Skip to main content

A polar bear wanders near Churchill, Man.

Fritz Palking/World Wildlife Federation

New tests have found a wide range of previously undiscovered contaminants in polar bears around Hudson Bay.

The new study complicates our understanding of the complex cocktail of chemicals the bears are exposed to as they try to adapt to changing climate, said Environment Canada researcher Robert Letcher.

"For many of these newer compounds, there isn't a lot of toxicological information," he said.

Story continues below advertisement

Read also: Scientists predict dire future for North Atlantic right whale population

Biologists have long known that polar bears as well as other arctic animals carry toxic chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants — or POPs — in their bodies. Those chemicals, which include substances such as PCBs, damage immune, digestive and reproductive systems.

Many of those pollutants are restricted under the 2001 Stockholm Convention. New chemicals have been added since, including substances used for everything from flame retardants to pesticides.

Those new chemicals were among a group of 295 POPs that Letcher and his colleagues tested for. They found a total of 210 of them "with some frequency" in fat and liver samples collected from 41 bears that had been harvested in 2013-14 from the western and southern shores of Hudson Bay.

The fact they've been found in a top-of-the-food-web predator like polar bears suggest they're widespread in the environment, said Letcher.

"If a compound can migrate its way through the food web, all the way up to the polar bear, it must be pretty extensive."

The levels of contamination vary widely among the chemicals.

Story continues below advertisement

Most are found in the range of parts per billion. Some, such as one chemical used as a water repellent for fabrics, are approaching parts per million.

It's hard to know what their impacts are on the bears, said Letcher. Most of what we know about these chemicals come from lab tests.

"It's really hard to extrapolate from a lab rat to a completely different species in the wild. We don't have cause-effect evidence."

It's similarly hard to generalize about trends.

Some of the contaminants such as PCBs or DDT were covered under the original Stockholm Convention and have long been in decline. Levels of flame retardant chemicals, added to the Stockholm list in 2009, also seem to be dropping.

Others don't seem to be declining at all, despite being added to the convention's list nearly a decade ago.

Story continues below advertisement

Letcher is conducting further research using stored samples of bear tissues to get a definitive idea of what's been happening over time with the various contaminants.

But the fact none of the contaminants seem to be increasing is evidence that international pollutant agreements such as the Stockholm Convention do what they're supposed to, Letcher said.

"There's no doubt about that. Generally, the result is that right across the board levels have been decreasing over the years, which is the power of that regulation on a global level."

It's tough to ban a chemical outright, said Letcher.

Europe may ban something that is produced in large quantities in China. As well, as environmental concerns force one chemical out of the market, industry comes up with something similar to do the same job.

And understanding the impact of the chemicals is further complicated by the context of Arctic climate change.

Story continues below advertisement

"If there's any stressing factor to life in the Arctic, it is climate change," Letcher said. "It's a major challenge for us to understand how climate change variables are affecting contaminant exposure."

The Toronto Zoo is experiencing a bit of baby boom right now, with young white lions, pandas and a baby polar bear Globe and Mail Update
Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter