Implementing the Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Implementation of the Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a unique opportunity to foster changes in environmental, occupational, and food policies In the forthcoming months many scientific, technical, and political energies will be devoted throughout the world to design specific plans to implement the Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).1–,4 Drawn under the leadership of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)—with significant contributions from non-governmental organisations, trade unions, and private companies—it has been saluted as “a global public health treaty”, one that will “protect public health both from DDT and malaria”, “the first global agreement ever to seek to ban an entire class of chemicals because of their direct effects on human health”.3,4 After four years of work, in December 2000 this “international legally binding instrument” was finalised. In May 2001 delegates from over one hundred countries (including the United States, Canada, and all members of the European Union) signed the accord in Stockholm. It is expected to be put into effect by 2004, after 50 nations have ratified it (so far, eight countries have done so).1 Meanwhile, governments can facilitate voluntary implementation of the agreement prior to its entry into force. Implementation of the treaty at all population levels (municipal, regional, continental) constitutes a fantastic opportunity to foster changes in environmental, occupational, public health, and food policies. But the challenges are immense. The substances covered by the treaty are eight pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene), two industrial chemicals (hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)), and two POP by-products (dioxins and furans).1,2 The first 10 compounds, except DDT, are included in Annex A (elimination): the aim is to cease their production, use, and trade. The agreement prohibits production of PCBs immediately, and requires countries to …

[1]  G. Karlaganis,et al.  The elaboration of the ‘Stockholm Convention’ on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): A negotiation process fraught with obstacles and opportunities , 2001, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[2]  L. Hansen Stepping backward to improve assessment of PCB congener toxicities. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[3]  Lawrence H. Keith,et al.  Environmental endocrine disruptors , 1998 .

[4]  G. O. Thomas,et al.  The global distribution of PCBs and organochlorine pesticides in butter. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[5]  J Baeyens,et al.  The Belgian PCB and dioxin incident of January-June 1999: exposure data and potential impact on health. , 2001, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  M. Porta Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, persistent organic pollutants, and the achievable utopias , 2002, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[7]  V. Cogliano Assessing the cancer risk from environmental PCBs. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  A. Covaci,et al.  Surprising findings following a Belgian food contamination with polychlorobiphenyls and dioxins. , 2001, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[9]  M. Longnecker,et al.  Characterization of potential endocrine-related health effects at low-dose levels of exposure to PCBs. , 1999, Environmental health perspectives.

[10]  Jonathan Marrow,et al.  Physicians for Social Responsibility , 1980 .

[11]  J. Sunyer,et al.  Concentraciones de compuestos tóxicos persistentes en la población española: el rompecabezas sin piezas y la protección de la salud pública , 2002 .

[12]  L. Kohlmeier,et al.  Some dietary predictors of plasma organochlorine concentrations in an elderly German population. , 1998, Archives of environmental health.

[13]  P. Furst,et al.  Exposure of populations to dioxins and related compounds , 2000, Food additives and contaminants.

[14]  A. Attaran,et al.  Doctoring malaria, badly: the global campaign to ban DDTDDT for malaria control should not be bannedCommentary: Reduction and elimination of DDT should proceed slowly , 2000 .

[15]  M. Longnecker,et al.  Determinants of p,p-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDE) concentration in adipose tissue in women from five European cities. , 1999, Archives of environmental health.

[16]  S. Kegley,et al.  Persistent toxic chemicals in the US food supply* , 2002, Journal of epidemiology and community health.