Highlights prepared by Greenfacts of the report:

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal

The Highlights of the report in 8 questions and 8 answers

 1. What were the questions asked to the Scientific committee? Three specific questions were posed by the Commission in the terms of reference, namely:

1. What scientific criteria should be used to identify EDs?
2. What is an adverse effect and how can it be distinguished from physiological modulation?
3. Are existing toxicity testing methods appropriately covering the effects of endocrine active substances?

The opinion expressed is based on an evaluation of existing information, current insights and scientific activities on „endocrine disruptors‟, from European and other international parties which had to include the final report „State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters‟(Kortenkamp et al., 2011)[1].  To this end, EFSA followed its specific Standard Operating Procedure detailing the steps necessary for establishing, updating or closing a scientific working group.

The declarations of interests of all short-listed experts were checked for absence of conflicts of interest before they could be invited to participate in the working group to contribute in their personal capacity, as an observer or as a hearing expert.

2. What is an endocrine active substance and what is endocrine disruption? The endocrine system plays a crucial role in maintaining human homeostasis and is often affected by exogenous stimuli. As an inter-related system, the endocrine system influences almost every cell, organ, and function of an organism. It regulates, with the use of numerous chemical messengers, various vital functions such as metabolism, growth and development, tissue function, or mood, from conception through adulthood and into old age. This includes for example the development of the brain and nervous system, the growth and function of the reproductive system, or the regulation of blood sugar level.

A range of synthetic as well as naturally occurring agents have been identified as interacting with the endocrine system. If the interaction of these exogenous substances with the endocrine system leads to adverse health effect in an intact organism or its progeny or (sub) populations, these substances are referred to as „endocrine disruptors‟(EDs). Overall, says the report, endocrine effects become adverse either by elicitation of a sub- (or supra-) normal response or persistence in a physiological state that is intended to be transitory.  Meanwhile, the point at which endocrine modulation becomes an adverse effect cannot be determined on the basis of an absolute response value, but on the basis of a relative response (compared to the control/background response). The SC is therefore of the opinion that, as adversity is a prerequisite for identifying a substance as an ED, it is necessary to determine a biological threshold between endocrine modulation and adverse effect.

In this report, the Scientific Committee (SC) defines an endocrine active substance (EAS)  as a substance having the inherent ability to interact or interfere with one or more components of the endocrine system resulting in a biological effect, but need not necessarily cause adverse effects. Therefore, the SC considers endocrine activity as a collection of modes of action, potentially leading to adverse outcomes (endocrine disruption), rather than a toxicological or eco-toxicological hazard in itself.

 3. What substances are capable of interfering with the hormone systems?  Many substances released into the environment through human activity are capable of interfering with the endocrine or hormone systems of animals and humans, which regulate the metabolism and function of the body. Such endocrine active substances (EASs) occur in a variety of chemical classes including synthetic drugs, pesticides, compounds used in industry and in consumer products, industrial by-products and pollutants, including some metals.

However, one should keep in mind that there is also a large number of EASs of natural origin occurring in plants consumed as food or feed, and also some secondary metabolites from fungi that may contaminate food and feed are known to express endocrine-like activity. Examples of naturally occurring EASs are oestrogenic compounds in soy (e.g. genistein and daidzein), mycotoxins (e.g. zearalenone) in cereals, goitrogens in cabbage with the potential to inhibit iodine uptake (glucosinates), and glycirrhizine in liquorice with the potential to disturb the mineralocorticoid system.

Furthermore, the endocrine system includes many additional signalling systems in humans and animals involving a vast number of hormonal or signalling factors, which are divided into 5 major classes: amino acid derivatives, small neuropeptides, large proteins, steroid hormones and vitamin derivatives. In addition, numerous peptide growth factors share actions with hormones. For this reason, hormonal aspects of metabolic regulation and neuro-development have also recently been included in the endocrine system.

 4. Are there specific criteria to define endocrine disruptive effects? As scientific criteria for an “adverse effect” in general have not been defined, specific criteria for endocrine disrupting effects, says the report, could not be identified to distinguish between substances that are endocrine disruptors (EDs) and other groups of substances with different modes of action. The SC concluded however that an endocrine disruptor is defined by three criteria:

1.  the presence of an adverse effect in an intact organism or a (sub)population;
2.  the presence of an endocrine activity (oestrogenic, androgenic, thyroid or steroidogenic) ;
3. the presence of a plausible causal relationship between the two.

In general, but not always, transient, inconsistent and minor fluctuations at the biochemical and molecular level may be considered adaptive, i.e. non-adverse. On the other hand, changes at the cell-, organ-, organism-, or (sub)population-level resulting in pathology or functional impairment in vivo, as well as altered timing of development, may be considered adverse, says the report. And, in principle, no single assay is likely to provide all the information needed to decide whether a substance is an ED because of the need to provide both mechanistic and apical[2] information.  Therefore, expert judgement is required to assess on a case-by-case basis the (eco)toxicological relevance of changes at the molecular to individual and/or (sub)population level following exposure to an EAS.

 5. Are there threshold doses below which no endocrine effects are observed?  For most toxic processes, says the report, it is generally assumed that there is a threshold of exposure below which no biologically significant effect will be induced. According to the Kortenkamp report (see reference 1), the existence of dose thresholds cannot be proven or ruled out by experimental approaches, because all methods for measuring effects have their limits of detection which will obscure thresholds, if they exist. However, the presence of homeostatic and cytoprotective mechanisms, and the redundancy of cellular targets, mean that a certain degree of interaction of the substance with the critical sites or their occupancy must be reached in order to elicit a toxicologically relevant effect. Below this critical (threshold) level of interaction, homeostatic mechanisms would be able to counteract any perturbation produced by xenobiotic exposure, and no structural or functional changes would be observed. In certain developmental stages however, homeostatic capacity is limited and this will affect the sensitivity of the organism.

6. How is the potential hazard of a chemical to act as an endocrine disruptor evaluated?  The OECD  provides a “Conceptual Framework” which includes a guide to the data sources, to its test guidelines and standardised test methods available, under development or proposed for the evaluation of chemicals for EASs/EDs.  These tests include “in silico” tools[3], in vitro and in vivo screening assays and other mechanistic investigations.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the shortcomings in current tests and concluded from its work that a reasonably complete suite of standardised assays for testing the effects of Endocrine active substance (EAS) is (or will soon be) available for the oestrogenic, androgenic, thyroid and steroidogenic modalities in mammals and fish, with fewer tests for birds and amphibians. These tests allow to characterise the critical effect, severity, (ir)reversibility and potency aspects are part of the hazard of endocrine disruptors (EDs).

The report however considers important to recognise that standardised mechanistic assays for non -oestrogenic, androgenic, thyroid or steroidogenic (EATS) modalities relevant to mammals, fish and other vertebrates are not or not yet available and that a range of major taxa, e.g. reptiles or echinoderms have not yet been considered by OECD for any endocrine assay development.

 7. What are the recommendations of the Scientific Committee regarding testing of endocrine disruptors?  The SC identified the need for further development of screens and test methods and of testing strategies to generate adequate data for the identification and assessment of endocrine disrupting properties. This in particular with regard to non-EATS modalities that may be associated with adverse effects in humans or the environment, this in light of a number of general issues related to the testing of substances:

•   current mammalian tests may not cover effects that might be induced by exposure during fetal or pubertal development, but may emerge during later life stages even if fish lifecycle tests cover all relevant windows of exposure and can be expected to reveal the longer-term effects of developmental exposures at all stages of the lifecycle;

•   combined exposure to multiple EASs could occur in such a way that combined toxicity could arise;

•   the lack of consensus in the scientific community with regard to the existence and/or relevance of low-dose effects in connection with endocrine activity, endocrine disruption or other endpoints/modes of actions.

The evaluation methods should therefore, in principle, be fit for the purpose of establishing safe doses/concentrations of EDs if :

1.  certain aspects (e.g. follow up of exposure in critical windows of susceptibility to later life stages) are addressed;
2.  used with all available information in a weight-of-evidence approach.

The SC recommends as a follow up activity to clarify in a broader context the issues of biological thresholds and criteria for adversity, combined exposure to multiple substances.   The SC also underlines the need for the further development of tests.

 8. How to decide and inform on risk and level of concern related to endocrine disruptors? The SC is of the opinion that hazard characterisation (e.g. establishment of a health-/ecotoxicology-based guidance value) should be based on the effect leading to the lowest guidance value, irrespective of the mode of action. This would also protect against endocrine-mediated effects occurring at higher doses.

For the purpose of risk management decisions, says the report, risk assessment (taking into account hazard and exposure data/predictions) makes best use of available information. The opinion of the SC is thus that for their risk assessment, EDs can be treated like most other substances of concern for human health and the environment.  But, it adds that levels of concern are not determined exclusively by risk assessment but also by protection goals set by the risk management.

Reference : EFSA Scientific Committee; Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment. EFSA Journal 2013;11(3):3132. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal  © European Food Safety Authority, 2013

The Scientific Committee members: Jan Alexander, Diane Benford, Qasim Chaudhry, Anthony Hardy, Michael John Jeger, Robert Luttik, Ambroise Martin, Bernadette Ossendorp, Simon More, Alicja Mortensen, Birgit Noerrung, Joe Perry, Iona Pratt, John Sofos, Josef Schlatter, Kristen Sejrsen.

Correspondence: scientific.committee@efsa.europa.eu.

 Note: the “Highlights” of recent reports proposed by GreenFacts are not verified by its Scientific Board.

A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics  http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-century

The conclusions of the report in a glance

This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes.

It is a stark reminder that climate change affects everything. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk management and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C degree world in mind.

 The President of the World Bank Group, Dr. Jim Yong Kim, is very clear in its foreword of the report :  The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development.  The scenarios evaluating the consequences of an increase of the global earth temperature of 4°C are indeed devastating:

• the inundation of coastal cities;
• increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter;
• unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics;
• substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions;
• increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones;
• irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems.

 The science , he says, is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidifying.  Sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought.

Dr Kim underlines that the World Bank is well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But, he adds,the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to jus tify strengthening current climate change policies.

This why the global conclusion of the report is that the projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur—the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.

The Highlights of the report in 13 Questions and 13 Answers

1. What more provides this further report on climate change?This report provides a snapshot of recent scientific literature and new analyses of likely impacts and risks that would be associated with a 4° Celsius warming within this century. It is a rigorous attempt to outline a range of risks, focusing on developing countries and especially the poor while recognizing that developed countries are also vulnerable and at serious risk of major damages from climate change.  It highlights that a series of recent extreme events worldwide continue to highlight the vulnerability of not only the developing world but even wealthy industrialized countries.

 2. Is it still possible to avoid a global temperature increase of 4°C?  With action, a 4°C world can be avoided and we can likely hold warming below 2°C.Numerous studies show that there are technically and economically feasible emissions pathways to hold warming likely below 2°C. Thus the level of impacts that developing countries and the rest of the world experience will be a result of government, private sector, and civil society decisions and choices, including, unfortunately, inaction.

The global community has committed itself to holding warming below 2°C to prevent “dangerous” climate change but the sum total of current policies—in place and pledged—will very likely lead to warming far in excess of these levels. Indeed, present emission trends put the world plausibly on a path toward 4°C warming within the century.

3. What if this 4°C increase is not avoided? A world in which warming reaches 4°C above preindustrial levels (hereafter referred to as a 4°C world), would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services.

By comparison, a global mean temperature increase of 4°C approaches the difference between temperatures today and those of the last ice age, when much of central Europe and the northern United States were covered with kilometers of ice  and this magnitude of climate change—human induced—is occurring over a century, not millennia.

If action are not fully implemented, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C would likely occur over the following centuries.

Small Island Developing states (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have identified global warming of 1.5°C as warming above which there would be serious threats to their own development and, in some cases, survival.  The distribution of impacts is likely to be inherently unequal and tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions, which have the least economic, institutional, scientific, and technical capacity to cope and adapt. For example:

• Even though absolute warming will be largest in high latitudes, the warming that will occur in the tropics is larger when compared to the historical range of temperature and extremes to which human and natural ecosystems have adapted and coped. The projected emergence of unprecedented high-temperature extremes in the tropics will consequently lead to significantly larger impacts on agriculture and ecosystems.

