17/02/2005 Brussels, Belgium/Oslo,
Norway/Gland, Switzerland – The Arctic and
its wildlife are increasingly contaminated
with chemicals and pollutants that were never
produced or used in that region, warns WWF
in a new report. It further notes that sometimes
chemical concentrations in the area are higher
than in the countries where they were made
and produced.
The report – The tip of the iceberg: Chemical
contamination in the Arctic – shows that air,
river and ocean currents, drifting sea ice,
and migrating wildlife species carry industrial
and agricultural chemicals from distant sites
of production and use to the polar environment.
Once pollutants reach the Arctic, polar ice
can trap contaminants that are gradually released
into the environment during melting periods,
even years later.
As a result, the Arctic is becoming the chemical
sink of the globe, WWF says.
"Not only is chemical contamination
increasing in the Arctic, but also modern
chemicals are now appearing in many arctic
species alongside older chemicals, some of
them banned for over 20 years," said
Brettania Walker, Toxics Officer at WWF's
Arctic Programme.
"This alarming trend will continue if
the current chemical regulation does not improve.
REACH, the new EU chemical legislation, provides
an opportunity to set a new global standard,
putting chemical production and use on a safe
and sustainable path."
WWF’s report points out that recent studies
of polar bears in the Norwegian or Canadian
Arctic indicate that exposure to older chemicals,
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
organochlorine pesticides (OCs), is already
at levels where effects are seen in their
hormone, immune, and reproductive systems.
Many of the newer chemicals now reaching
the Arctic are capable of similar effects,
and mixtures of both older and current-use
chemicals could lead to even more harmful
combined effects.
Many Arctic animals, such as polar bears,
seals, and whales, have thick layers of body
fat that helps them keep warm and gives them
sufficient energy throughout the year. But
the fat also acts as a magnet for storing
chemicals, leading to the build up of very
high chemical levels.
The report shows that chlorinated paraffins
— un-restricted chemicals used in paints,
sealants, adhesives, leather, and rubber processing
— have been detected in grey and ringed seals
from Norway, beluga whales, walruses as well
as fish, birds, and ocean sediments from the
United Kingdom.
Brominated flame-retardants and fluorinated
chemicals, many of which are inadequately
regulated, have already contaminated polar
bears, whales, Arctic foxes, seals, porpoises,
and birds from Greenland, Norway, Canada and
Sweden.
If current trends and inadequate regulation
continue, levels of brominated flame-retardants
could reach similar levels as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs, phased out in the 1970s)
within the next 10 to 20 years.
"Arctic contamination has serious implications
not just for the health of arctic animals
but also for arctic indigenous peoples who
rely on a traditional marine diet," added
Brettania Walker. "Strong chemical regulation
is needed to prevent hazardous chemicals from
reaching the Arctic in the first place."
WWF believes the European Union’s proposed
REACH chemical legislation must be strengthened
to require identification and phase-out of
the most hazardous chemicals.
REACH will then have the potential to drastically
reduce harmful contamination both in the Arctic
and globally.
Protecting environmental, wildlife, and human
health would also benefit the industry, opening
new markets for safer products, and ensuring
easier introduction of new chemicals onto
the market, decreased liability lawsuits,
and more public trust.
NOTES:
1. Perfluorinated compounds are used as stain
and surface protectors, and in the production
of textiles, food packaging and non-stick
coatings such as Teflon. One fluorinated chemical,
called PFOS, was voluntarily phased-out by
a major manufacturer in 2001 due to concerns
of its hazardous properties. While Canada
recently enacted a ban on 3 types of fluorinated
chemicals, there is currently no EU regulation
of either PFOS or another fluorinated chemical
of concern, called PFOA.
2. Brominated flame-retardants (BFRs) are
currently used in upholstery cushions, fabrics,
and in electronic equipment, including computers
and televisions. The EU banned the “octa”
and “penta” forms of BFRs in August 2004,
many other types of BFRs remain inadequately
regulated.
3. The Arctic is uniquely vulnerable to pollution
and is the final destination of pollution
from around the world. It is a region that
plays an important role for wildlife found
nowhere else and for the many people who live
there.
4. The current EU chemical regulatory system,
similar to others around the world, considers
chemicals “safe until proven otherwise”. Chemicals
in production prior to 1981 do not require
safety testing. As a result, thousands of
chemicals in current-use have never been evaluated
for basic safety. Persistent chemicals that
do not easily break down are of special concern.
These chemicals remain in the environment
even years after they are banned and phased-out
of use.
5. REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation
of Chemicals) is the draft EU law that should
lead to the identification and phasing out
of the most harmful chemicals. If it becomes
law it will be enforced in all countries in
the European Union. REACH will also lead to
changes in chemical regulation and production
outside the European Union. Under the law,
chemical producers would be obliged to send
a registration dossier containing safety data
to a central chemicals agency for all chemicals
produced in quantities above one tonne a year.
Less information is required the lower the
tonnage of chemicals produced. Experts would
then evaluate the safety data for higher-volume
chemicals and other chemicals of concern.
Chemicals of very high concern would be phased
out, and replaced by safer alternatives, unless
industry can show ‘adequate control’ of the
risk from their use or that their ‘socio-economic’
value outweighed the risks. WWF does not think
that the draft law is tough enough.
