{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0205706702057067, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007520460075204601, 'mean_word_length': 5.4324324324324325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Causes of the Scientific and Regulatory Gap in the Listing of New Persistent Organic Pollutants into the Stockholm Convention.

I 2015, the 11th meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC11) of the Stockholm Convention (SC) reviewed the potential listing of pentadecafluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts, and PFOArelated compounds in the SC. The POPRC confirmed that pentadecafluorooctanoic acid met the criteria of Annex D and agreed to prepare a draft risk profile pertaining to that chemical for the Annex E evaluation stage. This included consideration of issues related to the inclusion of PFOA-related compounds that potentially degrade to PFOA, and the inclusion of PFOA salts. The main reasons why the POPRC did not reach an agreement on PFOA-related compounds were (1) on the basis of currently available reports, data on PFOA-related compounds is insufficient; and (2) the academic description of PFOA-related compounds is too ambiguous to make global regulatory efforts. The disagreement relates to the uneven development of chemical industries, technology, and legislation between developing and developed countries. The SC started initially with 12 POPs; in 2016, the meeting of the Conference of the Parties resulted in the inclusion of 14 new POPs into the SC. During the POPRC review process, certain pollutants were discussed. For example, the inclusion of dicofol as well as pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters had both been challenged at the POP screening stage. The challenge to the former arises from the different interpretations of current scientific data, which are mainly from developed countries, and which are inconsistent with respect to its adverse effects. The argument against the latter is due to the fact that pentachlorophenol’s metabolite, pentachloroanisole, meets the criteria set out in Annex D, rather than pentachlorophenol. This means that its salt and esters, which are the source of pentachloroanisole in the environment, should be jointly considered. The decision on both chemicals was delayed by a year to gather new information before moving forward. The environmental risk assessment of short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) had been reviewed six times. Although the POPRC11 decided to adopt the draft risk profiles for this chemical, members and observers expressed their concerns about the paucity of research on the chemicals in question in developing countries, in addition to the comparability of monitoring data and the POPRC11’s approach to scientific information. Standard rules of procedure are required to facilitate the neutral discussion, on a case-by-case basis, of scientific information obtained from invited experts and from scientific publications. Similar scientific debates happened during the Annex E review of dicofol because the quality and extent of relevant data is questionable. This means further scientific research is required in developing countries, so the decision has been delayed until the next committee meeting in 2016. The scarcity and ambiguity of scientific data regarding potential POPs has led to inconclusive decision-making and unclear conclusions. It was noted that “dicofol had only been proposed for listing once developed countries had stopped using it.” Interestingly, there is also a timeline for phasing out PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds. The European Union has considered PFOA as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) under Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations since June 2013. Canada and the US have implemented a voluntary program between government and major companies in the industry alongside regulatory efforts. They have committed to eliminate PFOA and its precursors by 2015, which was the first year that PFOA was reviewed by POPRC. Conversely, China has become one of the major producers and consumers of PFOA. This phenomenon demonstrates the global geographical shift in the chemical industry toward developing countries, which occurs right after actions are implemented to phase chemicals out in developed countries. This can be explained by the divergent chemical management practices in different countries. Briefly, developed countries are advanced and emphasize risk assessment and management, while developing countries struggle with a simplified version of chemical management, which focuses on safe management. Furthermore, small-scale and scattered manufacturing centers in developing countries