• Sea-level rise is likely to be 15 to 20 percent larger in the tropics than the global mean.

• Increases in tropical cyclone intensity are likely to be felt disproportionately in low-latitude regions.

• Increasing aridity and drought are likely to increase substantially in many developing country regions located in tropical and subtropical areas.

 4. How reliable are the scenario’s build to support such an increase of the global temperature and its consequences? Uncertainties remain in projecting the extent of both climate change and its impacts.The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4°C world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date (heat-related deaths, forest fires, harvest losses) and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and natural systems. The authors take a risk-based approach in which risk is defined as impact multiplied by probability: an event with low probability can still pose a high risk if it implies serious consequences. Although it is often difficult to make comparisons across individual assessments, this report identifies a number of extremely severe risks for vital human support systems.

Large-scale and disruptive changes in the Earth system are generally not included in modeling exercises, and rarely in impact assessments. As global warming approaches and exceeds 2°C, the risk of crossing thresholds of nonlinear tipping elements in the Earth system, with abrupt climate change impacts and unprecedented high-temperature climate regimes, increases. Examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise than projected in this analysis.

There might also be nonlinear responses within particular economic sectors to high levels of global warming. For example, nonlinear temperature effects on crops are likely to be extremely relevant as the world warms to 2°C and above. However, most of our current crop models do not yet fully account for this effect, or for the potential increased ranges of variability (for example, extreme temperatures, new invading pests and diseases, abrupt shifts in critical climate factors that have large impacts on yields and/or quality of grains).

Projections of damage costs for climate change impacts typically assess the costs of local damages, including infrastructure, and do not provide an adequate consideration of cascade effects (for example, value-added chains and supply networks) at national and regional scales. Thus, given that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C temperature increase is possible. A “4°C world” is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally. It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.

 5. What are the main Impacts already observed on the climate system? Seven main unequivocal effects of greenhouse gas emissions already observed have continued to intensify, more or less unabated:

1. The concentration of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO₂), has continued to increase from its preindustrial concentration to over 391 ppm in September 2012, with the rate of rise now at 1.8 ppm per year;
2. The present CO₂ concentration is higher than paleoclimatic and geologic evidence indicates has occurred at any time in the last 15 million years;
3. Global mean temperature is now about 0.8°C above preindustrial levels and continue to increase;
4. The global oceans have continued to warm, with about 90 percent of the excess heat energy trapped by the increased greenhouse gas concentrations since 1955 stored in the oceans as heat.
5. In the meantime, the rate of loss of ice has more than tripled since the 1993–2003 period.
6. The average increase in sea levels has been about 15 to 20 centimeters around the world over the 20^th century and now increases by about 3.2 cm per decade. Should this rate remain unchanged, this would mean over 30 cm of additional sea-level rise in the 21st century. The accelerating loss of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could add substantially to sea-level rise in the future, about 15 cm by the end of the 21st century.
7. An increased frequency and intensity of heat waves is observed with, in some climatic regions, increased in intensity of extreme precipitation and drought . Observations indicate a tenfold increase in the surface area of the planet experiencing extreme heat since the 1950s.As for Arctic sea ice, it reached a record minimum in September 2012, halving the area of ice covering the Arctic Ocean in summer.

6. What are the further climate change  expected with a 4°C temperature increase?  The largest warming will occur over land and range from 4°C to 10°C. Increases of 6°C or more in average monthly summer temperatures would be expected in large regions of the world, including the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East. Almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced and, for example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer than today’s warmest July.

Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century.

 7. What are the effects expected on sea levels and and their consequences? Sea-level rise will vary regionally;  it is projected to be up to 20 percent higher in the tropics and below average at higher latitudes. Only 10 cities account for two-thirds of the total exposure to extreme floods. Highly vulnerable cities are to be found in Mozambique, Madagascar, Mexico, Venezuela, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.  Small island states and river delta regions, rising sea levels are likely to have far ranging adverse consequences, especially when combined with the projected increased intensity of tropical cyclones, loss of protective reefs due to temperature increases and ocean acidification.  Changes in wind and ocean currents due to global warming and other factors will also affect regional sea-level rise, as will patterns of ocean heat uptake and warming.

Warming of 4°C will likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries. Sea-level rise would likely be limited to below 2 meters only if warming were kept to well below 1.5°C. Even if global warming is limited to 2°C, global mean sea level could continue to rise, with some estimates ranging between 1.5 and 4 meters above present-day levels by the year 2300.

8. What are the effects expected from rising temperature on corals reefs and why are these a concern? One of the most serious consequences of rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere occurs when it dissolves in the ocean and results in acidification. A substantial increase in ocean acidity has been observed since preindustrial times. A warming of 4°C or more by 2100 would correspond to an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean , a change which appears to be unparalleled in Earth’s history. Evidence is already emerging of the adverse consequences of acidification for marine organisms and ecosystems, combined with the effects of warming, overfishing, and habitat destruction.

The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. Coral reefs in particular are indeed acutely sensitive to changes in water temperatures, ocean pH, and intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. Reefs provide protection against coastal floods, storm surges, and wave damage as well as nursery grounds and habitat for many fish species. By the time the  warming is of about 2.4°C in the 2060s, it is likely that coral reefs in many areas would start to dissolve.

 9. What are the risks expected to water resources if the global mean temperature raises by 4°C? With extremes of temperature, heat waves, rainfall, and drought are projected to increase with warming; increasing vulnerability to heat and drought stress will likely lead to increased mortality and species extinction.

Although the most adverse impacts on water availability are likely to occur in association with growing water demand as the world population increases, some estimates indicate that a 4°C warming would significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth.

• Drier conditions are projected for southern Europe, Africa (except some areas in the northeast), large parts of North America and South America, and southern Australia, among others.

• Wetter conditions are projected in particular for the northern high latitudes—that is, northern North America, northern Europe, and Siberia—and in some monsoon regions. Some regions may experience reduced water stress compared to a case without climate change.

• Changes to the hydrological cycles associated with severe risks in some regions, such as flooding and drought, which may increase significantly even if annual averages change little.

With a 2°C temperature increase :

• River basins dominated by a monsoon regime, such as the Ganges and Nile, are particularly vulnerable to changes in the seasonality of runoff, which may have large and adverse effects on water availability.
• Mean annual runoff is projected to decrease by 20 to 40 percent in the Danube, Mississippi, Amazon, and Murray Darling river basins, but increase by roughly 20 percent in both the Nile and the Ganges basins.

All these changes approximately double in magnitude with a 4°C temperature increase.

 10. What are the risks expected to ecosystems if the global mean temperature raises by 4°C ? Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur with a temperture increase of 4°C, with climate change and high CO₂ concentration driving a transition of the Earth´s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. In fact, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity.

Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world.

Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline—afforded by coral reefs and mangroves).

11. What are the effects expected on food availability?  In 2007, the IPCC projected that global food production would increase for local average temperature rise in the range of 1°C to 3°C, and may decrease beyond these temperatures but new results suggest instead a rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms and observations indicate a significant risk of high-temperature thresholds being crossed that could substantially undermine food security globally with  a 4°C temperaure increase.

Large negative effects have been observed at high and extreme temperatures in several regions including India, Africa, the United States, and Australia. For example, significant nonlinear effects have been observed in the United States for local daily temperatures increasing to 29°C for corn and 30°C for soybeans. These new results

Compounding these risks is the adverse effect of projected sea level rise on agriculture in important low-lying delta areas, such as in Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of the African coast. Sea-level rise would likely impact many mid-latitude coastal areas and increase seawater penetration into coastal aquifers used for irrigation of coastal plains. Further risks are posed by the likelihood of increased drought in mid-latitude regions and increased flooding at higher latitudes.

12. What are the effects expected to occur to human health and wealth?  Large-scale extreme events, such as major floods that interfere with food production, could induce nutritional deficits and the increased incidence of epidemic diseases. Flooding can introduce contaminants and diseases into healthy water supplies and increase the incidence of diarrheal and respiratory illnesses. The effects of climate change on agricultural production may exacerbate under-nutrition and malnutrition in many regions—already major contributors to child mortality in developing countries.

Whilst economic growth is projected to significantly reduce childhood stunting, climate change is projected to reverse these gains in a number of regions with warming of 2°C to 2.5°C, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and this is likely to get worse at 4°C. Despite significant efforts to improve health services (for example, improved medical care, vaccination development, surveillance programs), significant additional impacts on poverty levels and human health are expected. Changes in temperature, precipitation rates, and humidity influence vector-borne diseases (for example, malaria and dengue fever) as well as hantaviruses, leishmaniasis, Lyme disease, and schistosomiasis.

Further health impacts of climate change could include injuries and deaths due to extreme weather events. Heat-amplified levels of smog could exacerbate respiratory disorders and heart and blood vessel diseases, while in some regions climate change–induced increases in concentrations of aeroallergens (pollens, spores) could amplify rates of allergic respiratory disorders.

13. What are the risks of disruptions and displacements expected with a global temperature increase of  4°C? Economic growth and population increases over the 21st century will be increasing stresses and demands on a planetary ecosystem already approaching critical limits and boundaries. The resilience of many natural and managed ecosystems is likely to be undermined by these pressures and the projected consequences of climate change.

The projected impacts on water availability, ecosystems, agriculture, and human health could lead to large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.

Projections of damage costs for climate change impacts do not provide an adequate consideration of cascade effects (for example, value-added chains and supply networks) at national and regional scales. However, in an increasingly globalized world that experiences further specialization in production systems, and thus higher dependency on infrastructure to deliver produced goods, damages to infrastructure systems can lead to substantial indirect impacts. Seaports are an example of an initial point where a breakdown or substantial disruption in infrastructure facilities could trigger impacts that reach far beyond the particular location of the loss but their cumulative and interacting effects are not well understood.

 With pressures increasing as warming progresses toward 4°C and combining with nonclimate–related social, economic, and population stresses, the risk of crossing critical social system thresholds will grow. At such thresholds existing institutions that would have supported adaptation actions would likely become much less effective or even collapse. One example is a risk that sea-level rise in atoll countries exceeds the capabilities of controlled, adaptive migration, resulting in the need for complete abandonment of an island or region. Similarly, stresses on human health, such as heat waves, malnutrition, and decreasing quality of drinking water due to seawater intrusion, have the potential to overburden health-care systems to a point where adaptation is no longer possible, and dislocation is forced.

 Reference  “Turn down the heat ~ 4°C “ A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.

The report was commissioned by the World Bank’s Global Expert Team for Climate Change Adaptation,and has been written by a team from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics.

Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.

© 2012 of the original report: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Washington DC 20433.  www.worldbank.org

Note : the Highlights of recent reports proposed by GreenFacts are not reviewed by its Scientific Board

http://www.gesamp.org/work-programme/workgroups/working-group-40

The report in a glance

Overviews of the current state of knowledge and knowledge gap

s on sources, distributions and trends of micro-plastics and on the properties and degradation of polymers and physical and chemical effects of micro-plastics were presented at a meeting of GESAMP[1] Working Group 40 held in March 2012.

The main purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for the dedicated Working Group (WG40) Members, sponsoring Agencies and invited observers, to discuss and agree the overall objectives, key questions and intended outputs : Terms of Reference, work programme and outputs. Among the main recommendations of the workshop was that there was a need for a global assessment to explore the extent to which micro-plastics represented a hazard to the marine environment.

There was agreement on the need to set this assessment in a recognised assessment framework, and a number of options were described. This framework was placed in an appropriate Road Map and a revised time-line for a work programme recommended for approval by a further GESAMP meeting that took place in April 2012.

The meeting also questioned whether there was a need to consider how to address social and economic concerns, including public perceptions.

While scientific evidence illustrates the presence and potential dangers of micro-plastics in the marine environment, the attention on this as a major threat that policy makers need to address has largely come from NGOs, the media and the general public.  It was pointed out during the meeting that there has been a disproportionately strong response by NGOs, the media and the public to emerging information about the extent of marine debris and micro-plastic contamination in the ocean, compared with the known impacts of POPs such as PCBs.

The meeting was attended by representatives of sponsoring organizations (IMO, IOC, UNEP, UNIDO, ACC, Plastics Europe) and a number of invited Observers (EU DG ENV, OECD, UNEP/MAP). GESAMP welcomes indeed partnerships with a wide range of organizations, on a formal or informal basis.

A common view was that ‘this should not be simply another review’. There was some consensus on the importance of rigorously assessing what we know now (i.e. science, gaps in knowledge, degradation, monitoring), evaluating the degree of confidence we can attach to this knowledge, and stating how they intend to meet their goals via Goal-Orientated Project planning and the use of SMART principles (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely).

The report in 12 questions and answers

 About the programme

1. What was the rationale for selecting the topic of the micro-plastics presence in the marine environment ?

Plastics form a large proportion of marine litter, and the widespread occurrence of macroscopic plastic debris and the direct impact this can have both on marine fauna and legitimate uses of the environment, sometimes remote from industrial or urban sources, has been well documented. The analytical overview initiated by UNEP and reported at a GESAMP Workshop of 2010 (see GESAMP 2010 for details[2])provided a useful overview of the issue, including type, source and distribution of litter and measures to combat the problem. Subsequently, marine debris was one of three topics selected for inclusion in the 2011 UNEP Year Book, with specific emphasis on micro-plastics as an emerging issue of environmental concern.

Micro-plastics have a range of compositions and can be demarcated by usage and source as:

1.  ‘primary’ particles, such as micro-plastic resin pellets used in the plastics industry, and in certain applications such as industrial abrasives and skin-care products;
2.  ‘secondary’ micro-plastics resulting from the degradation and breakdown of larger items.

2. What are the conclusions and main recommendations of the report?

Whether micro-plastics are having a significant ecological impact is perhaps the most important question the Working Group 40 on micro-plastics should address.

Recent publications have started to suggest ecological effects of micro-plastics are occurring and it is important that the WG40 looks at the evidence impartially.  The WG40 considers that they are unusually in the position to get on top of a problem before it becomes a big issue (in contrast to the past PCBs story). However, available time-series do not show convincing trends in micro-plastic concentrations, implying important pathways are missing (e.g. sinking particles) or failing to sample representatively. Greater rigour is needed when assessing particle properties.

The WG40 considered anyway to know enough to undertake an assessment, and to work on exposure pathways. They considered also they need to find out what are missing blocks in the conceptual structure of their understanding of the issue of micro-plastics in the marine environment. They said they should keep in mind the guiding principles of conducting an assessment: add value, reduce complexity, and synthesise knowledge.

The participants considered also that the Terms of reference and Work Programme proposed are appropriate and justified, and that the Working Group is timely. They plan to work closely with other initiatives and make use of earlier studies to make cost-effective use of the limited resources.

Monitoring programmes for micro-plastics are under development and the WG40 needs to be able to link monitoring data with effects data to advise whether they are looking at the most appropriate targets/indicators and in the most appropriate places. The WG highlighted the need to consider the bio-concentration of micro-plastics, as well as their role in the bio-magnification of Persistant Organic Pollutants (POPs). The WG underlined in this context the need to be able to advise Agencies and decision makers on whether monitoring is needed.

Thery considered also that micro-plastics should be placed in context with other particulate matter (e.g. nano-particles, black carbon) and that the rates of degradation of micro-plastics are critical. Greater rigour is needed in particular when assessing particle properties. It was considered important in this context to link expertise on materials science with expertise on physical, chemical and biological oceanography.

Eventually, the Working Group 40 considered that its role of WG40 is to improve the science base but, in so doing, consider who to make information available to (e.g. UN Agencies, other sponsoring agencies, Regional Seas bodies, general public) to respond to the  significant public misperception of the state of plastics in the ocean, illustrated by phrases such as: island of trash and more plastic than plankton.

3. What are the features of the “global assessment frameworks” proposed?

The global assessment of marine micro-plastics can be regarded as one of several elements in the overall assessment of the environmental state of the world’s oceans. Modern assessment and marine protection approaches requires the consideration of multiple stressors that affect ecosystems and how the interaction of these stressors may or may not lead to adverse effects. The EU’s MSFD recognizes ‘micro-particles, in particular micro-plastics’, as part of the overall marine litter problem.

In the present context an assessment can be defined as a synthesis and critical evaluation of information, for purposes of guiding decisions on a complex, public issue. It should have the following features:

1.  be policy relevant, but not prescriptive  – use “if …then” approach;
2. be conducted by a credible group of experts with a broad range of disciplinary and geographical experience, in a balanced and transparent way;
3. reduce complexity but add value by summarising, synthesis and sorting what is known and widely accepted from what is not known (or not agreed);
4. relate to the situation at a particular time and in a given geographical domain;
5. be conducted according to an open, transparent, representative and legitimate process;
6. Be technically accurate;
7. Incorporate different views;
8. Take a local, regional and global perspective;
9. Include risk assessment, management and communication

4. What is work programme proposed to tackle the issue of micro-plastics presence in the marine environment? 

The work programme is envisaged to take place over a four-year period, with five key topics divided into 3 main phases:

1^st Phase:

1. Estimate rates of inputs of micro-plastic particles (e.g. resin pellets, abrasives,  personal care products) and macro-plastics (including main polymer types) into the ocean; to include developing methodology, using monitoring data, identifying proxies (e.g. population centres, shipping routes, tourism revenues);
2. Review modelling of surface transport, distribution & areas of accumulation of plastics and micro-plastics, over a range of space- and time-scales;

2^nd Phase:

1. Review processes (physical, chemical & biological) controlling the rate of fragmentation and degradation, including estimating long-term behaviour and estimate rate of production of ‘secondary’ micro-plastic fragments;
2. Review long-term modelling including fragmentation, seabed and water column distribution, informed by the results of ToR 3;

3^rd Phase: 

Review uptake by biota, physical biological impacts at a population level.

During the meeting the participants main tasks were to:

• Define the assessment framework;
• Focus and fine-tune the research questions;
• Organise and structure the upcoming work;
• Keep the plan specific, fit-for-purpose and realistic (within the constraints of time and budgets of the Working Group.
• Considering how to make the work programme complementary and not duplicate efforts elsewhere;
• How to go about sharing literature databases, etc.

On this basis, the Working Group will be able to help by providing a sound scientific basis for decision-making and to answer the public demand for action.

5. What makes the proposed programme realistic? 

In this context, key questions were discussed on how to make the goals realistic and how the assessment will be used by the sponsoring agencies and other interested parties. It was highlighted that there is a need to combine existing information, from a broad range of disciplines, in new ways.

Four aspects were considered particularly important to examine to make the programme realistic : the type, the sources, the fate and the effects of microplastics in the marine environment:

1.  The types of micro-plastics, out of the many thousands of potential types;
2.  Their most significant sources, as the sources of micro-plastics provide the links to solutions. What approaches are available to estimate rates of input, and, should these approaches be realistic or reliable, how much is needed to know about the different sources;
3.  The fate of micro-plastics as another key aspect of understanding the overall risk. The fate of micro-plastics (formation, persistance, interactions with biota, transport, sinks) is indeed a key unknown. It may be assumed that plastics will fragment to smaller sizes but the existence of temporary or permanent sinks has not been established. The most complete time-series records do not reveal an overall increasing or decreasing trend in micro-plastics in the open ocean, begging the question ‘where do they go?;.
4.  The effects of micro-plastics as another key aspect of understanding the overall risk. As for fate, this is crucial to support policy implementation: ecological effects including biodiversity and invasive species (e.g. microbial, viruses), toxic effects of particles and sorbed chemicals,  adverse effects on individuals, on ocean chemistry (indirect effects on biological systems). Perhaps the most important issue is the high level of uncertainty about the potential ecological impacts of micro-plastics.

About the knowledge on the impact of microplastics

 6. What are the current state of knowledge and the knowledge gaps on micro-plastics in the marine environment?

Richard Thompson (University of Plymouth, UK) provided the current status of research into micro-plastics (MPs) in the marine environment. Micro-plastics particles, according to Thompson, can be considered to be of two types:

1.  ‘primary’ particles representing material used in manufacture of plastics (resin beads), for industrial processes (e.g. as abrasive powders for air blasting, powders using in roto-moulding), and in domestic cleaners and personal care products;
2. ‘secondary’ particles resulting from the breakdown of larger pieces of plastics and composite materials, including textiles, by fragmentation and degradation processes.

From his horizon scan of conservation issues, he concluded that the effects of plastics depended on size (large to microscopic), potential for ingestion (low to high), abundance (low to ubiquitous) and potential for chemical transport (low to high). Particles as small as 1.6 µm have been reported but there is no clear cut-off to nano-particle sizes.

It is thought, he said, that current methods may underestimate the quantities present (e.g. by using relatively large mesh sizes in sampling nets. The traditional methodology for separation and identification is largely based on visual observation and time-consuming. Identification of particular polymers can be achieved using analytical techniques such as Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy (FT-IR).  Spatial and temporal trends have been obtained from studies of bird ingestion. Over the past decade the total average mass has remained relatively constant although the proportion of industry-related material has declined, and there is some evidence of a decrease in particle size.

7. What is the current state of knowledge on the properties and degradation of plastics in the marine environment?

Prof. Tony Andrady (North Carolina State University), said that there are about 10,000 different plastics being produced but only six varieties or classes are produced in high volumes (PP, PVC, HDPE, LLDPE, LDPE, PS) and each has different weathering properties that also depend on additives compounded into them. Several types of plastics with a low specific gravity and float in seawater are commonly used in packaging and are commonly found as litter on beaches. However, colonization by biological films and foul ants is ubiquitous in the marine environment and this can lead to an increase in the overall density of the particle causing the particles to sink.

There are four main environmental degradation mechanisms: i) photo-induced oxidative breakdown (beaches and surface water); ii) thermo-oxidative breakdown (beaches and surface water); iii) biodegradation (extremely slow and occurs in sediment, water column – under the best conditions proceeds at a rate of only 1-3% per year); and, iv) hydrolysis (not significant). Products on beaches degrade more rapidly, while in water and on the sea bottom this process is severely retarded because of low UV and low temperature. Micro-plastics may still be having a physical or chemical impact, especially on micro-fauna that is not readily observable.

Of the various sources of micro-plastics, Prof. Andrady considered ‘sand’ blasting to be a greater source than cosmetics, and generation from larger fragments to be a greater source than direct emissions. Discarded fishing gear also represents a significant source of litter. It tends to sink rapidly and will degrade slowly on the seabed.

In his presentation, Heather Leslie (IVM-VU Amsterdam, the Netherlands) underlined that the currently existing field exposure data for micro-plastics consists of several studies reporting numbers of micro-plastic particles sieved out of a volume of seawater e.g. surface water (manta trawl) or 10 m depth (Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys), marine sediments and marine biota (ingestion and biofilm colonization). In the lab, exposure data has been collected for human and other mammalian systems (mostly nano-plastic size ranges), and marine invertebrates.

8. What is the present state of knowledge and challenges regarding the intrinsic chemical and physical hazardous properties of micro-plastics?

POPs have been measured sorbed to/into plastic particles collected at sea or on beaches, and certain additives have been observed to leach out of macro-plastic (although additive leaching from pellets or micro-plastic fragments has not been studied in detail yet). Polymer science on the other hand has broad knowledge on the residence time of the additives in polymers due to the need to know that additives will last and remain function in the material throughout the product lifetime.

We can look for these effects, said Heather Leslie (IVM-VU Amsterdam, the Netherlands) in his presentation, at the level of cells, individuals, populations and ecosystems. The effects can be direct and indirect, abiotic (e.g. synthetic chemicals, particle toxicity), or biotic (e.g. pathogens, invasive species, predation, etc.). It is common in ecotoxicity studies for acute effects to be identified at higher doses, while lower doses may cause chronic effects (in many cases the chronic effects observed are sub-lethal).

Classic ecotoxicology regards risk as being the combination of exposure to the product and its hazard; for example, this is the basis of OSPAR assessments. Hazard is a word for the intrinsic toxic properties of a any substance, including a micro-plastic. Mixture toxicity of chemicals is commonly observed in the environment because chemicals are rarely present alone. If micro-plastics contain more than one chemical (e.g. additives, sorbed POPs, residual monomers), mixture toxicity could be at play. But an organism can also be exposed to “multi-stress” via a combination of chemical and particle toxicity, and other stressors (“stress ecology”).

Multiple modes of toxic action, multiple hazards, may potentially lead to multiple symptoms when organisms are exposed to micro-plastics; e.g. inflammation, physiological stress, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, carcinogenicity and behavioural changes.

Chemical toxicity data for plastic additives, monomers and sorbed environmental contaminants such as POPs have been extensively reported in the literature. Synthetic polymer materials contain between 4 and 80% additives in addition to the polymer chains. In principle, these chemicals could to a certain degree leach out to the water phase, or into tissues of biota which consumes them or which use the micro-plastic as substrate.

There are thus several facts challenging the characterisation the hazardous properties of micro-plastics globally:

1.  The fact that dedicated micro-plastics studies are not numerous yet and many different types of information has to be combined to address the question of hazard;
2. The fact that particle toxicity is size- and shape-dependent;
3. the fact that toxicity is dependent on the specific chemical make-up of the micro-plastic particle (poly-, di-, monomer, additives, sorbed contaminants);
4. The fact that there may be many different types of micro-plastics in any given environmental matrix;
5. The fact that there is a wide variety of possible uptake routes and accumulation patterns in vastly different marine life forms and habitats;
6. The fact that ther is a great diversity of potential ecological effects, e.g. substrates and/or vectors for viruses and invasive species; food chain transfer; biogeochemical cycle effects; and, biodiversity.

Persistence (P), bioaccumulation (B), toxicity (T) and long-range transport (LRT) are hazardous properties examined in risk assessments of chemicals. The synthetic polymers of micro-plastics are undoubtedly persistent, they may bio-accumulate to various degrees in living organisms, and can be potentially intrinsically toxic (especially if toxic additives, toxic monomers or other chemicals are present or if particles << 1 mm).

Particles which cannot be excreted, such as in found in the Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis (1-5 mm) may also lead to inflammation, immuno-toxiocological responses and effects in the GI tract or other affected tissues. Micro-plastics are transported over long distances, leading to their accumulation in mid-ocean gyres.

Further, the introduction of micro-plastic particles has created a new habitat in the sea, providing an artificial substrate potentially acting as a vector for the dispersal of alien species, exotic diseases and anthropogenic chemical compounds. The extent to which this represents a significant risk is an important gap in knowledge. Limited particle toxicity data for micro-plastics have been generated for the nano-plastic size range. However, there is a large body of scientific data available on the toxicity and the human health effects of small micrometer range fine particulates, and this may provide some insight into the potential effects of micro- and nano-size plastics.

  About the approaches adopted

9. How were adressed the approches needed regarding sources, distribution and trends of micro-plastics to achieve this global assessment?  

 To evaluate how much enters marine environment as primary and secondary microplastics and quantify each type and/or identify data gaps, the approach identifed is to use production numbers for estimating primary sources and NCEAS production estimates for secondary sources, by subtracting the amount recycled, incinerated, and properly managed waste (contained in landfills). Making the breakdown by application will be useful to assess amount of additives entering environment (for example), making use of a “taxonomy” of materials and use degradation/fragmentation rates to estimate generation rate of secondary microplastics.

Regarding the input rates of microplastics into marine environment, many questions remained open such as  the system is probably not in equilibrium, still dealing with historical plastic that deteriorates into micro-plastics over its lifetime – should we the expect a time lag in microplastic increase because of this ?

 Regarding the distribution of these microplastics in the marine environment, an hypothesis to test is the spatial distribution of microplastics which appears surprisingly uniform and as this might mean that micro-plastics abundance is useful as global indicator (e.g. of ocean health), but possibly less useful for monitoring secondary sources (i.e. fragmentation). Also needed is to estimate the quantity of microplastics in biota also as a measure of exposure risk or harm.

A conclusion was also that it is critical to estimate fragmentation and sinking rates, and/or to measure size distribution and vertical distribution in water column.

 10. How were adressed the approches needed regarding the degradation and effects of micro-plastics to achieve this global assessment?  

 1/ Regarding degradation of micro-plastics and transport processes:

 Degradation – so far no studies have been dedicated to collecting empirical evidence (for or against) micro-plastics mineralizing or fragmenting to smaller sizes like nanometer range in the underwater, marine environment (with or without UV, at any temperature). There is hope for developing a model for this process, and research is currently proposed in the EU to work on this in the coming 3 years. The group propose to recommend what kind of model could be made and how the model could be validated with new data.

Transport – modeling of transport of microplastics in water column or in sediments is in its infancy but we do have some monitoring data for sediments in coastal areas, CPR, surface manta trawl monitoring data in some parts of the world, (albeit with little quality control of the sampling or the analysis). These data could be coupled to pre-existing hydrodynamic models of sedimentation, fish eggs, marine snow, plankton models, which could be adapted to estimate transport of microplastics –

2/ Regarding the effects of micro-plastics: the main questions raised by the Group were:

• Does ingestion of microplastics the POPs body burden of organisms which consume these microplastics as part of their diet?
• If POPs exposure effectively increases upon ingestion of micro-plastics, what is the increase in POPs exposure to humans at the top of the marine food chain?
• Which additives can be detected in marine microplastic litter and are likely to be in the ocean because of microplastics/litter?
• What are the different toxic effects to be expected from different categories of size, shape, polymer, exposure level, and chemical properties ?

About the existing initiatives and the expectations of participating organisations
      from the programme

11. What are the main existing initiatives related to the presence of micro-plastics in the marine environment?

A series of initiatives in this areas were overviewed during the meeting.

11.1. The NCEAS Working Group on marine debris

 (http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/12645).

Kara Lavender Law, Sea Education Association

 11.2. The marine Strategy Framework Directive and EU-funded research of the European Union DG Environment : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm).

A Green Paper on plastic waste in the environment is being developedin this context. ‘Fishing for litter’ is a new project designed to financially encourage fishers to use no-fishing days to trawl for litter. This is somewhat controversial, says the report, and should not be confused with existing Fishing for litter voluntary scheme, promoted by KIMO International to encourage fishers to land marine debris accidentally caught in their nets (www.fishingforlitter.org). In addition, the European Environment Agency (EEA) is developing a tool for reporting litter as part of a Citizen Science initiative.

11.3 The NOAA Marine Debris Program (www.marinedebris.noaa.gov).

11.4. The SETAC which holded a session on the subject at their Europe meeting in May 2O12. www.berlin.setac.eu

11.4. The SETAC which holded a session on the subject at their Europe meeting in May 2O12. www.berlin.setac.eu

11.5. The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem with limited monitoring data in the GoM LME, but which lacks long time-series and harmonization of scales and units between Agencies and within the academic community.

11.6. The Plastics Industry initiatives addressing materials recycling, waste management (e.g. Operation Clean Sweep) and marine litter prevention (e.g. provision of waste receptacles on beaches). In addition, they represent the signatories of the Global Plastics Associations Declaration and Global Action plan (http://www.plasticseurope.org/plastics-sustainability/marine-litter.aspx).

11.7. The UNEP Initiatives

11.7.1. The marine litter Strategy – 2012 – 2016

The strategy aims to manage and prevent litter from land-based sources. It has a number of elements:

An on-line forum, to be developed by UNEP and NOAA

Developing a global partnership on marine litter, as part of the Global Partnership on Waste Management[1]

Developing regional programmes: e.g. COBSEA, NOWPAC, Caribbean; regional training; scientific and technical support.

11.7.3. The Honolulu Strategy

UNEP and NOAA jointly provided technical and financial support in the development of a  Framework document developed around the time of the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference (5IMDC, Honolulu, March 2011). It is intended to be used as: a planning tool for spatially or sector-specific programmes; a common frame of reference for collaboration and sharing best practice; and, a monitoring tool to measure progress. There are 3 overarching goals:

• Goal A: Reduced amount and impact of land-based sources of marine debris introduced into the sea;
• Goal B: Reduced amount and impact of sea-based sources of marine debris, including solid waste; lost cargo; abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG); and abandoned vessels, introduced into the sea;
• Goal C: Reduced amount and impact of accumulated marine debris on shorelines, in benthic habitats, and in pelagic waters.

11.7.4. The UNEP- Mediterranean Action Plan

The Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) covers the whole of the Mediterranean. Litter is considered a serious issue in the region, with potential effects on the tourist industry. A strategic framework has been developed, based on the ecosystem approach, which includes marine litter on beaches, in the water column and seabed, and effects on biota (e.g. stomach contents). Micro-plastics are included in the framework and UNEP-MAP is looking to WG40 for guidance. An Action Plan will be developed during 2013 – 2014 with the intention of having a monitoring programme in place by 2014, to be aligned with the EU MSFD. UNESCO-IOC is willing to assist UNEP/MAP.

11.7.5 The UN Regular Process

The Regular Process represents an attempt to provide a regular process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects[5] based on guiding principles  A variety of structures for the report are being considered based on: drivers/pressures, habitats and ecosystem services, with a summary for decision makers. Marine debris is included as resulting from human activities, with questions about the economic and ecological effects. A Pool of Experts is being assembled to carry out the assessment, the first iteration of which is based in 2012 – 2014.

12. What are the main expectations of the participating organisations from this programme? 

Of those UN Agencies with the greatest interest at present:

1. UNEP wants science-based information on the effects of micro-plastics, with important questions outstanding about fate, population level effects, and food chain effects;
2. The Directorate General Environment (DG ENV) of the EU, which has recognized the importance of addressing marine litter as part of the new Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), considers more particularly  the distribution of marine litter on beaches, the seabed and water column, including ingestion by biota.
3. UNIDO is very interested in harmonized monitoring protocols and prioritization of key research questions in general;
4. IOC needs to be able to produce good guidelines for monitoring and assessment of plastics in the ocean to be used in the Regular Process.
5. The OECD is also concerned with providing guidelines for monitoring, particularly in the field of nanotechnology, which represents one end-member of the size spectrum of micro-plastics. One output of the WG should be a series of time-lines covering the various research, assessment and legislative activities.
6. All participants shared the consensus that the potential effect of Persistant Organic Pollutants (POPs) is a key concern. The extent to which non-packaging waste (containing a greater proportion of additives such as flame retardants) contributes to the overall micro-plastics population needs to be addressed.

A wider discussion of the extent to which social and economic issues should be included in the work plan of the Working Group WG40 came from the fact that there has been such a large public reaction to plastics ending up in the ocean means that the scientific community has a responsibility to provide authoritative and independent advice on which policy and management decisions can be based. One participant likened the emerging knowledge on micro-plastic pollution and effects to the situation for PCBs many decades ago (starting back in the 1930s), when environmental occurrence, fate and human health effects for these novel chemicals were starting to be uncovered by government scientists and chemical industry workers.

 Reference : Kershaw, P.J. and Leslie, H. (eds.)  2012.  Sources, Fate and Effects of Micro-plastics in the Marine Environment – A Global Assessment.  GESAMP Working Group 40, Report of the Inception Meeting, 13-15th March 2012, UNESCO-IOC, Paris, 45pp. Lead agency: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC). Contact: theoffice@gesamp.org

 Note : The Highlights of scientific reports proposed by greenfacts are not reviewed by its Scientific Board

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agns/pdf/topics/FAO_WHO_Nano_Paper_Public_Review_20120608.pdf

This draft report was submitted to public review which ended in November 2012. These  Highlights will be adapted when the final report will be issued.

