned out, the mothers of these children had higher DDE blood levels than other women in the survey. Moreover, the average DDE blood level of all the women was about five times higher than that found today. "DDT levels in the U.S. are now low and likely not causing any harm," Longnecker says. "But we have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used. Also, looking back on earlier decades in the U.S., we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe