The Arctic at Risk:
A Circumpolar Atlas of Environmental Concerns

by Stephanie Pfirman, Kathleen Crane, Kim Kane, and Tania Simoncelli

Review Draft: Not for Citation

Findings

Although much of the Arctic remains clean relative to the environmental standards of industrialized areas, it can no longer be regarded as pristine. Industrial and agricultural activity, coupled with environmental negligence in regions both within and outside the Arctic, have contributed to contamination of the land and waters in the Arctic ecosystem. Although contaminant levels in lower part of the food chain often are low, many insecticides and industrial products accumulate in Arctic wildlife, and are passed up the food chain when they are consumed. This results in elevated levels of contaminants in the upper parts of the food chain, for example in sea birds, ringed seals and polar bears. Because many indigenous peoples consume large amounts of local wildlife, they now have concentrations of some pollutants, such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and mercury, that are high enough to raise debate about suggesting dietary alterations.

Based on data compiled for this project and review of the literature, we recommend the following:

* Prevent entry into the environment of pollutants which can be transported long distances. Because many of the contaminants accumulating in the Arctic come from outside this region, we should work around the world to reduce emissions, by limiting production and use as well as by improving disposal practices and controlling leaks. This is the most important recommendation, given the fact that some pollutant levels are locally high enough in the Arctic to cause health concerns. Analysis of Arctic contaminants shows that levels can be reduced in the Arctic. For example, decreasing levels of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-ethane) in some Canadian marine mammals testify to our ability to reduce contaminant loads by cutting back on emissions.

* Local releases of contaminants should be minimized by careful management and use of best available technology. Because the Arctic ecosystem is vulnerable to contamination due to the nature of the food chain, the presence of contaminants transported from long distances, and, in some cases, high natural background concentrations, development activities within the Arctic should be carefully designed to minimize additional input.

* Obtain information on the circumpolar distribution of contaminants throughout the food chain, including in humans. We should be able to trace the contaminant from the source, through air, water, ice, or sediments and up through the food chain. Currently, crucial data is lacking in most of the high Arctic, with the notable exception of organochlorines in Canada and Svalbard, and even here the data are incomplete. In particular, tracing the transport of pollutants across the Arctic and determining their fate is hindered by significant gaps in data for the central Arctic. These data are needed to make sound judgments on management of Arctic resources.

* Examine data archives to determine trends in contaminant levels through time. Data archives include both natural recorders of information, such as sediment accumulating in lakes, and archives in museums and tissue banks, where scientists have preserved samples over decades or longer. Looking at the trends, we can find out if a region is becoming more or less contaminated, and determine how contaminant levels have responded to changes in the amount of contaminant present in the ecosystem. This information will help to see how long it takes for contaminant levels to adjust to changes in contaminant availability and will help in making predictions about future levels, as well as in deciding on appropriate actions.

* Identify the health and ecosystem effects of individual contaminants, both alone and in combination with other pollutants and environmental stresses. Vulnerable populations should be identified, such as the young who consume a greater amount of food per unit of body weight and therefore have proportionately greater exposure to some contaminants than do adults. We need to pay particular attention to effects at low/intermediate doses and cumulative exposures, which may impair but not kill an organism. Among these sub-lethal effects are intergenerational health effects, which may be passed from parent to offspring. Superimposed stresses from ozone loss and climate change should be considered in making predictions of future conditions.

* Establish guidelines for evaluation and communication of the risks of consumption of contaminated food vs. the nutritional, cultural and economic benefits of continued consumption. In general, because of concerns about bioaccumulation of contaminants, it is best to eat younger animals. Metals often concentrate and bioaccumulate in the liver and kidneys, while muscle tissues tend to have lower concentrations and are preferable for consumption. Organochlorines tend to concentrate in fatty tissues, so these should be avoided in animals where levels are likely to be high. Because of concerns about biomagnification, it is best to eat low on the food chain rather than the top predators. Consumers of wildlife need information on how to weigh the concentration of toxic materials in the specific tissues that they consume, against how they prepare it (cooking, trimming fatty tissues), much of it they eat, how often, and other nutritional, cultural and economic benefits of consumption. Because there are regional differences in dietary habits and in contaminant levels in various foods, this type of information must be gathered and presented on a local scale. Populations which consume large amounts of local or "country" food, once informed of the risks, should decide on potential changes in dietary habits.

Back to the EDF homepage

Back to the Arctic Atlas main page