Food can be cultivated, produced, processed or packaged with nano-technology, or engineered nanomaterials can be added to food. Recent scientific reviews on risk assessment of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors, says the draft report, confirm that information on this topic is limited .

A section of this draft FAO/WHO report briefly summarizes national and regional initiatives and activities related to the risk assessment and risk management of nanomaterials, such as research projects, development of  guidance documents and drafting of regulations, that have been carried out. Emphasis is placed on issues that contribute to the definition of the term  “nanomaterials” (to be subjected to specific risk assessments) and case-studies where a riskassessment has been undertaken for a defined material.

The Highlights of the report in nine Questions and Answers 

1. What do we know on the impact of nanomaterials found in plants?

A review on the interaction of nanoparticles with edible plants found that understanding of plant toxicity is at the early stages. Few studies have been performed on the accumulation of engineered nanomaterials in crop plants such as rape, radish, lettuce, corn and cucumber noted that among the studied nanomaterials, the carbon-based nanomaterials fullerenes C70 and fullerols C60(OH)20 and most of the metal-based nanomaterials (titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, magnetite, zinc oxide, gold, silver, copper and iron) accumulated in the plants. These compounds stored in the plants can be transferred to consumers. Depending on the studied  reference nanomaterial and plant, negative effects of the nanoparticles on the food crops were observed, such as  reduced germination, reduced root growth and delayed flowering.

2. What do we know of the impact on human health of nanomaterials present in food?

An evaluation of the published literature on the safety of oral exposure to food-related nanomaterials found that there are currently insufficient reliable data to allow a clear safety  assessment. A study reported in the draft FAO/WHO document also considered that non-food-related engineered nanomaterials require  evaluation of oral toxicity in light of possible contamination of the food supply and one concluded that the lack of information on the possible toxicity of nanomaterials makes it difficult to  assess the safe or acceptable daily intake.

3. Is the potential impact of nanomaterials in food adequately evaluated at present stage ?

A study cited in the draft FAO/WHO report considers that literature on the safety of oral exposure to nanomaterials inadequately characterizes nanomaterials with insufficient physicochemical parameters, concluding that “Unless nanomaterials are adequately characterized, the results of the toxicology  studies cannot be utilized to predict toxicity of other nanomaterials as changes in any of the characteristics may result in changes in biological activity”.

Some authors, also cited in the draft report, reasoned in particular that in vitro and in vivo tests with no characterization of the nanomaterial are meaningless and that at the  present time, risk evaluation requires characterization of each substance and each product.

4. What about the risk for occupational exposure to these nanomaterials?

According to one of the review cited, there is at present little information on the effect of antimicrobial nanomaterials such as nanosilver on normal microbial populations in the mouth and gut. There has been more interest in occupational health, such as nanoparticle toxicology in the lung, and less research has been published on nanomaterial toxicity in the gut.Few studies cited in the draft report have attempted to find a relationship between the presence of nano-sized particulate materials in food and the initiation and/or worsening of certain gut diseases, such as Crohn disease and irritable bowel syndrome and produced contradicting results; therefore, there is a requirement for considerable further research.

5 . How perform a reliable safety assessment of these chemicals used in food and agriculture?

The safety assessment of nanomaterials will depend on their adequately characterized chemical properties underlines the report; critical parameters include biopersistence and digestibility, says the drat report. Based on the development of nano forms of trace minerals, a group identified three different scenarios :

1. - Digestible, non-biopersistent nanomaterials such as nano forms of a salt will be digested (dissolve) prior to any cellular exposure; for cells and tissues, there will be no difference if compared with conventional forms.
2. - A second type of digestible, non-biopersistent nanomaterial, such as micellar nano formulations or ferritin, will only partially degrade in the gut; and may therefore be absorbed as nano structures but will be rapidly broken down in cells.
3. - A third type, non-digestible, biopersistent nanomaterials, may remain intact and will raise different issues, an important one being their adsorbed surface materials, which may be removed in the stomach and replaced in the gut by luminal molecules before cellular uptake.

Some authors identified three principles that in their view describe specific aspects of the separate discipline of “nanotoxicology” :

•  The principle of transport requires an understanding of whether and in what form nanomaterials will enter into cells where they may elicit a toxic response ;
• The principle of the surface which reflects the fact that for smaller particles with active molecules on their surface, the proportion of atoms or molecules that are exposed and may  therefore react with biological structures increases exponentially with decreased diameter if the same amount is administered.
•  The principle of material  which states that changes in dimensions (i.e. going  towards nano) will not have the same effects but will depend on the properties of the material and its composition, including impurities.

6. How nanomaterials used in food and agriculture should be evaluated?

Risk assessment has always been done with defined chemicals, with no attention paid to particle size and there is not enough known about nanomaterial toxicity to be able to group the particles into low-toxicity or high-toxicity groups, says the draft report. Therefore, nanomaterial risk assessment currently needs to be done on a case-by-case basis including  more attention given to ingestion exposure. Nanomaterials would be within the scope of the main areas of classical chemical risk assessment at the international level address food additives, pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues, some processing aids, such as enzymes, and occasionally micro-nutrients. For a “nano-plastic material” to be used in food packaging, however, there is no risk analysis framework at the international level currently in place. Furthermore, says the draft report, as agencies apply different strategies with respect to communication, it is difficult to develop a clear picture of the true number of substances assessed and the issues discussed that are specific for nanomaterials.

 7. What are the main conclusions of the draft FAO/WHO report regarding the use of nanotechnology?

The conclusions underline that new products are being developed and probably enter the market, but the available data from published sources do not allow an assessment of whether product ideas are just concepts or are already resulting in exposure of consumers to food being produced with nanotechnology/nanomaterials at any significant rate.

Whether a product would be considered to be a nanomaterial or representing an application of nanotechnology also depends on available definitions applied by regulators. There is a trend to apply in the definitions two criteria, an altered or new dimension at nanoscale and a concurrent change of properties due to the change of dimension. A true nanomaterial that requires the attention of regulators and a specific risk assessment would need to meet both criteria, says the draft report.  The proposal of a tiered approach for classifying 766 nanomaterials for risk analysis purposes  would apply several criteria, of  which dimension and change of properties expected to result in a modified hazard identification and characterization would be two important ones.

 8. What are the main conclusions of the draft FAO/WHO report regarding the assessment of human health risks?

 The conclusions recognises that national and 21 regional food safety agencies increased their focus during the past few years on investigating the implications of nanomaterials added to or used with food. Policies and guidance documents have been published that allow a better understanding of how risk assessment of nanomaterials will be performed in the future.

OECD reviewed its globally accepted testing guidelines for hazard identification and characterization of food chemicals, such as additives, pesticides and  veterinary drugs, and other substances resulting in human exposure, such as cosmetic ingredients and found them to be generally applicable for the testing of nanomaterials.

The approach to be published by ILSI for nanomaterials to be used in food is interesting, underlines the draft FAO/WHO report, as it tries to systematically review the information already available for conventional material and discusses what properties would allow extrapolation from conventional to novel nanomaterials. Further development and implementation of this concept may lead to reduced animal testing. The tiered approaches that are discussed may allow in vivo testing for specific groups such as nano-salts of micronutrients to be waived.

Therefore, concludes the draft report, in accordance with the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee of the United  Kingdom Parliament, it may be valuable to develop a database of information on nanomaterials in development, in collaboration with the food industry, to anticipate future safety assessment needs and to aid in the prioritization of research.

 9. What does the draft report say about stakeholder dialogue and confidence in these matters?

For this report, it was difficult to assess the extent to which engineered nanomaterials are already being used in the food and agriculture sectors. Inventories that register nanotechnology in consumer products are scarce; only one database is publicly available.

The draft report notes that  in a report on the European Commission’s public online consultation among key stakeholders about nanomaterials, the majority of the 716 respondents regarded applications in agriculture and food with more scepticism than applications in other areas and that the major concern was the possible toxicity of poorly understood nanomaterials. Besides inventories, concludes futher the draft report, while mandatory labelling would lead to greater transparency for the consumer and enable consumer freedom of choice, such mandatory labelling could also lead to the avoidance of the use of nanotechnologies in consumer products, including those that are beneficial.

Reference

 The original draft of this report was written by Manfred Luetzow, an international consultant for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The development of the report was coordinated by Masami Takeuchi (FAO) and Kazuko Fukushima (WHO).

FAO and WHO acknowledge the responses and comments provided by the following individuals: Junshi Chen, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Djien Liem, European Food Safety Authority; Nick Fletcher, Food Standards Australia New Zealand; Alessandro Chiodini and Richard Canady, International Life Sciences Institute; Rosetta Newsome, Institute of Food Technologists; Dora Pereira, MRC Human Nutrition Research; Mar Gonzalez, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Jed Costanza, United States Environmental Protection Agency; and Annette McCarthy, United States Food and Drug Administration. Technical contributions from several FAO and WHO colleagues are also gratefully appreciated.

Note : the Highlights of recent reports are not reviewed by the Scientific Board of GreenFacts

• Highlights of the Scientific Opinion of EFSA on the testing methods for assessing of the effects of endocrine disruptors on human health and the environment
• HighLights of “Turn down the heat” : an assessment prepared for the World Bank of the health, social and environmantal impact of climate change induced by a global warming of 4°C
• Highlights of a global assessement report on the sources, fate & effects of micro-plastics in the marine environment
• Highlights of the FAO draft report on Nanotechnologies used in food and agriculture and their risk assessment
• Highlights of the report on how produce more food and energy with less pollution – the challenges and risks related to nutrient use and availability
• Potential health impact of pharmaceuticals products released in the environment
• Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
• Chernobyl : thyroid cancer, leukaemia, children health and birth defects: recent scientific reports on the health effects of the accident
• Alzheimer, cancer : scientific assessments on toxicity, danger and health risks from aluminium exposure in food, antiperspirant and dermatology products.
• The public needs better communication on the new label system regarding the safe use of chemicals.
• The risks from exposure to mixture of chemicals : adequately evaluated ?
• WHO fight against global tobacco epidemy – Progress report 2011
• Mobile phone and brain cancer: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields classified by IARC (WHO) as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
• Potential health risks of the Japanese nuclear accident : what happened in Chernobyl
• The IARC (WHO) report establishing the cancer risks associated to combined estrogen–progestogen use as contraceptives or menopausal therapy
•  The tolerable intake of cadmium via food to avoid adverse effects to health: the opinion of the European safety agency EFSA
• Artificial sweeteners, aspartame and cancer or pregnancy risks: the opinion of the European Food Safety Agency EFSA unchanged
• Risk Assessment of flame retardant decabromodiphenylether: no risk reduction mesures necessary, except for risks of secondary poisoning
• Toxicity, health effects, hazards and risks related to bisphenol A (BPA): the tolerable daily intake of EFSA unchanged in 2010
• Obesity, overweight and health: little sign of positive trend
• Food contamination by dioxins in Germany: useful facts and perspective on dioxins impact on health and the environment and global trends
• Cancer in the World : mechanisms, causes, trends, treatments – The 2008 Report of the WHO.

Environment

• Highlights of a global assessement report on the sources, fate & effects of micro-plastics in the marine environment
• Highlights of the FAO draft report on Nanotechnologies used in food and agriculture and their risk assessment
• Highlights of the report on how produce more food and energy with less pollution – the challenges and risks related to nutrient use and availability
• Aquatic environment: hazardous substances in Europe’s fresh and marine waters – An overview
• Climate impact of potential shale gas production in the EU
• Water resources and environmental impact of marine litter and micro-plastics in marine litter: evaluation and recommendations
• Farming, erosion, biodiversity or contamination: the declining state of soil in Europe
• New facts on environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change
• A report on the state of the Australian Environment in 2011
• Cold snap of February 2012 and climate change: Is there a link ?
• Trends of plastic waste in the EU
• No significant errors in the 4th IPCC report on climate, according to a Dutch study
• Bee losses, bee colonies losses and the growing concerns about their origin: where are we today ?

