"Environmentalists who oppose DDT use for agriculture while not opposing it for vector control have saved lives, while hacks like Milloy that support ag use have killed people by increasing mosquito resistance to DDT used for vector control.

Bets, anyone? "

How many deaths are you imagining that have been caused by DDT? And you are wrong environmentists were opposed, but they evenually lost the argument. But they is no production of DDT in the US, they did manage to stop that. One thing about DDT is it is cheap to make, but with lawsuits one can easily change this factor, preventing any American from making or selling DDT is going to put a major dent in world production.

2.2 The United States:
"In 1969, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) cancelled the registration of certain uses of DDT (on shade trees, on tobacco, in the home, and in aquatic environments) after studying the persistence of DDT residues in the environment. Applications on crops, commercial plants, wood products, and for building purposes were cancelled by the USDA in 1970. Under the authority of the EPA, the registrations of the remaining DDT products and DDT-metabolites were cancelled on 4 January 1973, with the following exemptions: public health use for control of vector-borne diseases, USDA or military use for health quarantine, and use in prescription drugs for controlling body lice. All of these remaining uses were voluntarily cancelled (due to failure to pay maintenance fees) by October 1989. The fact that there are no registrations means that DDT cannot be used in the United States, nor can it be imported for use as a pesticide product. At present, the United States does not have the legislative authority to prohibit production of DDT if a manufacturer wanted to initiate such production in the future.

However, DDT is not currently manufactured in the United States. There have been recent reports of DDT exports and imports entering or leaving the United States. The EPA believes that the exports are actually small quantities of reference standards being shipped between laboratories and as such, they are subject to the export notification requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has no de minimis cut-off for notification. The imports may also have occurred when the Department of Defense (DOD) recalled its existing stocks for destruction. The DOD no longer uses DDT in any of its operations abroad and does not maintain a stockpile. No maximum residue levels are in effect, although there are numerous action levels for a wide variety of crops, ranging from 0.05 ppm to 5 ppm."
&
".1 Canada

DDT was first registered in 1946 and used in Canada to control insect pests in crops as well as in domestic and industrial applications. DDT was never manufactured in Canada."
&
"2.3 Mexico

The introduction of DDT in Mexico in the early 1950s for its use in agriculture followed the pattern ahown by Canada and the United States. In the 1970s, DDT use in agriculture production began to decline as a result of environmental concerns and the introduction of stricter limits on residues of DDT on foods. "
...
"Today, DDT is registered in Mexico only for use in government-sponsored public health campaigns. It continues to be an important tool in the fight against malaria transmission. Mexico's malaria control program restricts the use of DDT to selective applications in dwellings. There is only one private company producing DDT in Mexico, and its production is subject to government approval. DDT requirements for malaria control have been reduced significantly in recent years because of changes in Mexico's malaria campaigns. "
http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/pollutants_health/smoc/ddt.cfm?varlan=english#us