State ofState on knowledge persistent organic pollutants and the Arctic in Europe THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG THE OF TIP THE
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG ISBN: 90-73361-53-2 Greenpeace International Greenpeace Keizersgracht 176 1016 DW Amsterdam 6222 - 523 Phone: 020 6200 - 523 020 Fax: www.greenpeace.org THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG
State of knowledge on
persistent organic pollutants
in Europe and the Arctic
August 1999 Authors
Michelle Allsopp, David Santillo, Paul Johnston & Ruth Stringer
Address
Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PS
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to Dr. Vyvyan Howard of the University of Liverpool, UK, for reviewing the draft text of this report. In addition, thanks are due to Manfred Krautter of Greenpeace Germany, Monique Harthoorn, Jolle Landman, Eco Matser of Greenpeace Netherlands, Wytze van der Naald and Anjela Wilkes of Greenpeace International for reviewing the draft text.
The writing of this report was funded by Greenpeace Germany and Greenpeace Nederland.
ISBN: 90-73361-53-2
Produced by Greenpeace International Publications
Graphic design
Ontwerpburo Suggestie & illusie, Utrecht
Primavera, Amsterdam
Coverphotos
© E. Hussenet/BIOS/Foto Natura (inuit) © Fotostock (baby) © Greenpeace/Terry Hagen (Polar bears) © Greenpeace/Grace (sperm whale)
Printed on processed chlorine-free, recycled paper CoNTENTS
SUMMARY i
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Chemicals of Concern 2
2 GLOBAL POLLUTION AND TRANSPORT 6 2.1 Transport of POPs on a Global Scale 7 2.2 Sources of POPs to the Arctic Environment 9 2.3 Levels of POPs in the Arctic Environment 10 2.4 Time Trends of POPs in the Arctic Environment 10
3 LEVELS OF POPS IN MARINE MAMMALS OF EUROPE AND THE ARCTIC 11 3.1 POPs in the Food Web of European Marine Mammals 14 3.2 POPs in the Food Web of Arctic Marine Mammals 14 3.3 Levels of POPs in European Marine Mammals 15 3.3.1 Organochlorines 15 3.3.2 Effects of Age and Sexon Levels 15 3.3.3 Brominated POPs 15 3.3.4 Organotins 16 3.4 Levels of POPs in Arctic Wildlife 17 3.4.1 Effect of Location in the Arctic on Tissue Levels 18 3.4.2 Levels of POPs in Marine Mammals in the Arctic Versus Temperate Zones 18
4 EXPOSURE AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF POPS IN MARINE MAMMALS 20 4.1 Susceptibility to POPs 21 4.2 Seals 23 4.2.1 European Populations of Seals 23 4.2.2 Arctic Seals 25 4.3 Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises of Europe 26 4.3.1 Sperm Whales 26 4.3.2 Fin Whales 26 4.3.3 Harbour Porpoise 27 4.3.4 Dolphins 28 4.4 Whales and Porpoises of the Arctic 28 4.4.1 Beluga 28 4.4.2 Narwhal 30 4.4.3 Bowhead Whale 30 4.4.4 Harbour Porpoise 31 4.5 Polar Bears 31 5 OTHER WILDLIFE 33 5.1 Arctic Wildlife 34 5.1.1 Arctic Fox 34 5.2 European Wildlife 34 5.2.1 Terrestrial Mammals 34 5.2.2 European Otters, Mink and Polecats 34 5.2.3 Birds 36 5.2.4 Marine Fish 37 5.2.5 River Fish 38
6 TISSUE LEVELS AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF POPS IN HUMANS IN EUROPE 40 6.1 Highly Exposed Populations and Health Effects 41 6.1.1 Faroe Islanders 41 6.1.2 Swedish Fishermen 42 6.1.3 Europe 42 6.2 Tissue Levels of POPs 42 6.2.1 PCDD/Fs and PCBs 43 6.2.2 Organochlorine Pesticides 43 6.2.3 Other POPs 46
7 TISSUE LEVELS AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF POPS IN ARCTIC INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 47 7.1 Exposure to POPs 48 7.2 Tissue Levels 48 7.3 Health Effects 51
8 THE SOLUTION - ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM AT SOURCE 53 8.1 Global Exposure 54 8.2 Lessons Unlearned? 54 8.3 The Need for Global Solutions 55 8.4 Progress Under Regional Programmes 56 8.4.1 The OSPAR Convention (1992) and the “One Generation Goal” 56 8.4.2 Hazardous Substances for PriorityAction 57 8.5 From Objectives to Action: the Challenge of OSPAR Implementation 58 8.5.1 Regulation of Chemicals in the European Union 59 8.5.2 Failure of Existing EU Chemical Regulations 59 8.6 The Way Forward 60 8.6.1 A New Approach to the Regulation of Hazardous Chemicals 61
9 CONCLUSIONS 63
10 REFERENCES 66
List of Abbreviations 86 SUMMARY
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG 5 ersistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a group of Numerous potentially harmful POPs are currently in Pchemicals which are very resistant to natural production and used in everyday products. Only a few breakdown processes and are therefore extremely sta- POPs have been banned in most countries. However, ble and long-lived. Most do not occur in nature but are even these banned POPs continue to contaminate the man-made. Once released into the environment, many global environment because of their long-lived nature POPs persist for years, even decades. Many POPs are and because some are still manufactured and used in also highly toxic and build up (bioaccumulate) in the some countries. fatty tissues of animals and humans. These 3 proper- This report draws together scientific findings on pos- © Greenpeace/Beltra sible health effects of POPs on wildlife and humans in Europe and in the remote circumpolar Arctic. Special emphasis is placed on marine mammals since they carry high levels of POPs in their tissues and are par- ticularly susceptible to the toxic effects of these chemicals. The report reveals that we already know that many POPs are widespread environmental conta- minants and they may cause detrimental effects in humans and wildlife, particularly on the next genera- tion. Moreover, our current understanding of the effects of POPs may only be the tip of the iceberg - future research could reveal yet more toxic effects Arctic Glacier attributable to environmental contamination by POPs. ties – persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative, make The majority of POPs and other chemicals in use have them, arguably, the most problematic chemicals to not even been tested to assess their potential haz- which natural systems can be exposed. In recent ards. With these factors in mind the report demon- decades, vast numbers of POPs have been produced, strates that there is an urgent need for the complete used worldwide and are still in production and use. phase out of all releases of POPs to the environment. These chemicals have become widespread pollutants in the environment and even contaminate regions What are POPS? remote from their source, such as the Arctic, deep oceans and mountain areas. POPs encompass many different and varied groups of man-made chemicals. Some POPs have been Certain POPs have been responsible for some cata- highlighted by national and international organisa- strophic effects in wildlife, ranging from interference tions as being chemicals of concern. For instance, with sexual characteristics to dramatic population the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) losses. Moreover, possible health effects of POPs on has listed certain POPs, which are organochlorines, wildlife are still becoming apparent today. In humans, as being chemicals of clear concern. levels of POPs in some women of the general popula- Organochlorines are substances containing chemi- tion in European countries and Indigenous Arctic cally combined chlorine and carbon. They are a Peoples may be sufficient to cause subtle undesirable huge group of chemicals that include many POPs. effects on the immune system and growth of their The UNEP list notes 12 organochlorines – known as babies. The developing young of both wildlife and the dirty dozen. They are the dioxins and furans, humans are the most vulnerable to toxic effects of (produced as unintentional by-products of combus- POPs. They are exposed to these chemicals because tion and processes involving the manufacture, use POPs are passed to the foetus in the womb from a and disposal of organochlorines); PCBs, (industrial mother’s body via the placenta and through breast chemicals that have been banned but are still milk to the infant. released to the environment in significant amounts from old sources); HCB (used in the manufacture of
i THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG pesticides and produced as an unwanted by-prod- Where are they found? uct of various industrial processes involving POPs contaminate local areas close to sites where organochlorines); several organochlorines used as they are released into the environment from indus- pesticides, - DDT, chlordane, toxaphene, dieldrin, try and agriculture. However, volatile and semi- aldrin, endrin, heptachlor and mirex. Use of these volatile POPs also contaminate regions remote organochlorine pesticides is banned or is severely from their source because they can be transported restricted in most countries, but not in all. for thousands of kilometres on air currents. These POPs migrate on air currents from warmer regions The Convention for the Protection of the Marine of the globe towards colder polar regions. Once Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR) has they reach colder temperatures they condense, pre- made a commitment for the cessation of emissions, cipitate out, and are deposited again on the Earth’s discharges and other losses to the environment of surface. POPs may also be transported for long dis- ALL hazardous substances in ONE GENERATION (ie. tances by rivers, ocean currents and as contami- by the year 2020). Although the mechanism for pri- nants in wildlife. oritising hazardous substances is still under devel- opment, an initial list of 15 chemicals or chemical Due to global transport of POPs, substantial levels groups