Lawsuit Pending to Protect Polar Bears From Pesticides

The Center for Biological Diversity argues that pesticides approved by the EPA for use in the United States are known to be transported to the Arctic via various atmospheric, oceanic, and biotic pathways.

These pesticides are "biomagnified with each step higher in the food web, reaching some of their greatest concentrations in polar bears, the apex predators of the Arctic," the group contends.

"The poisoning of the Arctic is a silent crisis that threatens not just the polar bear, but the entire Arctic ecosystem, as well as the people and communities that live within it," said Rebecca Noblin, who works with the Center for Biological Diversity in Anchorage.

Pesticides and related contaminants have been linked to suppressed immune function, endocrine disruption, shrinkage of reproductive organs, hermaphroditism, and increased cub mortality in polar bears.

Polar bears (Photo by Dr. Andrew Derocher)

Human subsistence hunters in the Arctic, who share the top spot on the food web with the polar bear, also face increased risks from exposure to these contaminants, said Noblin.

"Because the polar bear sits at the top of the food pyramid, if we do what is necessary to protect the bear from pesticides, we will also be protecting the Arctic ecosystem and the people that depend upon it," she said.

The polar bear was formally listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008 following a petition and litigation by the Center for Biological Diversity, but the EPA has yet to examine the impacts of any pesticide on the species.

All pesticides in the United States must be registered by the EPA before they can be lawfully used. Courts have held that the agency must examine the impacts of any pesticide it approves on species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

"The United States has lagged far behind the international community in taking action to protect the species and people of the Arctic from contaminants," said Brendan Cummings, a senior attorney at the Center. "But with the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA now has not just the opportunity but the legal obligation to take meaningful steps to address the poisoning of the Arctic."

The Center found support for its position in conclusions reached last week by polar bear scientists and managers representing each of the five circumpolar nations that are Parties to a polar bear conservation treaty.

Meeting last week in Copenhagen for the first time in four years, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group concluded that the adverse health impacts from contaminants and climate change are the two most serious threats to polar bear survival.

The Polar Bear Specialist Group renewed the conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest challenge to conservation of polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic resulting from climatic warming.

The specialists warned that declines in the extent of the sea ice have accelerated since the last meeting of the group in 2005, with unprecedented sea ice retreats in 2007 and 2008 and said "unabated global warming will ultimately threaten polar bears everywhere."

The Polar Bear Specialist Group noted that "polar bears suffer health effects from persistent pollutants."

At the same time, the Specialist Group concluded, "climate change appears to be altering the pathways by which such pollutants enter ecosystems." The specialists encouraged international efforts to evaluate interactions between climate change and pollutants.

The specialists reevaluated the status of the 19 recognized subpopulations of polar bears distributed over vast and relatively inaccessible areas of the Arctic.

They concluded that one of the 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. For the remaining seven subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trends.

The worldwide total number of polar bears is still thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000. However, the scientists said that the "mixed quality of information on the different subpopulations means there is much room for error in establishing that range."

Copyright Environment News Service, ENS, 2009. All rights reserved.