Back to Search
Start Over
Who's afraid of DEET? Fearmongering in papers on botanical repellents.
- Source :
- Malaria Journal; 4/8/2020, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p1-3, 3p
- Publication Year :
- 2020
-
Abstract
- DEET (N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide) is considered the gold standard in mosquito repellents, not only for its effectiveness, but also for its safety. DEET has been more extensively studied for safety than any other repellent, and is accepted as completely safe when used correctly (i.e. not consumed or bathed in). Researchers studying botanical repellents, however, often paint DEET as far more toxic than it really is, falsely claiming it is a menace to the public health or even the environment. These claims are unfounded, and often the only evidence given by such publications are references to other publications also studying botanical repellents. Such publications are biased, and may be attacking DEET's excellent safety record to justify their existence and the need for their research. The inconvenient yet undisputable fact is that no botanical repellent has been proven to be as safe as DEET, and the majority never had any safety testing whatsoever. The automatic assumption that botanical repellents are safer than DEET is the 'appeal to nature fallacy,' which also drives most of the market for "natural" repellents, yet natural repellents have side effects and even a body count. Finding a botanical repellent that works as well as DEET and is equally safe is a legitimate research goal on its own, and need not be justified by fear-mongering and irrational chemophobia. Researchers studying these alternatives should strive for integrity, raising the real issue of the lack of safety testing for botanical repellents rather than denying the proven safety of DEET. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Subjects :
- REPELLENTS
PUBLICATION bias
DRUG side effects
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 14752875
- Volume :
- 19
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- Malaria Journal
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 142631380
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03217-5