• ECA, environmental chemical agent
• HCB, hexachlorobenzene
• HCH, hexachlorocyclohexane
• NIP, national implementation plan
• PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
• PBB, polybrominated biphenyl
• PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl
• PCDD, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
• PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzofuran
• POP, persistent organic pollutant

• PCB, persistent organic pollutant
• pesticide

In the forthcoming months many scientific, technical, and political energies will be devoted throughout the world to design specific plans to implement the Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).^1–,⁴ Drawn under the leadership of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)—with significant contributions from non-governmental organisations, trade unions, and private companies—it has been saluted as “a global public health treaty”, one that will “protect public health both from DDT and malaria”, “the first global agreement ever to seek to ban an entire class of chemicals because of their direct effects on human health”.^3,4

After four years of work, in December 2000 this “international legally binding instrument” was finalised. In May 2001 delegates from over one hundred countries (including the United States, Canada, and all members of the European Union) signed the accord in Stockholm. It is expected to be put into effect by 2004, after 50 nations have ratified it (so far, eight countries have done so).¹ Meanwhile, governments can facilitate voluntary implementation of the agreement prior to its entry into force.

Implementation of the treaty at all population levels (municipal, regional, continental) constitutes a fantastic opportunity to foster changes in environmental, occupational, public health, and food policies. But the challenges are immense.