Although DDT was immensely beneficial when first developed during the Second World War, its dangers, ably documented by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring, soon became apparent. One of the principal disadvantages of DDT is its persistence in the environment. But the persistence of the chemical proved to be as nothing compared with that of its manufacturers. On December 13, however, environmentalists won what appears to be the final round in a 10-year battle, first in state and then in federal forums, with the pesticide lobby and its friends in the government. On that day, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld in all respects EPA's cancellation of virtually all remaining registrations for DDT.¹

The federal proceedings began in 1969, when the Environmental Defense Fund unsuccessfully petitioned the Secretaries of Agriculture and HEW under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to suspend all DDT registrations and to reduce to zero tolerances of DDT in food for human consumption. When the Secretary of Agriculture issued cancellation notices for only four uses of the chemical, all insignificant, EDF went to the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the Secretary for a "fresh determination" of the question. Predictably, the Secretary's fresh determination was the same as his previous decision. EDF returned to the Court of Appeals, although the defendant was now the Administrator of EPA, to which administration of FIFRA had in the meantime been transferred.