Spacer

 

Google Translate

IPEN

A Toxics-Free Future

Donate

POPs

IPEN Press Release

PFHXs, Used as a Substitute for Banned PFOS and PFOA, Recommended for Global Ban

(Rome, Italy) An U.N. expert committee decided unanimously to recommend a complete global elimination for another toxic fluorinated “forever chemical.” Fluorinated chemicals are widespread pollutants threatening drinking water sources, public health and the occupational health of firefighters. They do not break down in the environment and accumulate in the bodies of wildlife and people. They are used in a wide variety of products, including firefighting foam, waterproofing of textiles, and food packaging, as well as other industrial and consumer applications. 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have received significant public and media attention in the US, EU, and Australia, in part due to their toxicity, extreme persistence, and documented water pollution. However, information about PFAS in other parts of the world is largely lacking and the information which is available is difficult to access.

Over the past few months, IPEN Participating Organizations in twelve Middle Eastern and Asian countries conducted surveys to explore possible PFAS uses and pollution sources, scientific studies and government actions, including under the Stockholm Convention. Countries covered include: Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam.

This report gives an overview of the current situation of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) in Jordan and describes the national pesticide registration and control policy framework, the pesticides in use in Jordan and general data on volume, threats of pesticide use to public heatlh, and more. It concludes with the recommendations that Jordan needs to:

National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) carried out this project in Uganda and it involved, among other things, a desk study and field work. The desk study revealed various aspects regarding the use of DDT in the country including where it was used, when it was used and why it was used. The field work involved moving from the office to visit different stakeholders to gather information on DDT and its use in Uganda. Data was collected from Kampala-based institutions, including:

Сколько мусоросжигателей, инсинераторных установок или крематоров находится в вашем городе или регионе? Что о них известно и какую опасность таят в себе эти технологии?

The overall objective of this project was to reveal the ongoing proliferation of DDT pollution in manufacturing and use and cite important non-chemical alternatives to increase pressure for acting on this ongoing use in Uganda, one of the countries that have registered an acceptable purpose for DDT use within the Stockholm Convention.

Pages