has been selected for priority action. This of these chemicals are present in the Arctic, in list includes a variety of POPs and other hazardous some cases at levels similar to those in heavily substances, eg. heavy metals. Some of these POPs industrialised countries. Thus, while countries from have already been phased out of mainstream pro- lower latitudes act as a source of POPs, the Arctic duction such as pentachlorophenol, but others are acts as a sink for some of these contaminants. still produced and released to the environment on a Under cold Arctic conditions, POPs are likely to daily basis. These include dioxins and furans, degrade at a slower rate than in temperate regions brominated flame retardants, HCH isomers - such and will therefore persist in this environment for as the organochlorine pesticide lindane, musk even longer. Contamination of the Arctic environ- xylene (used as a synthetic fragrance), organotin ment will continue for many decades after cessa- compounds (for example, used as anti-fouling tion of POPs source emissions as a consequence of agents for ships), short chained chlorinated paraf- long-distance transport and the persistent nature fins (for example, used in cutting oils and lubri- of these chemicals. cants) and certain phthalates – DBP and DEHP, which are not particularly persistent but are none POPS in Food Webs the less hazardous (main uses as plastic softeners, especially in PVC). Many POPs which pollute the environment become incorporated into food webs. They accumulate and POPs included in the above lists are of immense persist in the fatty tissues of animals and humans concern given that they contaminate the environ- because they are soluble in fats and are not easily ment and have potentially toxic effects. Most broken down in the body. Even low environmental research on POPs is limited to a few of these chemi- levels of POPs can lead to high levels in the body cals and information on the remaining ones has tissues of animals and humans. For many POPs, the only begun to be generated more recently. levels in fat increase as one animal eats another, so Similarly, there are vast numbers of other haz- that the highest levels are found in predator ani- ardous chemicals for which there is little scientific mals at the top of food webs, such as polar bears, data. It should also be stressed that the UNEP and seals, toothed whales, birds of prey and humans. OSPAR lists are not complete lists of POPs and haz- Marine mammals accumulate particularly high lev- ardous chemicals. There are numerous others els of POPs because of their large quantities of fatty which are also environmental contaminants and blubber and a reduced capacity to break down are of great concern. some POPs compared to other species.
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG ii Wildlife Exposure to POPS North Sea and Baltic Sea, possibly related to In the North East Atlantic, organochlorines such as organochlorines. DDT and PCBs are detectable in all marine mammal species that have been tested. In addition to Mass mortalities of striped dolphins in the organochlorines, other POPs which are still pro- Mediterranean 1990-92 caused by a virus. duced and used, such as brominated flame retar- Organochlorines and organotins suspected to dants and organotin compounds, have also been exacerbate the problem by weakening the immune found in several marine species. This indicates that system. the oceans are widely contaminated with these POPs, even the deep seas. In addition to marine mammals, other wildlife have suffered from the toxic effects of POPs. Effects In the Arctic, levels of PCBs and DDT in a range of include dramatic population declines of the marine mammals were shown to be around 15 European otter possibly linked to PCB exposure, times lower than in animals from the North Atlantic. reproductive problems and population declines in However, this North to South difference in levels is seabirds and birds of prey, reproductive effects in not apparent for some other organochlorines such marine fish, and regional extinctions of dog whelks as HCHs, chlordanes and toxaphene which are pre- due to TBT. sent in the Arctic at levels similar to those in North Atlantic marine mammals. In addition, levels of The Arctic PCBs in polar bear, and Arctic fox are, at least in some regions, exceptionally high. Scientific data on In the Arctic, limited field studies that are available POPs other than organochlorines in Arctic marine indicate that some effects on wildlife may be asso- mammals are virtually non-existent. ciated with exposure to POPs:
Effects on Wildlife Levels of PCBs in Arctic Beluga are associated with subtle effects on health – induction of cytochrome p-450 enzymes at times of poor feeding Europe when fat reserves have been mobilised.
A variety of effects on the reproductive and Feminised gonads in male Bowhead whales. It is immune system of marine mammals have been associated with levels of POPs in their tissues not known, but it is possible that POPs are involved including: in the high incidence (2 in 155 whales) of this condi- tion. Reproductive failure and population collapse in common seals in the Wadden Sea (1950-75). Levels of PCBs in polar bears are associated with induction of the cytochrome p-450 enzyme system. A disease-complex (adrenocortical hyperplasia) in ringed and grey seals from the Baltic Sea in the A high death rate in polar bear cubs possibly due 1970s which involved poor fertility, skull abnormal- to high levels of organochlorines. ities and enlargement of the adrenal gland. Some of these effects persist today. Abnormally formed genitalia in four polar bears. Possibly due to exposure to high levels of PCBs in Mass mortality of seals around European coasts the womb. in 1992 caused by a virus. Organochlorines were suspected to exacerbate the problem by weakening A recent study conducted by the Arctic the immune system. Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP) compared tissue levels of Arctic wildlife species with levels Decline of harbour porpoise populations in the that are known to cause detrimental effects in
iii THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG experimental animals. It reported that current lev- A substantial proportion of the POPs which have els of organochlorines in polar bear, Arctic fox and accumulated in a woman’s body during her whole harbour porpoise places them at risk from repro- lifetime are passed to her child during develop- ductive and immunosuppressive effects on health ment in the womb and through breast-feeding. and neurobehavioral effects in offspring. Beluga, Studies show that current levels of PCBs/dioxins in Narwhal and seals are potentially at risk from neu- some women of the general population are associ- robehavioural effects in offspring. ated with subtle, but significant undesirable effects on the nervous system, immune system and post- Exposure to POPS and natal growth of their babies. These effects were evi- Effects in Humans dent in healthy infants from the Netherlands whose mothers’ had slightly higher levels of PCBs/dioxins For the general population, the greatest exposure in their bodies. Similarly, in the Arctic, babies born to POPs is from food intake. Since many POPs are to women who had higher levels of PCBs in their fat soluble, the highest levels are present in meat breast milk had subtle undesirable effects on their fish and dairy products. Dioxins, PCBs, several immune system and on postnatal growth. This is organochlorine pesticides and brominated flame obviously of great concern, particularly as effects retardants are detectable worldwide in human are occurring at current background levels and breast milk, adipose tissue and blood, which effects caused during foetal/infant development reflects widespread exposure to these chemicals. are likely to be irreversible.
Individuals who are more highly exposed to POPs What Must Be Done than the general population include those who con- sume large amounts of fish or sea mammals from That POPs have become widespread environmental contaminated waters. This includes a group of peo- contaminants is abundantly clear from the pres- ple who would least be expected to have high expo- ence of many POPs in animal and human tissues in sure to POPs – Indigenous Peoples from the Arctic both industrialised Europe and in remote areas who consume a traditional diet. Levels of such as the Arctic and deep oceans. Currently, this organochlorine pesticides in breast milk from Inuit problem of global POPs contamination is set to con- women residing in Arctic Quebec were 4 times high- tinue because the majority of POPs from man’s er than women from Southern Quebec while levels activities are still being released into the environ- of PCBs were 7 times higher. This is due to a rela- ment. Only a few have been banned and even this tively higher exposure to POPs from the consump- is in limited parts of the world. Furthermore, the tion of sea mammals in the diet. Furthermore, tis- decrease in environmental levels of a few banned sue levels of PCBs and dioxins in Greenland Inuit POPs, such as DDT, gives no room for optimism or were 3 times higher than Inuit from Arctic Quebec. complacency. Levels of banned POPs are still high enough to be of concern, and moreover, levels of Research indicates that levels of dioxins and some other POPs which are still being widely produced, organochlorine pesticides in humans have such as the brominated flame retardants, add to decreased or stabilised in some European coun- the already heavy environmental burden of POPs. In tries in recent years. However, other POPs may now addition, there may be many other POPs in breast add increasingly to the already existing levels of milk which have not yet been studied. these POPs in breast milk. For instance, levels of brominated flame retardants have doubled every 5 Because the release of POPs into the environment years over the past 25 years in breast milk from is continuing, there is a potential for further severe Swedish women. Nitro musks are also detectable in impacts on the health of wildlife and humans. breast milk in European countries. Continuing uses of brominated flame-retardants, for instance, could lead to devastating effects on wildlife similar to those caused by PCBs. Problems
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG iv may even worsen as the number and quantity of GREENPEACE DEMANDS… chemicals produced is increasing and most chemi- cals currently in use have never been tested to The production and use of all POPs must be phased assess their potential hazards. out at an international and, ultimately, at a global level. Many POPs are passed from a mother’s body to the developing young in wildlife and humans alike. This must be achieved through the substitution of This intergenerational transfer of POPs threatens POPs (or the processes which generate them) with the health of future populations. Given the persis- non-hazardous alternatives. tent nature of POPs, there is only one way forward to safeguard future generations. This is to phase out Industry and agriculture must pursue clean pro- the production and use of all POPs and other haz- duction technologies and manufacture clean prod- ardous substances and implement clean produc- ucts, recognising that the only way to prevent releas- tion technologies. Action must be taken now to es of POPs into the environment is to avoid their pro- address the existing POPs problems, prevent new duction and use. problems and start on the road to a Toxics Free Future. As a matter of urgency, action must be taken to stop production, eliminate all discharges, emissions and losses of those chemicals prioritised for action by OSPAR/UNEP, many of which are POPs. This is an essential first step if the target of cessation of emis- sions, discharges and losses of ALL hazardous sub- stances in OSPAR countries as agreed at ministerial level, is to be achieved within one generation (by 2020).