Persistent Organic Pollutants’ Threats and Impacts on Food Safety in the Polar Regions—A Concise Review

Abstract

The threats posed by Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) impact food safety and, by implication, food security in the polar regions. POPs tend to persist in the environment and the fatty tissues of animals, thereby constituting long-term contamination. Due to the cold climate and geography of these polar regions, they create a sink for these pollutants, which travel from their source of production and accumulate in food chains, resulting in health risks to the ecosystem, animals, and humans of the Arctic and Antarctica. In this paper, we draw attention to the threats posed by POPs and how they can lead to food insecurity, negatively affecting health due to unsafe traditional foods. A narrative synthesis methodology was employed, systematically analyzing historical data, activities, and research trends on POP contamination in polar ecosystems. We also highlight resilience promoted by Arctic governance, with a focus on how the issues of POPs became an international matter from the 1970s, with three United Nations (UN) conventions: the UN-Environment Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the UN Minamata Convention on mercury, and the UN-ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. These conventions led to the start of several monitoring activities in the polar regions, transforming the POPs into a global topic. We also consider the intertwined effect of climate change on POPs. Additionally, the human rights paradigm in relation to food security and sovereignty for polar communities is explored. Strengthening the resilience of communities in the polar regions requires recognition of these nutritious traditional foods as an aspect of cultural identity that must be safe and easily accessible. We focus on developments, improvements, the role of international cooperation, and frameworks to assist in research and regulations. Furthermore, establishing systems that engage local communities to consistently monitor POPs regularly will lead to a better understanding of these threats. Ultimately, this narrative provides a look into the past and current research of POPs and their monitoring in the polar regions.

1. Introduction

Human activities such as the improper use and disposal of agro and industrial chemicals, combustion processes, and the unwanted by-products of industrial processes have produced several pollutants that disrupt access to safe food for many communities [1,2]. One specific family of those pollutants, the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), has posed several threats to the human and food security of Arctic and Antarctic communities in the last couple of decades [3]. POPs are known to be capable of traveling extensively from their source of production and persisting once released into the environment, and they have been found to significantly affect the population of the Arctic areas, and, in general, all humans and living organisms [1]. POPs, as defined by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), are a group of toxic chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, often persisting for years before degrading [4]. When first identified in 1995, the initial focus was on 12 highly toxic and persistent chemicals collectively referred to as the dirty dozen. These included aldrin, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and toxaphene [5]. POPs are notable for their resistance to environmental breakdown, their ability to travel long distances through the atmosphere, their tendency to accumulate in living organisms, and their potential to cause serious harm to both human health and the environment. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the main human-related sources of these pollutants are linked to activities in agriculture, industry, and waste management.

A range of POPs were historically used as pesticides. Aldrin and dieldrin, for example, were commonly applied to agricultural crops such as corn and cotton and were also used extensively for termite control. Chlordane had broad agricultural application, being used on vegetables, grains, potatoes, sugar crops, fruits, nuts, and cotton, as well as in residential settings for lawn and termite control. DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), perhaps the most well-known of these substances, was used extensively on cotton and in public health initiatives to control vectors of diseases such as malaria and typhus. Other organochlorine pesticides include endrin, applied to cotton and grain crops and also used as a rodenticide, and mirex, which was used against fire ants, termites, and mealybugs, and served additionally as a flame retardant in plastics and electrical equipment. Heptachlor was mainly employed against insects and termites in the soil but also had limited use in vector control and crop protection.

Industrial sources have also contributed significantly to POP contamination. Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) was initially used as a fungicide for seed treatment but is also an unintended by-product of chemical manufacturing processes, such as the production of fireworks, ammunition, and synthetic rubber. It may also appear as a contaminant in certain pesticide formulations. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used in various industries and commercial applications, including as insulating fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors, heat exchange fluids, plasticizers, and components of paints and paper products. PCBs are also released unintentionally during combustion.

Toxaphene, another chlorinated pesticide, was employed to control insect pests in agriculture and livestock and was used to eradicate fish species that are not wanted in lakes. Finally, dioxins and furans are unintentional by-products of numerous combustion processes, including the incineration of municipal and medical waste, backyard burning, and certain industrial operations. These compounds may also occur as trace contaminants in herbicides, wood preservatives, and PCB mixtures [6].

In addition, other substances—including carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), specific brominated flame retardants, and organometallic compounds such as tributyltin (TBT) have also been incorporated into the list of recognized POPs [7].

In the 1970s and 1980s, unexpectedly high levels of POPs were detected in the Arctic—despite its distance from the primary sources of these contaminants. This led to the adoption of the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants at UNECE in 1998, which later served as a foundation for the Stockholm Convention [1]. When the Stockholm Convention was established in 2001, it acknowledged the unique vulnerability of Arctic regions. It recognized that Arctic ecosystems and Indigenous communities face heightened risks due to the biomagnification of POPs and highlighted the contamination of traditional food sources as a significant public health concern [8,9].

Specifically, through intergovernmental cooperation, the Arctic states engaged the international community in the matter of POPs and general pollutants, leading to the issue of three international conventions which limited and/or banned the production, release, and usage of most of these pollutants [1].

Therefore, this situation has posed a severe threat to the food security of the Arctic and Antarctic communities. Not only do these pollutants affect the local and traditional foods on which these polar communities are dependent, but climate change, exacerbated by these pollutants, is also disrupting the biological food chain of the Arctic as well [10]. Most of these impacts are on the Arctic, with some parallels in the Antarctic [11]. The Arctic is home to roughly four million people, with Indigenous peoples, including hunters and herders living on the land and city dwellers, constituting about 10% of these inhabitants [12]. On the other hand, Antarctica has no Indigenous population, its gateway (a Patagonian lastpost) is Ushuaia, which is the southernmost city in the world, and Tierra del Fuego is the capital of the Argentine province [13].

In this paper, the introduction is followed by Section 2, which describes how POPs are a threat to the environment and its living forms, including to humans in regard to global food safety and security. Section 3 and Section 4 describe the efforts toward monitoring the level of POPs in the traditional foods of Arctic and Antarctic regions, respectively. Section 5 describes the role of traditional foods in food security, food sovereignty, and how resilience is ensured with international legal instruments. Section 6 concludes with some suggestions for future research.

2. Emerging Global Threats of Persistent Organic Pollutants to Foods

The chemical components in POPs tend to persist in the environment throughout time [14,15]. Additionally, POPs have the capacity to travel extensively from their source of production, and for this reason they are labeled as a “global concern” [16]. What makes POPs a serious topic is their persistence, in the sense that they are capable of surviving in the environment for many years, passing down different steps of the food chain [1]. This process is called bioaccumulation, according to which not only are they transmitted to the following steps of the food chain but they do so with an exponential effect, called biomagnification [1,3]. The higher the level of the food chain we go, the higher the concentration of POPs in the living organism becomes [17]. Therefore, a considerable concentration of POPs can be found stored in big animals’ fatty tissue and organs, including also those of human beings, and they can be transmitted to their offspring [1]. The global threat of POPs is demonstrated in a variety of common foods that are contaminated by POPs, as shown in

Table 1. A summary of foods that are contaminated with POPs.

Foodstuff	POPs	Reference
Egg	Dioxins/furans, PCBs, OCPs, PFCs and HBCDs	[18,19,20,21,22,23,24]
Dairy product (milk, butter, cheese, cream, yogurt, ice cream, etc.)	Dioxins/furans, PCBs, OCPs and PAHs	[18,19,23,25,26,27,28]
Meat and meat product (pork, chicken, beef, sausage, etc.)	Dioxins/furans, PCBs, OCPs, HCBD and PCN	[18,20,21,23,24,29,30]
Grain, flour, and bran	PAHs	[28]
Rice, fruit, and vegetable (cabbage, carrot, potato, etc.)	OCPs, PCBs and PAHs	[27,31,32,33]
Honey	OCPs	[28,34]
Oil (vegetable oil, olive oil, etc.)	Dioxins/furans, PCBs, OCPs and HBCDs	[20,29,35]
Fish	OCPs, PCBs, PBDEs, PFOS, Dioxins/furans and HBCDs	[19,21,22,23,26,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]
Mussel	OCPs, PCBs and PBDEs	[40,43,44]
Oyster	PAHs	[28]
Water	PFOS, OCPs, PCBs and PAHs	[31,40]

PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls; OCPs = Organochlorine pesticides; HCBD = Hexachlorobutadiene; HBCDs = Hexabromocyclododecanes; PCN = Polychlorinated naphthalenes; PAHs = Polyaromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs = Polybrominated diphenyl ethers; PFOS = perfluorooctanesulfonate; PFCs = Perfluorinated compounds (Adapted from Guo et al., 2019 [7]).

below.

POPs were detected with other contaminants found in the environment and in the traditional foods of the Arctic [3]. Due to their capacity to travel long distances from their source of production, combined with the characteristics of its environment, POPs are highly concentrated in the Arctic, which has been defined as the “sink for global pollutants”, and in its food sources, such as in local and traditional foods [3]. Among many others, the main effects of elevated concentrations of POPs are associated with an increased risk of cancer, harm to the central and peripheral nervous systems, reproductive health issues, and impairment of the immune system. Additionally, POPs can disrupt the endocrine system, leading to dysfunctions in both the reproductive and immune systems of exposed individuals and potentially affecting their offspring as well [5]. For these reasons and considering the capacity of the Arctic of trapping POPs, they have been defined as one of the greatest risks to human health in the Arctic [1,3]. POPs were found in human breast milk, which implies that they can be transmitted to newborns through lactation [16]. Between 1987 and 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted three international studies analyzing breast milk to monitor the levels and patterns of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls to keep generational transmittance under control [16]. Other POPs, such as organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and PBDEs listed under the Stockholm Convention, were also reported in sediment and biota samples of the Antarctic environment [11].

Antarctica, just like the Arctic, also acts as the ultimate sink for the collection of man-made pollutants, and their origins have been traced to local emissions from scientific stations around the East Antarctic ice sheet or remote continental sources [11,45,46]. Moreover, contaminants that are organic exist in the water vapor phase of air or attached to particles, and their transportation occurs via oceanic currents or the atmosphere, reaching either pole by global distillation or fractionation processes [46]. The presence of these pollutants is attributed to long-range atmospheric transport (LRAT) as the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) functions as a natural northern barrier, separating the cold waters of the Southern Ocean from the warmer waters of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans. This boundary prevents or delays the mixture of the two water masses due to their different physico-chemical characteristics (temperature, density), which results in increased POP contamination in the Southern Ocean [45]. In addition, the low temperatures of Antarctica significantly influence the environmental fate of POPs since they are retained for a long time due to cold trapping, which acts as a net sink for many contaminants by diffusion and wet deposition [47].

The transportation of POPs and their accumulation in Antarctica can be difficult due to the geographical and air/ocean circulation of the area and its surroundings [48]. It can take months or years for POPs to reach the Antarctic region because of its isolated and inhabited nature [45]. These chemicals can resist biological and photochemical degradation, and the climatic conditions of Antarctica likely delay the process of microbial and photo degradation, leading to a prolonged presence and greater exposure in the food chain of marine ecosystems [11,49]. Their accumulation can be seen in biota and environmental compartments where, for example, POPs have been detected in organisms like phytoplankton, krill, lichens, penguins, seabirds, and seals [11,50].

The limited human presence and activity has meant that local emissions come from scientific stations in the region, where emissions have been traced to building materials, flame retardants, textiles, and electric and electronic parts, amongst others [45]. Indeed, the limited human presence and the long distance of Antarctica from POP production areas make LRAT the most important transportation mechanism for this contamination [45]. Even though LRAT has been defined as the predominant transportation method for POPs, research has proven that factors like local bird activity and migratory birds can also act as mechanisms that amplify their occurrence and presence [51]. The fact that the poles act as the ultimate deposit of POPs poses serious threats to polar ecosystems and human health, and their underdeveloped research state in Antarctica can have negative consequences when it comes to understanding and facing the threats of POPs [52]. The presence of POPs in Antarctic ecosystems has been reported since the 1960s, and a growing amount of available data from investigations has been found over the years [11,45]. However, there remains a big gap in the literature that has been produced when compared to the literature on the Arctic [45,52]. Important factors that influence the difference in research and monitoring of POPs in Antarctica can be seen in the geopolitical complexity and lack of legal recognition of international policy towards chemicals in the region [45]. In fact, instruments that limit pollution tend to be absent in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean since there is a lack of legal recognition of international commitments [53]. The absence of sovereignty in Antarctica has meant that over the years, the region has not been aligned with monitoring obligations and other international advances in chemical pollution frameworks [53].

The importance of researching and monitoring POPs in Antarctica is crucial to gather evidence and understand their persistence and mobility in the environment [51,53]. It can also aid in decision making and action when it comes to developing global frameworks that regulate chemical pollution [53]. For example, organic contamination in Antarctica comes mainly from the emissions of the Southern Hemisphere [46]. In this regard, a more developed monitoring system of transboundary chemical pollution will help to understand how chemicals are used and treated in the Southern Hemisphere [53]. This is especially important considering that the rapid development of certain nations in the Southern Hemisphere will mean changes in chemical profiles [53]. Currently, Southern Hemisphere patterns and trends in chemical pollution are not registered under established north polar monitoring systems due to the separate tropospheric circulation systems of the respective hemispheres [53]. In addition to the importance of researching and monitoring POPs, new technological advances can assist with the detection of contaminants that have not been registered or evidenced, and in Antarctica, this can be useful for keeping an updated picture of what chemicals are found in the region in the present day [53]. Understanding the risk of a chemical means that there needs to be sufficient data to make a proper assessment, and this collection of data is also key when proposing a new chemical inclusion in the Stockholm Convention [53]. The occurrence of a chemical in Antarctica and its evidence can help to adopt new proposals or regulations, since consistent data reduce uncertainty [53].

The detection methods for several POPs, health hazards, and tolerable daily intakes are shown in

Table 2. An overview of POPs, detection methods, associated health hazards, and tolerable daily intake.

POP	Detection Method	Health Hazards	Tolerable Daily Intake	References
PCB	Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, Solid-phase extraction, Gas chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS), Atmospheric pressure gas chromatography (APGC)	Cancer (breast, prostate, testicular, kidney, ovarian and uterine cancers), neurological disorders, endocrine disruption, liver injury, diabetes, cardiovascular problems and obesity	1–4 pg TEQ kg−1; 2 mg/kg ww.	[21,54,55,56]
PBDEs	Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, Solid-phase extraction, GC–MS	Diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular problems, reproductive problems, cancer (testicular)	None	[54,57]
OCPs	Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, Solid-phase extraction	Neurological symptoms, diabetes, cancer (breast, testicular, prostate and kidney cancer), endocrine disruption, infertility and fetal malformation, reproductive issues, cardiovascular issues, high blood pressure, glucose intolerance and obesity	varying	[21,54,58,59,60]
PAHs	Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction	Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, DNA damage, cognitive dysfunction among children and cancer (breast cancer), oxidative stress, impaired male fertility, respiratory diseases,	2–20 micrograms	[21,28,54,61]
PFOS	Solid-phase extraction	Breast cancer	immune toxicity at 0.63 ng/kg body weight	[54,62]
PFOA	Solid-phase extraction	Breast cancer	0.0000015–0.16 μg/kg-day	[54,63]
PCDD/Fs	GC coupled with a high-resolution MS	Thyroid hormone endocrine balance of infants and children and their mothers, infectious diseases	1–4 pg TEQ kg−1
HBCD	Liquid chromatography (LC-MS/MS)	Endocrine disruption, reproductive issues, and behavioral effects	1.2–20 ng/day	[64,65]
PCN	GC electron capture detector or GC-MC	Cancers	no-observed-adverse effect level −0.03 mg/kg bw/day	[21,66]
PCDE	Isotope dilution GC–MS	Cancers	n.a	[21]
Dioxins/Furans	High-resolution MS	Affects motor and mental development, speech delay, cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, high blood pressure, glucose intolerance and cardiovascular problems	1–4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day	[21,55,67]

n.a, not available.

. OCPs, since they include several organochlorine pesticides such as aldrin, dieldrin, dichloro–diphenyl–tetrachloroethane (DDT), heptachlor, mirex, chlordane, toxaphene, and endrin, will have varying amounts of daily tolerable intake depending on the food and the detection method employed. An overall dietary risk assessment would require the inclusion of other dietary sources of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs.

It was observed that continuous and consistent atmospheric measurements of POPs in Antarctica can be challenging due to the remote geographical characteristics of the region and its complex climatic conditions [47]. Obtaining evidence that can help make decisions and changes in chemical pollution legislation requires capturing information that is standardized and consistent on a large spatial scale, thus avoiding missing out on observations that ultimately affect the consistency of data [53]. In this region, some of the factors that can make it difficult to sustain monitoring involve challenging working conditions, especially in a harsh climate with little human presence, minimal financial resources, and geopolitical issues [68]. Moreover, improving monitoring systems relies on lowering financial and logistical costs by attempting to make them simpler, automated, and ideally led by national chemical programs [53]. The Global Monitoring Plan (GMP), one of the components of the Stockholm Convention, provides a framework to collect, monitor, and compare data on POPs from air and seawater in all regions [53]. Ideally, GMP should involve nations adherent to the Stockholm Convention and parties of the Antarctic Treaty to aid in monitoring efforts with their respective scientific stations [53].

An important factor when it comes to long-term monitoring stations has been the relationship between climate change and POP concentration [47]. Future effects of climate change could mean that Antarctica acts as a secondary source of POPs through the re-volatilization of these compounds [47]. Global warming alters POP distributions due to their physical–chemical characteristics [45]. Some of the abiotic factors that most affect the presence and mobility of persistent contaminants are the increased temperatures and changing precipitation patterns [45]. In the context of Antarctica, this becomes especially prevalent since changes in temperature in the air surface have been registered with an increase of 3 to 7 °C since 1950, and satellite imagery has evidenced the retreat and thinning of ice shelves [45]. Consequently, a warming climate will most likely affect drivers of organic chemical behavior like sea and air temperature, organic carbon cycling, ocean pH, and food web connections, resulting in increased animal exposure to chemicals [53]. Moreover, the Antarctic ecosystems are fragile and less resilient and experiencing climate change can lead to difficult scenarios and devastating impacts [45]. The effects of climate change on POPs are expected to have consequences on the capacity of soil to sequester POPs by increasing it, in the accumulation and release of chemicals when ice melts, their distribution in ecosystems, in the bioaccumulation process by changing the structure of trophic webs, and in food web structures by impacting the availability of food [11,45]. Permafrost, while not as extended in Antarctica, is also a factor affected by climate change, as its degradation can mean the remobilization of trapped chemicals, likely working as a deposit of organic and inorganic contaminants [45].

The poles are affected the most by climate change, and it has been found that there are both direct and indirect impacts on the transportation and emission sources of POPs, consequently affecting human and animal exposure [11,46]. When it comes to marine ecosystems, POPs can be a major threat due to their lipophilic nature, meaning that they can bioaccumulate in animals’ tissues and biomagnify along the food web [51]. Evidence of this can be seen in some penguin colonies, where it has been established that they act as secondary sources of POP contamination since their mostly krill-based diet means that the lipophilic POPs from krill biomagnify in penguin bodies [50,51]. Considering this, it is of great importance to intensify research on the correlation between climate change and POPs in the poles, since this can provide valuable information on dealing with the exposure of POPs to climate change [45,46]. The importance of research and monitoring in Antarctica needs to be stressed, since there is still a big gap in the availability of long-term data in this region when compared to the Arctic [45]. There are few studies that correlate climate change parameters to POPs’ presence and concentration in biota over time in Antarctica [45]. Currently, the absence of data linking POP contamination and climate change in Antarctica makes it difficult to establish a comparison to the Arctic and on a global scale [45]. This difficulty might come from factors like the absence of human populations that leads to low interest in funding long-term research and the difficulty in logistics to study in Antarctica [45]. It has been proposed that there should be pan-Antarctic research efforts to gather data that can help predict and comprehend the environmental fate and toxicity of POPs [45,46]. Bridging this gap in the data and making comparisons between the Arctic and Antarctica could provide evidence on how POPs distribute globally and the effect that global change has on this distribution with standardized methods and time trends [45].

3. Monitoring the Level of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Arctic Traditional Foods

Indigenous Arctic communities are known to rely on traditional foods that they have relied upon for generations, such as salmon, cod, and Arctic char. In the winter, ice fishing is commonly practiced. Seaweed, berries, fungi, shellfish, and edible plants are gathered in the summer. Traditional hunting for whales, seals, caribou, and polar bears is central to the nutritional and cultural identity [69]. Threats from POPs need to be monitored to ensure that these traditional foods are fit for consumption.

POP contamination of the traditional food in the Arctic and of the local population constitute a challenging situation of human health insecurity and food insecurity [70]. Therefore, the actions taken to adapt to it can be defined as a resilience process. In order to explore the monitoring of POPs, we will briefly mention Arctic governance through the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum which promotes cooperation, coordination, and interaction among eight Arctic States, i.e., Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark (Greenland), Russia, and the United States, which are states with part of their territory located north of the Arctic Circle [71]. The Arctic Council is also composed of six permanent participants which represent the matters of the Arctic Indigenous people, and some non-Arctic and/or non-State observers. The main focus of the Arctic Council gravitates around sustainable development and environmental protection issues. Its operational system is centered on six Working Groups which provide recommendations and best practices at national and international levels to tackle issues in the Arctic following scientific knowledge-based decisions [71].

The Arctic Council was established in 1996, but even before that, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which later became one of the Working Groups of the Arctic Council founded in 1991, based its work on monitoring and measuring the effects of climate change and pollutant effects on ecosystems and human health in the Arctic [72]. This focus on pollutants was aimed at increasing awareness about the issues at local and international levels while supporting the international processes for reducing the global threat deriving from contaminants such as the POPs [73]. In fact, in the 1970s, high levels of pollutants, heavy metals, and POPs were found in the Arctic population and environment [1]. This discovery led the scene for the creation of an intergovernmental collaboration, before the Arctic Council, called the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), whose aim was to monitor the pollutants in the “air, water, and biota in the Arctic” [73]. This collaboration of the eight Arctic States was further developed in the 1990s, with the establishment of the AMAP and the Arctic Council [1]. The work of the AEPS, the AMAP, and the Arctic Council contributed to the issue of the three international conventions mentioned in the introduction (Section 1) on the matters of POPs and global pollutants [73]. These are i) the UN-Environment Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, ii) the UN Minamata Convention on mercury, and iii) the UN-ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution [73].

Chronologically, the first was the Convention on LRAT Air Pollution, issued in 1979 [74]. The objective was to limit, prevent, and reduce the emission of air pollutants, defined as the release of substances into the atmosphere that negatively impact human health or the environment in another country, where the specific contributions from individual or grouped emission sources cannot be clearly identified [75]. Therefore, the convention constituted the first preliminary way of addressing the theme of global pollutants. Additionally, the convention served as a cornerstone for the issuing of eight protocols in the following years. Among those, it is worth mentioning the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on POPs, which explicitly targeted POPs for the first time, categorizing them and setting the first pre-emptive measure for the limitations of their production and usage. This protocol, in fact, sets the background for the next Stockholm Convention on POPs, in 2001 [75].

The Stockholm Convention is the international agreement which has had a major impact on POPs, so far [3]. In fact, its objective has been to ban, limit, or phase out the production and use of intentionally manufactured POPs, as well as their import and export, while also aiming to minimize or eliminate emissions from unintentionally generated POPs [76]. Furthermore, this convention also classified the POPs into 12 different categories, subdivided into the three macro-areas of pesticides, industrial chemicals, and by-products, according to their method of production and usage [77]. It is relevant to also add that a committee for the continuing monitoring of POPs was instituted, in the attempt to keep the assessment of POPs up to date.

But not all POPs were banned from their usage and production [78]. An example of this can be found in the case of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), which has been used from the 1940s as a synthetic insecticide in the fight against diseases such as malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases [79]. In fact, the Stockholm Convention allows the production and usage of DDT for disease vector control while encouraging the development of safe alternative chemicals and non-chemical products, methods, and strategies with the goal of reducing and eliminating the use of DDT [80]. Indeed, it is relevant to underline that, nowadays, DDT is still used in some African countries in the fight against malaria, and the decision of whether to use it or not is up to each country [79]. Regarding this, the WHO declared its support for the indoor usage of DDT against malaria in African countries where the disease constitutes a major health problem, since the benefits derived from the pesticide outweighs its health and environmental risks [79].

Secondly, in 2013, the UN Minamata convention on mercury was issued [81]. It tackled the emission of mercury into air and its release on land and water, banning the opening of new mercury mines while limiting, prohibiting or reducing the usage of mercury in many products and processes [81]. An example of this application, which is familiar in many households, can be found in the EU banning mercury thermometers in the 2010s; these have been replaced by electronic ones, which are safer to produce and to dispose of at the end of their utility life [82].

Thirdly, the Convention on LRAT Air Pollution focused upon setting strict reduction targets for the release of pollution to protect human and environmental health [83]. Studies show that the levels of POPs in the Arctic are becoming lower, closer to the health safety threshold [1,73]. This beneficial effect can be attributed to the bans, limitations, and regulations introduced by the three aforementioned conventions. It is relevant to underline that the emission and production of POPs at the global level have diminished significantly throughout the years [84,85]. Nevertheless, attention needs to be increased both at the local and global level, especially in regard to their impacts on traditional foods and resilience in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. In fact, some countries, such as the US, did not ratify the Stockholm Convention, and some POPs are also still being produced and used under certain circumstances, such as in the case of DDT [86]. It is also relevant to underline that ongoing technological and industrial development in the world which occurred after the issue of the Stockholm Convention has led to the creation and usage of new POPs [85]. Consequently, in 2023, the Stockholm Convention was updated with a list of 16 new categories of POPs, whose usage and production has been scrutinized [87]. Moreover, the threat of climate change, wherein increasing temperatures might lead to the release of POPs trapped in the Arctic sea ice into the atmosphere, needs to be considered, and constant monitoring is therefore required [85].

4. Monitoring the Level of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Antarctica

The food web in the Antarctic includes primary consumers such as squid, fish, and krill that feed on phytoplankton while secondary consumers are penguins, seals, and whales. The levels of POPs need monitoring as they bioaccumulate from primary to secondary consumers and to the final consumers [88].

POPs including total polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans concentrations were detected in Antarctic samples in the following increasing order based on lipid weight: weddell seal liver (8.9 pg/g); fish (11–17 pg/g); krill (27 pg/g); penguin eggs (mean: 23 pg/g); south polar skua eggs (mean: 181 pg/g) [15]. Antarctic expeditions feature foods that are high in fat, including pemmican, made of ground and dried meat and fat to provide sufficient energy. Since there is no traditional Antarctic human population, some berries and mushrooms and seaweeds in Tierra del Fuego could be exposed to POPs. Expedition food includes bannock, a calorie-rich bread of sorts, and hoosh, which is a mix of pemmican with bread or biscuits [89].

Advancing POP research in Antarctica requires coordinated investments in spatially and temporally comprehensive monitoring and scientific programs. Similar efforts have driven progress in the Arctic and other regions globally [90]. To support this goal, the Antarctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AnMAP) has recently been proposed. In its development, guidance has been sought from AMAP Secretariat and scientists with experience in harmonizing monitoring initiatives and integrating emerging technologies for contaminant surveillance. However, AnMAP remains in the early stages of implementation [73].

Regulatory frameworks in the Antarctic resemble those in the Arctic, including AMAP-like mechanisms. Notably, in Antarctica, the detection of a contaminant serves as direct evidence for regulatory action, reducing uncertainties and facilitating a more rapid and streamlined process for adopting new environmental protection measures [53].

When local emissions occur, the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) is notified. Any suspected violations of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, particularly those involving chemical pollutants, are formally reported [53,91]. The Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959 and enforced from 1961, set the scene for international cooperation in Antarctica by prioritizing peaceful use and scientific research. The original twelve signatory countries—Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have since been joined by additional nations, bringing the total to 57 signatories. These countries now operate approximately 80 scientific research stations across the continent [92].

As noted in Section 2, the GMP under the Stockholm Convention serves as a key tool for evaluating the convention’s effectiveness [93]. The GMP offers a harmonized organizational framework for the global collection of comparable data on POPs. In Antarctica, the GMP recommends long-term surveillance through initiatives such as the Humpback Whale Sentinel Programme, which focuses on core ecosystem media including ambient air and seawater [94,95]. The scope of air and water sampling could be further expanded by incorporating passive sampling networks. These Antarctic networks may be integrated with broader global efforts, such as the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) network and the Aquatic Global Passive Sampling programme, both of which monitor POPs worldwide [53].

Over the past seven decades, global chemical production has surged to meet growing industrial and societal needs, paralleled by increasing concern over newly emerging persistent chemicals that remain largely unregulated [53,96]. Research indicates that POPs are present in remote areas of Antarctica, even in regions devoid of permanent human activity aside from scientific research [97]. Remarkably, synthetic organic pollutants, including pesticides, have been detected in Antarctic wildlife tissues since the 1960s, despite these substances never being produced or applied in the region [96]. These pollutants present significant ecological and human health risks due to their persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulative potential, and ability to undergo long-range environmental transport.

Despite these risks, approximately only thirty-five individual chemicals or chemical groups have been formally listed or proposed for regulation under the Stockholm Convention on POPs [68,98]. Furthermore, increased tourism, fishing, and scientific activity have contributed to localized contamination in Antarctica [91]. This rise in human presence, combined with the long-range atmospheric and oceanic transport of pollutants, poses an ongoing challenge to preserving the environmental integrity of the Antarctic region, despite existing protection measures [96].

Overfishing, pollution, and alien species represent important current threats that Antarctic marine ecosystems face [99]. Common anthropogenic sources of contamination include petrochemicals from fuel spills, disposal of chemicals from sewage systems, and persistent contaminants from building decay and fuel combustion [100,101]. In terms of pollution, pollutants like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been frequently detected in Antarctic biota [97]. These are described as anthropogenic chemicals with an extended use over several decades that can be found around the world due to their persistence and high production level [97]. PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are two of the most important classes of POPs, since they pose major threats to biota due to their proven carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects [102].

PCBs and PBDEs tend to accumulate in the food web and have negative consequences on ecosystems [97]. Currently, PCBs and other semi-volatile chlorine substances are banned under the Stockholm Convention, and two of the three majors commercial PBDE mixtures were banned globally [97]. PBDEs are flame retardant pollutants and their presence in Antarctic environments is attributed to research stations and LRAT [52,103]. Due to their toxicity and persistence, in 2013, PBDEs were added to Annex B of the Stockholm Convention, although research is still lacking on their source and distribution in Antarctic ecosystems [104]. Inside research stations, there is an abundance of insulation polyurethane foams, flame-retardant plastics, and electronics because dry weather conditions constitute a possible fire hazard [52]. Prolonged exposure to these chemicals can have consequences on thyroid and liver functions while also causing neurodevelopmental and estrogen disorders [103]. In addition to these flame-retardant pollutants, HBCD, a widely used additive brominated flame retardant that can be found in constructions and in back coating textiles, has caused growing concern due to the lack of research and its intense use [105]. Despite being reported in the Arctic, compared to PBDEs, it has received far less attention when it comes to its environmental distribution in polar regions [105].

PCBs and organic pollutants like dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) are known to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in the food chain at high levels [99]. Specifically, DDT has accumulated over the decades in Antarctic glaciers through LRAT, likely being the reason that this pollutant can be found in coastal marine habitats [94]. Residues of DDT and PCBs have been detected in Antarctic snow since the 1970s and, in the case of DDT, their presence is widespread in Antarctic organisms [99,103]. Data collected around the Antarctic Peninsula on PCBs and DDT in some species of icefish shows an increasing concentration since the 1990s, but POPs like HCB have shown stable or decreasing trends [45]. Other contaminants like PFAS have been registered in low concentrations in the Antarctic food web, where higher concentrations have been found in the liver of migratory birds [46]. In the case of PAHs, there have been reports of bioaccumulation in many marine organisms located in contaminated sites, although it seems like their concentration does not increase along food webs [96]. It is also important to stress that PAHs are organic compounds generated in the combustion of organic matter and can also be released to the environment through oil spills and sewage effluents [106]. Contamination by PAHs is due to local anthropogenic activities and is significantly higher in scientific stations [96].

The two major environmental concerns—displacement of local wildlife and emissions of pollutants into marine and terrestrial ecosystems—were encountered when research stations were established in coastal, ice-free ground [99]. These environmental risks can happen when facilities are being constructed as well as during and after their lifespan [99]. At these stages, pollution depends on the duration and presence of a station and factors like sources of electrical power, waste management practices, and the capacity of the local environment to remove contaminants [99]. Moreover, contamination in stations can greatly vary due to differences in management practices, station sizes, and the extent of the activities carried out in them [101]. An example of this can be seen in how Antarctic stations treat their sewage, as it ranges from simple maceration to tertiary treatment [101].

When it comes to waste, facilities with inadequate practices to treat wastewater at research stations and settlements could result in untreated wastewater being released to coastal environments, which poses a risk as a local contamination source of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) [46]. Guidelines on how to deal with waste have been established by the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, where all waste must be removed from Antarctica [99]. Burning in the open is prohibited, and nations must clean waste disposal sites [99].

However, this obligation does not apply to sewage, and it has been found that contaminants continue to be released into marine environment because of scientific activities, current or past waste management, and accidental spills [99]. Until the 1980s, it was a common practice to dump waste from research stations locally, where things like building materials, laboratory chemicals, sewage, fuel drums, and food waste were commonly disposed of [99]. For instance, in the 1970s, waste from McMurdo Station was routinely disposed of along the eastern shore of Winter Quarters Bay [103]. In response, the U.S. National Science Foundation launched a cleanup and mitigation program in 1988, which transformed the bay into one of the most extensively studied marine ecosystems in Antarctica. Despite these efforts, research indicates that the level of contamination in Winter Quarters Bay rivals that of some of the most polluted marine environments globally [100,103]. The consequences of this past waste dumping activity can still be seen in research stations where heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and POPs are detectable despite all the time that has passed [99]. Sewage and raw human waste from research stations have become major sources of PPCP pollution in Antarctic coastal environments [46]. Even though dumping stopped in the mid-1980s and wastewater treatment started in 2003, pollution levels remain high, and some contaminants are expected to remain for many years [99].

Apart from POPs, emerging organic contaminants (EOCs) have been found in the polar regions [46]. EOCs are contaminants that show the potential to pose a risk to humans and the environment but have not been subjected to international regulations yet [46]. Some examples of EOCs are alternative brominated flame retardants (BFRs), PPCPs, and UV filters (UV-Fs). UV-Fs can be found worldwide due to their increased use and the wide range of products that contain them [107]. They have the potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify, and studies have shown their adverse effects on the reproduction and development of fishes and rodents [107]. EOCs can be carried to the polar regions by oceanic currents and the atmosphere, and they have been found in various environmental matrices and organisms in the Arctic and Antarctica [46]. However, their transportation pathways to both polar regions are not that well understood and there needs to be more research in the future to understand and assess their risks [46]. The monitoring of EOCs must delve deeper into their properties like bioaccumulation, particle deposition, and air-water/snow exchange influx to understand their environmental fates and health impact [46].

Even to date, most of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are still minimally affected by human activities, and the presence of persistent contaminants is mainly due to long-range transport [96]. Contamination in snow, water, soil, and sediment are reported to be the lowest in the world, and the presence of POPs in Antarctica, when compared to the rest of the planet, is substantially inferior thanks to international efforts to protect the region [45,96]. In this regard, there have been improvements in environmental practices since the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty in 1998 was implemented [99]. Originally signed in Madrid in 1991, its creation designates Antarctica as an area for peace and science where the exploitation of resources is prohibited and all activities are regulated [45,49]. The implementation of this regulation meant an improvement in the waste management systems and practices to control pollution, reducing future contamination and raising the environmental standards across the Antarctic Treaty area [99].

However, previous pollution remains, mainly due to how the protocol is interpreted by the nations that adhere to it and operate in the region [99]. In fact, the treaty relies on each member and their willingness to comply with it; there is no enforcement or independent control in most of the treaty system [99]. Henceforth, effective monitoring of POPs and EOCs will require greater international cooperation. Chemical monitoring is a basic requirement of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and it has been recommended that there should be an international open accessible pollution monitoring and data sharing system for Antarctica and the Arctic [46,98,103]. Protection of the polar regions requires raising political and public awareness, and it should be a collaborative work between global scientific and policy-making communities as well as nations involved in the polar regions [98].

5. Food Security, Sovereignty and Resilience in the Polar Regions

The preceding sections highlighted the danger of these POPs in polar regions when they are not well monitored, as they can equally have disastrous consequences in other parts of the globe. There are calls to ensure that food security is enhanced by paying more attention to traditional and local foods that are culturally acceptable [3]. Ensuring the safety of these traditional foods will depend on being able to maintain their quality and health attributes.

The prevalent issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a global phenomenon is of particular interest, and it considers the natural phenomenon in which bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa adapt to antivirals, antibiotics, and antifungals (antimicrobial agents) at previously lethal concentrations [108]. Antibiotic resistance has been identified as a major challenge for humanity in this century, and contaminants such as POPs can induce resistance [109].

Persistent and emerging organic pollutants synergistically induce antibiotic resistance, as observed in antibiotic production wastewater [104]. This makes it tougher to treat infections and increases the risk of diseases spreading, severe illness, and even death [110,111].

The recent scientific literature increasingly reports the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) phenomena linked to plastic pollution in polar regions [112,113,114]. For example, multidrug-resistant bacterial strains exhibiting resistance to tetracycline and enrofloxacin have been identified in sediment samples from the Svalbard fjords [115,116], indicating that antibiotic residues can persist in the environment through adsorption onto marine sediments. Comparable observations have been made in sediments from Kongsfjorden and Krossfjorden, where bacterial strains resistant to ceftazidime, trimethoprim, and sulphamethizole—primarily from the phyla Proteobacteria and Firmicutes—have been reported [117]. Additionally, the presence of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas strains resistant to tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and cefotaxime has also been documented [118].

Even though POPs are considered a major source of environmental contamination, the inputs of industrial antimicrobial agents into our environments are the least studied [119]. Henceforth, more research will be required to ameliorate economic losses and advance the ‘One Health’ concept, which recognizes the interconnection between the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems.

Food is known to be essential for nourishing human life, as it provides nutrients for our growth, health, and activity [120]. Therefore, having access to safe food is directly linked to the right to life, which is one of the fundamental rights intrinsically referred to as Human Rights, granted to everyone [121]. A first reference to Human Rights can be found in article 55 of the UN Charter that was issued in 1945, where the conditions of stability and well-being are achievable through the universal respect for and observance of human rights [122]. Moreover, the protection of the vital core of all human lives can also be found in the 1994 UN Development Report, which introduced the concept of Human Security, intended as the sustained protection of individuals and communities [123].

When the centrality of food is considered in sustaining human life, its safety and secure access to food need to be guaranteed. Therefore, the concept of food security was introduced by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in 1996 [3]. It revolves around having access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets the dietary needs and food preferences of all human beings [3]. Moreover, the same concept is also contained in the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) in regard to Indigenous people, stating their rights to the resources and subsistence activities [124]. It can be argued that the right to life is a part of Human Rights, which everyone is entitled to, and therefore should be protected for all communities and individuals, according to the Human Security definition [121]. Being able to access sufficient, safe, and nutritious food is also a right that must be protected for all human beings [125]. Therefore, it can be argued that access to food has to be considered one of the pillars in order to consolidate the conditions for achieving the protection of Human Rights. In order to reach this status, the safety and security of food (and access to it) need to be protected.

Scientific research on value addition to these foods will help local economies when supported by governmental initiatives. As said, food is fundamental for human life since it nourishes the right to life of each individual [120]. As a consequence of this, access to food can be considered part of the Human Rights paradigm. In addition, the condition of human security, according to which every community and individual needs to be protected, cannot be achieved without the fulfillment of food security [3]. A useful concept that needs to be recalled is the one of food sovereignty, intended as the right of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own policies in matters such as agriculture, labor, fishing, food and land [126].

In the specific context of the Arctic, characterized by a short growing season, a limited food chain, a low biodiversity, a long compensation to disturbances, and a high dependency on the effects of climate change, the protection of the traditional food is fundamental and requires stronger efforts and actions compared to the rest of the world [127]. Therefore, it can be claimed that food sovereignty is key to ensuring food security in the Arctic [3]. On the other hand, the shift away from the local and traditional food in the Arctic has been linked to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease in many Arctic communities [73].

In the case of expanded economic development in the Arctic, there will be increased emissions or the creation of new sources of Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern (CEACs). The planned northward growth of agriculture, aquaculture, and shipping activities may lead to higher emissions of CEACs and pesticides into northern waters, areas where these substances were not previously present, as illustrated in Figure 1 [128].

Aquatic food webs in European alpine regions could be impacted by increased concentrations of organochlorine (OC) pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as glaciers continue to melt [129]. Similarly, glacier meltwater was a source of POPs in the marine food webs of Greenland fjords [130]. These are issues of serious concern for the food safety of Arctic Indigenous people, who often have the highest levels of contaminant exposures and experience high risks of food insecurity, amplified by the effects of climate change [131].

As a result of the increasing effect of climate change, the growing tourism industry, the extensive extraction activities, and the development of infrastructure for communications and transport are posing threats to the food security of the Arctic [132]. It is not only the disturbances, seen as the disruption of normal ecological function, made by these sectors that are affecting the environment and its food chain and production but the pollutants and contaminants produced by these sectors are also turning the traditional food into an unsafe source of nutrients, posing a threat to the local communities living in the Arctic and Antarctic [10,133]. Additionally, the local and traditional source of nutrients are being replaced by imported food [3]. This substitution is affecting the sociological meaning of the traditional diet of the Indigenous communities of the Arctic, disrupting their cultural identities. It is relevant to note, in fact, that the traditional food of the Indigenous population of the Arctic plays a social and spiritual dimension which reinforces their relationship of reciprocity with the land, associated with their well-being [134].

Above all, the imported food in the Arctic region is not accessible for everyone, both from a quantity and quality perspective [135]. Moreover, market-based food follows market-based prices, and is often even higher in the Arctic considering the cost of transportation faced due to the remoteness of the area, making it unaffordable for everyone [135].

As a consequence of this, recalling the FAO definition of food security, it can be argued that the access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food is undermined in its pillars in the Arctic [3]. A combination of climate change and increasing pollution is leading the traditional local food to be scarcer and less nutritious or even less safe to consume for the Arctic’s inhabitants [135]. Moreover, the market-based solutions are not as good for everyone as the food being replaced [135]. Specifically, food security is based on four pillars–food availability, accessibility, utilization, and the stability of the food systems; all these components are being eroded in the Arctic [3]. Therefore, it can be stated that the circumstances presented here constitute a threat to the human and food security of the Arctic population, undermining their food sovereignty and their capability to freely choose the best food for them [125]. In order to cope with these threats, there must be efforts to adapt to such changes through resilient measures.

Resilience has been defined as the capacity to and process of successfully adapting to challenging situations by being flexible and making adjustment to internal and external demands [136]. The ecosystems of polar regions are subjected to various factors such as new infrastructure, tourism, and changing land use, leading to significant disturbances [137]. These disturbances differ in the Arctic and Antarctic regions; hence, their approaches to resilience will also be different. As a consequence of this diversification, a better understanding of resilience in the polar ecosystems will be necessary [138]. In the Antarctic, tourism, shipping, fishing industry, trade routes, currents, and wind transport are the main vectors for disturbances, while invasive species are a major cause of disturbance [139].

Figure 2 illustrates the locations of human activities alongside various potential tipping point elements in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. These elements could be impacted by species redistribution, sea ice melt, ocean acidification, and pollution [140].

Despite the relatively limited human activity in Antarctica, the release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from thawing permafrost may have a substantial impact on the Antarctic environment. For instance, Potapowicz et al. (2019) and Szopińska et al. (2022) documented rising PAH concentrations in freshwater within permafrost catchments during the austral summer, comparing seasonal variations between glaciated and non-glaciated catchments on King George Island, Antarctica [141,142]. Their findings indicate that PAHs were primarily linked to the operations of research stations, with comparatively minor contributions from long-range atmospheric transport originating in South America [141,142]. Furthermore, climate-related stressors have been observed to diminish the resilience of Antarctic organisms and ecosystems, thereby elevating the potential biological impacts of anthropogenic contaminants, particularly in coastal regions subject to human influence [96].

The human rights, food security, and sovereignty of these communities will be better promoted when their choice of food is better protected and free from Persistent Organic Pollutants.

6. Concluding Remarks

The ongoing threat to traditional foods in the polar regions is due to a mix of challenges that include industrial development and exploitation in the Arctic and the Antarctic, the menace of global warming, and global POPs. It is worth noting that the availability of traditional foods in the regions is becoming scarcer and less safe. These foods are often substituted with market-based alternatives, i.e., imported foods which are often high in sugar and fat and less nutritious. Traditional foods that are nutritious and safe present better options. Food also plays a socio-cultural role, which reinforces the need for food sovereignty to be guaranteed in these communities. In the future, more insights on these threats can be gained from participatory research that involves the local communities. We also advocate for more practical research on resilient measures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions to cope with the threats from POPs on food safety. Industrial activities in the polar regions need to involve environmental impact assessments with meaningful engagement with these communities.

Given that POPs are a subset of synthetic chemicals that share the four risk criteria, i.e., persistence, mobility in the environment, toxicity, and ability to bioaccumulate calls for concerted efforts, the threats posed by these chemicals to the food safety of traditional foods in the polar regions are worrisome. In this paper, we reviewed the current scenarios in both the Arctic and Antarctic, highlight the efforts made to monitor these pollutants and offering some suggestions. It was observed that few studies have investigated the presence of POPs in Antarctica. This trend can be justified by prohibitive environmental conditions, the scant numbers of facilities that allow sampling and temporary dwellings for humans, and the huge amount of funds required [48]. This is a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed as a priority in the future by engaging in more monitoring plans that are harmonized when evidence from POPs in Arctic and Antarctic polar areas are collected. As also suggested in the work of Mangano and colleagues, there is a need to consider detection limits and how sensitive the applied instruments are, especially when comparisons of temporal trends are considered [48]. The accumulation POPs in both abiotic and biotic matrices should follow integrated approaches when accumulation and biomagnification studies of traditional foods are considered.