Health & environment combined

• Health and environmental impact of the production of the transgenic salmon AquAdvantage – Highlights of the US -FDA draft report
• Potentially endocrine disruptors chemicals: updated assessment for the E.U. of their impact on human health and the environment.
• Shale gas : a study on the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydraulic fracturing in Europe.
• EU criteria for risk assessment of persistance, bioaccumulation and toxicity of chemicals
• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its derivative (APFO): hazard and risk assessment for human health and the environment in the EU
• Hazards and risks for human and the environment of chlorine and sodium hypochlorite: no need for further risk reduction measures according to EU report

Highlights by GreenFacts of the report “Our Nutrient World”  prepared by the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management in collaboration with the International Nitrogen Initiative

THE REPORT IN A GLANCE  followed by its Highlights in 8 Questions and answers

1. The aim of this report  This report highlights how nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers are estimated to feed half the human population alive today, and how they will remain critical in the future, especially given increasing population and potential bioenergy needs. The report shows how these problems cross all global change challenges, threatening water, air and soil quality, climate balance, stratospheric ozone and biodiversity. The report also highlights that there is still no intergovernmental framework to address the multiple challenges for nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients.

 2. The specific threats related to nutrients Without swift and collective action, the next generation will inherit a world where many millions may suffer from food insecurity caused by too few nutrients, where the nutrient pollution threats from too much will become more extreme, and where unsustainable use of nutrients will contribute even more to biodiversity loss and accelerating climate change.

 3. Why are nutrients so important The world needs nutrients, especially nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), which are essential to raise crops and animals have more than doubled and their natural cycles are now out of balance, causing major environmental, health and economic problems that have received far too little attention.

4. The most critical environmental risks regarding nutrients The five key environmental threats of too much or too little nutrients are  Water quality , air quality , greenhouse gas balance, ecosystems &  biodiversity and  soil quality.

5.The risks of nutrient shortage On average over 80% of Nitrogen and 25-75% of Phosphorus consumed (where not temporarily stored in agricultural soils) end up lost to the environment, wasting the energy used to prepare them, and causing air and water pollution.  In particular finite phosphorus reserves in particular represent a potential risk for future global food security given that there is no alternative to P as an essential plant nutrient.

 6. How to adress these nutrient challenges Reduce nutrient losses and improve nutrient use efficiency across all sectors simultaneously would provide the foundation for a Greener Economy to produce more food and energy while reducing environmental pollution. This effort must cross the boundaries between economic sectors and environmental media, be underpinned by scientific and other evidence from a robust global assessment process, share best practices, and address the substantial cultural and economic barriers that currently limit adoption.

 7. The actions and outcomes that need to be decided  Ten main domains were identified in the report on which action should be concentrated in the area of agriculture,  transport and Industry, waste and recycling, societal consumption patterns and spatial and temporal optimization of nutrient flows. One option is to strengthen the mandate of the ‘Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities’ (GPA).

THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE  REPORT IN 8 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. What is the aim of this report?  This report draws attention to the multiple benefits and threats of human nutrient use. It highlights how nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers are estimated to feed half the human population alive today, and how they will remain critical in the future, especially given increasing population and potential bioenergy needs. The report shows how these problems cross all global change challenges, threatening water, air and soil quality, climate balance, stratospheric ozone and biodiversity. The report also highlights that there is still no intergovernmental framework to address the multiple challenges for nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients.

 2. What are the specific threats related to nutrients? Without swift and collective action, the next generation will inherit a world where many millions may suffer from food insecurity caused by too few nutrients, where the nutrient pollution threats from too much will become more extreme, and where unsustainable use of nutrients will contribute even more to biodiversity loss and accelerating climate change, underlines in the editorial of the report Achim Steiner,  United Nations Under-Secretary General and Executive Director United Nations Environment Programme. Conversely with more sustainable management of nutrients, economies can play a role in a transition to a Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

3. Why are nutrients so important? The world needs nutrients, especially nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), which are essential to raise crops and animals to feed an increasing world population In order to feed 7 billion people, humans have more than doubled global land-based cycling of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)  and their natural cycles are now out of balance, causing major environmental, health and economic problems that have received far too little attention.

Unless action is taken, increases in population and per capita consumption of energy and animal products will exacerbate nutrient losses, pollution levels and land degradation, further threatening the quality of our water, air and soils, affecting climate and biodiversity.

4. What are the most critical environmental risks regarding nutrients? The five key environmental threats of too much or too little nutrients are :

            a. Water quality including coastal and freshwater dead zones, hypoxia, fish kills,  algal blooms, nitrate contaminated aquifers and impure drinking water, resulting from both Nitrogen and Phosphorus eutrophication.

            b. Air quality – including shortening of human life through exposure to air pollutants includ-ing particulate matter formed from NOx and NH3 emissions, and from increased concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ground-level ozone (O3).

            c. Greenhouse gas balance – including emissions of N2O plus interactions with other Nitrogen forms, particulate matter and atmospheric Nitrogen deposition, plus tropospheric O3. N2O is now also the main cause of stratospheric ozone depletion, increasing the risk of skin cancer from UV-B radiation.

           d. Ecosystems and biodiversity – including the loss of species of high conservation value naturally adapted to few nutrients. Eutrophication from atmospheric Nr deposition is an insidious pressure that threatens the biodiversity of many ‘protected’ natural ecosystems.

           e. Soil quality – over-fertilization and too much atmospheric N2 deposition acidify natural and agricultural soils, while a shortage of N and P nutrients leads to soil degradation, which can be exacerbated by a shortage of micronutrients, leading to loss of fertility and erosion.

5. Are there risks of nutrient shortage? The efficiency of nutrient use is very low: considering the full chain, on average over 80% of N and 25-75% of P consumed (where not temporarily stored in agricultural soils) end up lost to the environment, wasting the energy used to prepare them, and causing pollution through emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (NH3) to the atmosphere, plus losses of nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO43-) and organic N, P compounds to water. While recent trends in nutrient consumption are relatively stable in developed countries, growing human population and rising per capita meat/dairy consumption as a result of increasing incomes are together causing a rapid increase in nutrient consumption in transitional and developing countries.

Finite phosphorus reserves in particular represent a potential risk for future global food security. Phosphorus is obtained from mining of finite phosphate rock deposits, with current world supplies coming from just a few key countries. This poses potential risks for future supply, given that there is no alternative to P as an essential plant nutrient. Parallel risks apply for other mined nutrients including potassium (K) and micronutrients, especially zinc, for which the currently identified resources have a much shorter lifetime than for phosphorus and potassium.

6. How to address these nutrient challenges? Reduce nutrient losses and improve nutrient use efficiency across all sectors simultaneously would provide the foundation for a Greener Economy to produce more food and energy while reducing environmental pollution. This effort must cross the boundaries between economic sectors and environmental media, be underpinned by scientific and other evidence from a robust global assessment process, share best practices, and address the substantial cultural and economic barriers that currently limit adoption.

7. Which actions and outcomes need to be decided?  One option is to strengthen the mandate of the ‘Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities’ (GPA) to address the inter-linkages between land, air and water, in relation to the global supply of all nutrient sources and Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) across the full chain, considering their regional variation. The ten main domains identified in the report on which action should be concentrated are:

a. Agriculture

1. Improving nutrient use efficiency in crop production,

2. Improving nutrient use efficiency in animal production,

3. Increasing the fertilizer equivalence value of animal manure,

b. Transport and Industry

4. Low-emission combustion and energy-efficient systems, including renewable sources,

5. Development of NOx capture and utilization technology,

c. Waste and Recycling

6. Improving nutrient efficiency in fertilizer and food supply and reducing food waste;

7. Recycling nitrogen and phosphorus from waste water systems, in cities, agriculture and industry,

d. Societal consumption patterns

8. Energy and transport saving,

9. Lowering personal consumption of animal protein among populations consuming high rates (avoiding excess and voluntary reduction),

e. Integration and optimization

10. Spatial and temporal optimization of nutrient flows.

 8. Does the report propose examples of practical actions? Examples of current national and regional nutrient policies are illustrated in the report showing many positive actions. However, it is concluded that a more joined-up approach addressing the ‘Nutrient Nexus’ would be expected to deliver substantial synergies, motivating common action while minimizing trade-offs.  A blueprint for an intergovernmental framework to address the multiple challenges for nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients is outlined, considering the institutional options. The potential for net economic benefits is illustrated by estimating the consequences of meeting a common aspirational goal to improve nutrient use efficiency by 20% by the year 2020.

References 

(2013) Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution. Global Overview of Nutrient Management. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management and the International Nitrogen Initiative. Published by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), Edinburgh UK, on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM) and the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI).The report is available on-line at the following locations: www.unep.org and www.gpa.unep.org/gpnm.html

authors : Sutton M.A., Bleeker A., Howard C.M., Bekunda M., Grizzetti B., de Vries W., van Grinsven H.J.M., Abrol Y.P., Adhya T.K., Billen G.,. Davidson E.A, Datta A., Diaz R., Erisman J.W., Liu X.J., Oenema O., Palm C., Raghuram N., Reis S., Scholz R.W., Sims T., Westhoek H. & Zhang F.S., with contributions from Ayyappan S., Bouwman A.F., Bustamante M., Fowler D., Galloway J.N., Gavito M.E., Garnier J., Greenwood S., Hellums D.T., Holland M., Hoysall C., Jaramillo V.J., Klimont Z., Ometto J.P., Pathak H., Plocq Fichelet V., Powlson D., Ramakrishna K., Roy A., Sanders K., Sharma C., Singh B., Singh U., Yan X.Y. & Zhang Y.

This Global Overview has been prepared as a scientifically independent process and  incorporates outcomes from several meetings,The views and conclusions expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect policies of the contributing organizations. As an overview, this report does not attempt to reach consensus on all issues.

The Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM) is a multi-stakeholder partnership comprising of governments, private sector, scientific community, civil society organizations and UN agencies committed to promote effective nutrient management to achieve the twin goals of food security through increased productivity and conservation of natural resources and the environment.

The International Nitrogen Initiative (INI) is a scientific partnership that addresses the problems of too much nitrogen in some parts of the world and too little nitrogen in others. It is a joint project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE).

note:  the Highlights of GreenFacts are not reviewed by its Scientific Committee

A short summary followed by the Highlights of the report in nine questions.

SHORT SUMMARY The salmon evaluated by the FDA is a genetically modified (“engineered” or also “transgenic”) Atlantic salmon to be produced and grown under specified conditions. This fish, named AquAdvantage Salmon, is a triploid (effectively sterile) female fish containing a rDNA construct designed to exhibit a rapid-growth phenotype that allows it to reach smolt  size (or approximately 100 g) faster than non-genetically modified farmed salmon. The objective of the project is to meet increasing demand for fish protein in light of declining stocks and diminishing capture of wild fish.

FDA has made the preliminary determination, based on the evidence collected and evaluated,  that it is reasonable to believe that approval of the AquAdvantage Salmon NADA will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States, and on the populations of endangered Atlantic salmon when produced and grown under the conditions of use for the proposed action. 

The US-FDA regulates animals containing rDNA constructs under the new animal drug provisions of the FD&C Act, must meet environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FDA’s regulations.

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has evaluated both the direct and indirect food safety impacts of AquAdvantage Salmon and any potential impacts of the rDNA insertion on target animal safety. CVM has also thoroughly evaluated the potential environmental impacts of approving an NADA for AquAdvantage Salmon.

The potential hazards and harms to the environment include the hypothesis that the transgenic salmon would escape the conditions of confinement but, as the transgenic salmon would be produced and grown-out in secure facilities that have been verified and validated by FDA, the possibility that transgenic fish could escape from containment, survive and reproduce is extremely remote. In addition, because populations produced will be triploid (effectively sterile), all-female animals, the possibility of their reproducing in the wild is likewise extremely remote. FDA, has also considered that approval of the AquAdvantage Salmon will not jeopardize the continued existence of United States populations of threatened or endangered Atlantic salmon.

The potential effects on the local environments of Canada and Panama have not been considered and evaluated in this draft assessement because the US NEPA does not require an analysis of environmental effects in foreign sovereign countries, except if  there would be significant effects on the environment of the United States.

With respect to food safety, FDA has concluded that food from AquAdvantage Salmon is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon, and that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from triploid AquAdvantage Salmon.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°

1. What is the genetically modified (“engineered” or also transgenic) salmon which is evaluated by the FDA?

The development of a genetically modified salmon is the end result of advances in genetic engineering within the past 30+ years. Recombinant DNA technology was first used to produce genetically modified (engineered or transgenic) animals in 1973.  Although initial interest centered primarily on mammals, by the late-1990s, genetically modified (or engineered – GE) carp, trout, loach, tilapia, catfish, and salmon had been produced.

AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. (ABT or the sponsor) has provided data and information in support of a New Animal Drug Application (NADA) for a genetically modified Atlantic salmon¹ to be produced and grown under specified conditions. This fish, named AquAdvantage Salmon, is designed to exhibit a rapid-growth phenotype that allows it to reach smolt  size (or approximately 100 g) faster than non-genetically modified farmed salmon.

The AquAdvantage Salmon founder animal was generated in 1989 by micro-injecting a recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) construct, composed of a element from an ocean pout antifreeze protein gene and a protein-coding sequence from a chinook salmon growth hormone gene into the fertilized eggs of wild Atlantic salmon.

This salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. is a triploid (effectively sterile) female fish containing a rDNA construct, called opAFP-GHc2, which imparts a rapid-growth phenotype allowing populations of these animals to reach a common growth measure (smolt size) more quickly than populations of comparator Atlantic salmon.

2. What led to the development of a genetically modified salmon strain?

To meet increasing demand for fish protein in light of declining stocks and diminishing capture of wild fish, the use of commercial aquaculture—colloquially known as fish farming—has expanded significantly in recent years.

The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has estimated in 2008 that by 2030, annual commercial aquaculture production will need to increase by an additional 28.8 MM MT (i.e., 80.5 MM MT total) in order to maintain per capita fish consumption at current levels.

The recently issued (2010) Dietary Guidelines for Americans specifically recommend that Americans increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry. These guidelines indicate that consumption of seafood, which provides an average consumption of 250 mg per day of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, is associated with reduced cardiac deaths among individuals with and without pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and thus recommend the consumption of higher levels of seafood to help prevent heart disease. These recommendations are expected to further contribute to increased demands for seafood in the future.

The dominant interest in genetically modified salmon and several other genetically modified fish species has been to increase growth rate and feed conversion efficiency, which are principal drivers of production and the economic viability of commercial farming operations (for all production agriculture). The development of what is now known as AquAdvantage Salmon began in 1989 and is the most commercially advanced of those efforts to date.

 3. What is the regulatory context in place in the US to manage the request to produce and put on the market of such a genetically modified salmon?

An rDNA construct that is intended to affect the structure or function of a transgenic animal meets the statutory definition of a new animal drug and must be approved by FDA prior to commercialization.  FDA regulates indeed animals containing rDNA constructs under the new animal drug provisions of the FD&C Act, and meets it obligations for environmental analysis under Approvals of this type constitute “major Federal actions” for which FDA must meet environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FDA’s regulations, thus triggering the requirement to perform such environmental assessment.

FDA approvals for articles regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the FD&C Act may be for a specific set of conditions that are proposed in the drug sponsor’s New Animal Drug Application (NADA), or are required by FDA to mitigate potential risks, and are explicitly set forth in the conditions of approval. Sponsors must notify FDA of any modifications to the approved conditions of use, ranging from changes in labels to alterations of the conditions of husbandry. Major and moderate changes require a supplemental application that must be approved by the agency prior to implementation.

 4. How does the FDA evaluate the potential risks related to the transgenic salmon?

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has evaluated both the direct and indirect food safety impacts of AquAdvantage Salmon and any potential impacts of the rDNA insertion on target animal safety. CVM has also thoroughly evaluated the potential environmental impacts of approving an NADA for AquAdvantage Salmon, and has prepared this draft Environmental Assessment (EA).

In the overall process, FDA’S CVM examines (1) safety of the rDNA construct to the animal; (2) safety of the food from the animal; (3) environmental impact; and (4) the extent to which the producers of GE animals (referred to as “sponsors”) have met the claims made for those GE animals (effectiveness). All of these are based on a thorough analysis of the rDNA construct, its integration into the animal’s DNA, and its stability in the animal over multiple generations. GFI 187 describes this in seven steps that we summarize in the following discussion. Each step is dependent on the results of the analysis performed in the preceding steps, so that the review in effect “rolls up” conclusions as it progresses through the entire process.

 The performance of such evaluation is a seven steps process:

1.- First, the FDA reviews data and information on how the construct is made, and whether it contains any pieces of DNA from viruses or other organisms that could pose adverse health risks to the animal or people or other animals eating food from the animal. The FDA also looks to see if any pieces of the construct will make new proteins (except for the intended ones) that could possibly cause health concerns.

2.- Second, FDA evaluates studies submitted by the producer to determine what happens when the rDNA construct is incorporated into the animal, and how it behaves over multiple generations. This includes analyzing whether the construct remains in the same place over time, and whether animals continue to express the trait (characteristic) that the construct is supposed to introduce.

3.- Third, FDA determines whether the rDNA construct is safe for the resulting line of the transgenic animal what is called a the Phenotypic Characterization. They do so by reviewing studies that characterize the actual transgenic animals over several generations. Questions that the agency asks include whether the resulting transgenic animals look like their “regular” counterparts by comparing them to both closely related animals and to animals of the species in general. The agency asks whether the transgenic animals are healthy, including disease resistance, and whether they reach the same developmental milestones that comparison animals do. Another safety question that is evaluated is whether there are any abnormalities that would not be found in other relatives of the transgenic animal which might express similar traits, but via conventional breeding.

In addition, we evaluate the results of necropsies (examinations of the bodies and tissues of animals that have been sacrificed for that purpose) to make sure that cells, tissues, and organs look normal. We also assess the results of the kinds of tests that doctors might perform on people when they get a physical, such as blood cells, blood chemistries, etc., to determine whether the animals not only look healthy, but also that their bodies are functioning appropriately.

4.- Fourth, the FDA performs reviews the plan that the sponsor will agree to in order to ensure that the GE animals produced in the future will be equivalent to the GE animals that we evaluate as part of the pre-approval review.

5.- Fifth, FDA assesses whether the transgenic animals are safe to eat. This evaluation relies on information gathered in the parts of the application that look at the rDNA construct and the health of the animal. FDA experts in food safety look carefully at the composition of the edible tissues of the transgenic animal to determine whether its meat or milk or eggs differ in any way that affects safety or nutrition from the non-transgenic counterparts that we eat today.

Further, FDA’s food safety experts evaluate data to determine whether the transgenic animal poses any more allergenicity risks than its non-transgenic counterparts currently on the market.

6.- Sixth, the agency evaluates the potential for the GE animal to cause significant environmental impacts. We do this by evaluating the results of an EA for the specific proposed conditions of use for a particular application.

7.- In the seventh and final step of the process, sponsors submit information and data in support of their claims for the transgenic animal. For an animal that is intended to grow faster, the agency evaluates data to determine if the GE animals do indeed reach some size or weight more rapidly than their conventional counterparts.

5. Where the potential environmental effects of the development of the transgenic salmon evaluated in the countries where it will take place?

Effects on the local environments of Canada and Panama have not been considered and evaluated in this draft assessement because the US NEPA does not require an analysis of environmental effects in foreign sovereign countries, except insofar as it was necessary to do so in order to determine whether there would be significant effects on the environment of the United States due to the origination of exposure pathways from the production and grow-out facilities in Canada and Panama.

The potential hazards and harms addressed in this draft Environmental Assessment center on the likelihood and consequences of AquAdvantage salmon for the production of eyed-eggs and grow-out to market size :

1. The likelihood that the transgenic salmon will escape the conditions of confinement;

2. The likelihood that the transgenic salmon will survive and disperse if they escape the conditions of confinement;

3. The likelihood that the transgenic salmon will reproduce and establish if they escape the conditions of confinement;

4. The likely consequences to, or effects on, the environment of theUnited Statesshould the genetically salmon escape the conditions of confinement.

As the transgenic salmon would be produced and grown-out in secure facilities that have been verified and validated by FDA, the possibility that transgenic fish could escape from containment, enter the local environments of Canada or Panama, and survive to reproduce is extremely remote. In addition, because the production process for AquAdvantage Salmon would ensure that populations produced will be triploid (effectively sterile), all-female animals, the possibility of their reproducing in the wild is likewise extremely remote. Finally, the inhospitable environmental conditions around the egg production and grow-out facilities further reduce the possibility of establishment and spread.

6. What are the preliminary  conclusions of the FDA evaluation?

Based on the evidence collected and evaluated, FDA has made the preliminary determination that it is reasonable to believe that approval of the AquAdvantage Salmon NADA will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States (including populations of endangered Atlantic salmon) when produced and grown under the conditions of use for the proposed action.

FDA preliminarily concludes that the development, production, and grow-out of AquAdvantage Salmon under the conditions proposed in the materials submitted by the sponsor in support of an NADA, and as described in this draft Environmental Assessment, will not result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment in theUnited States.

 With respect to food safety, FDA has concluded that food from AquAdvantage Salmon is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon, and that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from triploid AquAdvantage Salmon. Further, FDA has concluded that no significant food safety hazards or risks have been identified with respect to the phenotype of the AquAdvantage Salmon.

FDA, having reviewed the materials submitted in support of an NADA for AquAdvantage Salmon, has also made a “no effect” determination under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), that approval of the AquAdvantage Salmon NADA will not jeopardize the continued existence of United States populations of threatened or endangered Atlantic salmon, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat, when produced and reared under the conditions described within this draft Environmental Assessment.

The two federal agencies responsible for administering the ESA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of Interior, have either concurred with, or indicated no disagreement with, FDA’s “no effect” determination.

7. Where and how would the transgenic salmon be produced and grown and in with which limits ?

The specific proposed limitations on the production and use (grow-out) of AquAdvantage Salmon, including the production of triploid, all-female fish populations, are designed to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts.

The conditions proposed in the materials submitted by the sponsor in support of an NADA would limit production of eyed-eggs to a single specific facility on Prince Edward Island, Canada, for delivery to a single specific land-based facility in Panama for grow-out (i.e., rearing to market size), in secure facilities that have been verified and validated by FDA, with harvesting and processing (e.g., preparation of fish fillets, steaks, etc.) in Panama prior to retail sale in theUnited States.

In Canada, regulation of fish that are the product of biotechnology takes place under the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Canadian governmental authorities charged with responsibility for the regulatory oversight of the research and development and the commercial deployment of transgenic aquatic organisms are Environment Canada and DFO.

Panama operates a National Biosafety Commission that coordinates activities related to the biosafety of transgenic organisms. In theRepublicofPanama, product approval and commercialization of AquAdvantage Salmon inPanamawill primarily require involvement of the Sectorial Biosafety Committee for the agriculture sector, which is involved with review of applications for research and marketing of transgenic organisms. and includes members from relevant Panamanian institutions (e.g., Agricultural Development Ministry, Food Safety Authority, Authority of Aquatic Resources).

Based on observations made and information gathered during the site visit by the FDA, the descriptions and schematics provided by the sponsor on thePanamagrow-out facility and the river and surrounding environment have been accurately represented. There are a minimum of three or four levels of containment between both the fry tanks and grow-out tanks and the river.

8. What are the limits of the application that would be allowed to produce, grow and market the transgenic salmon?

 Approvals by FDA of NADAs related to transgenic animals are limited to a very specific set of conditions. FDA approvals for articles regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) may be for a specific set of conditions with the transgenic animal remaining under regulatory oversight as long as it is produced and marketed and where such conditions are proposed in the drug sponsor’s NADA, or are required by FDA to mitigate potential risks, and are explicitly set forth in the conditions of approval. FDA has determined that for the proposed action, conditions of use should include appropriate and redundant mitigation measures such as use of physical, biological, and geographical/ geophysical forms of containment.

Major and moderate changes require the filing and review of a supplemental NADA. Approvals of such supplemental applications would constitute agency actions and trigger environmental analyses under NEPA.

Any other uses are not approved, and the sponsor must notify FDA about each proposed change in each condition established in an approved application and obtain FDA approval of a supplemental application for the change where necessary.

FDA has determined that this application for AquAdvantage Salmon should include appropriate and redundant mitigation measures such as use of physical, biological, and geographical/ geophysical forms of containment..

The proposed specific limitations on the production and use (grow-out) of AquAdvantage Salmon, including the production of triploid (effectively sterile), all-female fish populations, are designed to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts,

 9. Did the FDA considered the consequences of not allowing the production of the transgenic AquAdvantage Salmon?

For the scenario where production of AquAdvantage Salmon at locations outside theUnited States, says the FDA draft report, an assessment of potential effects on the environment becomes highly uncertain. Because production of AquAdvantage Salmon would be possible at any number of locations worldwide, under different containment conditions, and potentially within areas where native Atlantic salmon are present, there are too many variables and unknowns to perform a comprehensive assessment and make any predictions with respect to potential environmental impacts on the United States. To the extent that production would occur with less restrictive containment conditions than those proposed (e.g., fish might not be triploid, might not be reared in land-based facilities, or might not be subjected to multiple and redundant forms of physical containment), it is expected that adverse environmental impacts to the United States might be more likely to occur than under the conditions of production and grow-out for the proposed action.

Reference : AquAdvantage® Salmon Draft Environmental Assessment.

In support of a proposed agency action on a New Animal Drug Application for the integrated α-form of the opAFP-GHc2 gene construct at the α-locus in the EO-1α line of triploid, all-female genetically engineered Atlantic salmon (AquAdvantage Salmon) to be produced as eyed-eggs and grown-out only in the physically-contained freshwater culture facilities specified in the sponsor’s application – 4 May 2012 – 145 p

Prepared by the Center forVeterinary Medicine,United StatesFood and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/UCM333102.pdf

Note :  The GreenFacts Highlights are not peer reviewed by its Scientific Board.

1.     the summary of  the UNSCEAR’s assessments of the radiation effects;

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

2     The summary report on Recent scientific findings and publications on the health effects of Chernobyl – Working Party on Research Implications on Health. RADIATION PROTECTION NO 170 Directorate-General for Energy Directorate D — Nuclear Energy Unit D.4 — Radiation Protection 2011

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/170.pdf

Short summary . The global conclusions of the UNSCEAR report are that besides the most highly exposed individuals, the great majority of the population, according to the UNSCEAR report, is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.

1.  Consequences for the persons directly exposed Among the 106 patients surviving radiation sickness, complete normalization of health took several years. Many of those patients developed clinically significant radiation-induced cataracts in the first few years after the accident. Over the period 1987-2006, 19 survivors died for various reasons; however, some of these deaths were due to causes not associated with radiation exposure.

2. Thyroïd cancer Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were, according to UNSCEAR, most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident.

3. No scientific evidence of other major health impact on the population  Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is also no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.

4. No evidenced increase of leukemia cases related to the accident.The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated.

The EU report in 9 questions and answers

1 Which populations exposed to the radiations after the Chernobyl accident ?

According to the Directorate-General for Energy of the EU report three major groups of people were exposed to and, to a variable extent, are still being exposed to radioactive contamination:

a. approximately 600 000 Workers (liquidators, or emergency and recovery operations workers) involved in emergency response, containment, clean-up and associated  activities at theChernobylsite and in the contaminated areas. Among which about 240 000 worked in 1986 and 1987, when doses were highest, at the reactor site and the surrounding 30 km zone. The average effective dose received by the recovery operation workers between 1986 and 1990, mainly due to external irradiation, is now estimated at about 120 mSv. The recorded worker doses varied from less than 10 mGy to more than 1,000 mGy, although about 85% of the recorded doses were in the range 20–500 mGy.

b. about 116 000 inhabitants who were evacuated or relocated from contaminated areas and in the months following the accident a further 220 000 people were relocated after 1986.  The effective dose estimates for individuals in the general population accumulated over the 20 years following the accident (1986–2005) range from a few mSv to some hundred mSv depending on location, age and lifestyle factors, such as diet, or time spent outdoors. These doses are mainly due to external exposure from a mixture of deposited radionuclides, as well as to internal exposure from intake of ¹³⁴Cs and  ¹³⁷Cs (UNSCEAR 2000 quotrd in the report)

c. About 5 million inhabitants of contaminated areas who were not evacuated.

2.  What was the main health  impact of Chernobyl ?  

To date, thyroid cancer has been the main direct consequence of exposure to fallout in the population in Belarus, northern Ukraine, and the oblasts of the Russian Federation closest to Chernobyl.

According to the EU report, the highest organ-specific dose was to the thyroid gland, primarily from ingestion of milk contaminated with radioactive iodines, particularly ¹³¹I. The highest individual thyroid doses among the subjects were 10.2 Gy in Belarus and 5.3 Gy in Russia. ¹³¹I intake was the main pathway for thyroid exposure.

The UNSCEAR (2011) document mentions that a number of 6848 cases of thyroid cancer were observed 1991 and 2005 in the three affected republics (the whole of Belarus and Ukraine and the four most affected regions of the Russian Federation) amongst those under age 18 years in 1986. There is no doubt that a substantial fraction of this excess incidence of thyroid cancer can be attributed to exposure to radioiodine due to the Chernobyl accident.

It is confirmed that there was a large rise in the incidence of confirmed cases of thyroid carcinoma in children exposed to fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear accident;  was also confirmed the correlation of incidence and the extent of fallout; the rapid drop in incidence to near normal figures in children born more than a few months after the accident, all correlations which, combined, show a causal relation between exposure and thyroïd cancer  induction.

There is no doubt, says the report, that young children exposed to external radiation are at a greater risk of developing thyroid cancer than older children, and that adults exposed to external radiation have much lower risk.

3. Are the cases of cancer of the thyroïd still expected to increase ?

The report quotes indeed studies showing that the substantial increase in thyroid cancer incidence seen amongst those exposed as children or adolescents in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine since the Chernobyl accident shows no signs of diminishing up to 25 years after exposure.

But one of these studies also shows that long term supplementary iodide intake after the accident lowered the risk in both the higher and lower iodide levels

The report also highlights a recent study that suggests that in utero exposure to radioiodines may have increased the risk of thyroid carcinoma approximately 20 years after the Chernobyl accident, but the epidemiological evidence to date is not sufficient to accurately quantify a difference in risk between prenatal and early postnatal exposure.  One of the factors relevant to the risk of developing thyroid carcinoma after radiation exposure is indeed genetic susceptibility.

Athough the long-term magnitude of risk cannot yet be quantified, it is expected  from many decades of follow-up of studies of populations exposed to external radiation, that Chernobyl-related thyroid cancers will continue to occur for many more years.

Moreover, if  current risk models are right, says a study quoted in the EC report, we have seen up to now only the tip of the iceberg and many thousands of cases of thyroid cancer are still to come among those heavily exposed to radioiodine in childhood.

4. What about the impact of Chernobyl on leukemia and breast cancer ?

Recentstudies mentioned in the report found significantly increased incidence of leukemia on Chernobyl liquidators from Ukraine and from Belarus, Russia and the Baltic countries,

There are currently few other clear evidence of increase in the incidence of cancers in the most affected populations, with the possible exception of breast cancer. The report mentions a study showing that the increase was highest among women who were younger at the time of the exposure and the authors concluded that it is unlikely that this excess could be entirely due to the increased diagnostic activity in these areas.

5. Were genetic effects identified in the populations affected by the Chernobyl accident ?

Studies in exposed families from rural areas of Ukraine and Belarussia also mentioned in the report are indicative of a statistically significant elevated paternal mutation rate in the exposed families (1.6 fold increase). However, studies conducted in families of Chernobyl cleanup workers globally failed to show increases in DNA damage such as  minisatellite mutation rates or slight to modest  increase above 200 mSv; , not statistically significant. The only clearly positive study has been criticised for the methodology used, says the report.

6. Were birth defects observed as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident ?

The results of a current research on environmental pollution and congenital anomalies in Belarus mentioned in the EU report show a clear excess of congenital anomalies (polydactyly, reduction defects of limbs, multiple  congenital malformations) was observed in the highly contaminated districts during the three first years after the accident.  Another study mentioned shows that, among about 100.000 births in Rivne between 2000 and 2006, the overall rate of neural tube defects (including spina bifida) is among the highest in Europe (22.2 vs 9 per 10 000 live births). The rates of conjoined twins and teratomas also seem to be elevated and in Polissia, the overall rates of neural tube defects are even higher while the rates of microcephaly and microphthalmia may also be elevated.

7. What were the major routes to radiation exposure ?

Wild foods, especially mushrooms and berries, and locally produced foods, especially milk related, were major radiation exposure routes. The authors concluded that, twenty four years after the Chernobyl accident, women continue to be chronically exposed to low-dose radiation at levels exceeding current recommendations and this might contribute (especially synergistically with alcohol consumption and micronutrient deficiencies) to higher prevalence of birth defects in areas with high levels of radiation contamination compared to uncontaminated areas.

8. Were other health effects observed as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident ?

Regarding children morbidity (cardiovascular symptoms in children such as arterial hypertension, and neurobehavioral and cognitive performances), as it was the case with birth defects, the currently available data do not allow drawing firm conclusions but are important enough to ask for further good quality research on morbidity in children living in contaminated territories. Series of studies are announced.

As for children living in contaminated territories, numerous studies have been published concerning non cancer diseases in liquidators, but, underlines the report, many of them also not published in English, and often being controversial due to a number of biases and confounding risk factors such as excessive weight, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, alcohol consumption, and others.

9. What were the radionuclides released from the Chernobyl reactor ?

According to the UNSCEAR report, the radionuclides released from the reactor that caused exposure of individuals were mainly ¹³¹iodine, ¹³⁴caesium-and ¹³⁷cesium-. ¹³¹ Iodine has a short radioactive half-life (eight days), but it can be transferred to humans relatively rapidly from the air and through consumption of contaminated milk and leafy vegetables. Iodine becomes localized in the thyroid gland. For reasons related to the intake of milk and dairy products by infants and children, as well as the size of their thyroid glands and their metabolism, the radiation doses are usually higher for them than for adults.

The isotopes of caesium have relatively longer half-lives (¹³⁴cesium has a half-life of 2 years while that of ¹³⁷caesium is 30 years). These radionuclides cause longer-term exposures through the ingestion pathway and through external exposure from their deposition on the ground. Many other radionuclides were associated with the accident, which were also considered in the exposure assessments.

Reference documents  

- Recent scientific findings and publications on the health effects of Chernobyl  -  Working Party on Research Implications on Health.  RADIATION PROTECTION NO 170  Directorate-General for Energy Directorate D — Nuclear Energy Unit D.4 — Radiation Protection 2011

This report was prepared by the Working Party on Research Implications on Health and Safety Standards of the Article 31 Group of Experts with the following members: A. Friedl, R. Huiskamp, L. Lebaron-Jacobs, P. Olko, S. Risica, P. Smeesters (Chairman), R. Wakeford, S. Mundigl (Scientific Secretary).

-Complete report of the UNSCEAR’s assessments of the radiation effects;

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf

UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Health effects of Atomic Radiations) was established by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1955. Its mandate in the United Nations system is to assess and report levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation.

Other references : Strategic research agenda: the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident. 2011. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) . FP 7 Project ARCH (Agenda for Research Agenda on the Health consequences ogf the Chernobyl Accident).

To make the best use of this unique opportunity to increase  understanding of radiation effects,the ARCH project has developed a long-term strategic plan for research into the health effects of the Chernobylaccident and the specific individual project proposals set out in this document. see:  http://arch.iarc.fr

note: the Report’s Highlights of GreenFacts are not verified by its Scientific Board