Toxic chemicals risks that companies need to address now

As scientists better understand the harms of industrial chemicals to nature and people’s health, lawsuits multiply and policies advance, while businesses face escalating, long-tail risks to bottom lines and reputations.

“We are seeing a lot more discussion of the need for better transparency on what chemicals are in products and the need for public data on their potential harms,” said Richard Wielechowski, a senior analyst at Planet Tracker in London.

The firm warns that 350,000 synthetic chemicals have been produced faster than they can be controlled, potentially triggering trillions of dollars in economic losses. “Forever chemicals” and plastics increasingly pose multiplying risks for businesses using or making them.

Despite federal backsliding on chemicals regulation in the U.S., regulations are advancing in numerous states and the EU. Fears about chemicals may cut across the political divide more than climate concerns do.

One potential tipping point for global action across industries and governments: In November, the United Nations will hold its first International Conference of the Global Framework on Chemicals in Geneva.

“Whether you’re an electronics, apparel or shampoo manufacturer, I see increasing alignment around getting better and more reliable information from your supply chain so you don’t get surprised,” said Bill Walsh, director of the Safer Chemistry Impact Fund in Los Angeles.

The financial case

Investors are watching how companies handle these risks. Hazardous chemicals disrupt shareholder value and consumer trust, according to the Investor Environmental Health Network, part of the nonprofit advocacy organization Clean Production Action.

The Investor Initiative on Hazardous Chemicals, a consortium of 75 firms with trillions of dollars under management, is urging chemical makers to disclose phase-out plans for persistent pollutants.

Policy snapshot

Global businesses will need to comply with an anticipated update in 2026 or 2027 by the European Commission to its sweeping Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) rules.

Gridlock in the U.S. leaves federal chemical regulations stalled as the Trump administration aggressively seeks to diminish the EPA. Nevertheless, the agency is supposed to tackle a backlog of chemical risk evaluations by 2027 under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which could lead to chemical belt-tightening by business.

As companies continue to pay for remediation and class-action lawsuits from chemicals banned decades ago, the following categories are emerging as the most acute business risks on the horizon:

‘Forever chemicals’

A major flashpoint: “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, popular for stain-proofing and waterproofing clothes, shoes and furniture. Linked to cancer and infertility, they are difficult to destroy.

As chemical giants including 3M and BASF are dropping PFAS, liabilities also loom for companies still using them, which may represent half the global economy.

Out of roughly 10,000 types of PFAS, only dozens are well studied. The compounds pollute more than 9,500 sites across the U.S., and 17,000 more in Europe.

Movement is building to eliminate the substances from consumer products, and the issue has gained traction in rural America and across party lines.

Maine and Minnesota are mulling sweeping PFAS bans. In 2026, Illinois and Vermont, followed by New Hampshire in 2027, will block PFAS in cosmetics, food packaging and cookware. About a dozen states, including California, already restrict PFAS in food packaging and other goods.

Plastics, plastic additives and microfibers

The 16,000 chemicals associated with plastics include hormone-disrupting phthalates and bisphenols, already banned in baby bottles and toys in the U.S. and Europe. However, substitutions are proving to have unanticipated consequences.

Lawsuits and tighter policies are expected around single-use plastic packaging and synthetic textiles as consumers learn about health hazards from microplastics.

“We need better ways for brands to test for and understand how packaging and microplastics can enter their products and how to get them out,” said Lindsay Dahl, author of “Cleaning House: The Fight to Rid our Homes of Toxic Chemicals,” and chief impact officer at vitamin maker Ritual.

Flame retardants

Fireproofing chemicals in furniture were supposed to save lives, but they’ve likely sparked countless cancers. From IKEA to Pottery Barn, dozens of brands no longer infuse couches with certain flame retardants. That’s partly the result of activism by safer chemistry pioneer Arlene Blum. The Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, California, which she co-founded and directs, is campaigning for the auto industry to cease using the same chemicals.

Antimicrobials

The watchdog’s latest target is less on the public’s radar, at least for now. Antimicrobial chemicals, which proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, appear in everything from hand soaps to cutting boards to pens.

Marketed as hygienic, these substances can cause health problems and weaken the immune system’s germ-fighting powers. The FDA banned antibacterials triclosan and triclocarbon in soaps in 2016, but Blum believes their alternatives remain problematic.

Legacy chemicals persist

Even products off the market for decades can spook insurers and investors. Despite longstanding regulations, asbestos, lead, PCE, methylene chloride, PCBs and DDT circulate in nature.

Epidemiologists are better able to connect substances with disease, and courts are more open to delayed claims of harm.

Failures to test for and disclose contaminants that slip into products can haunt companies later. A California bill is advancing to regulate heavy metals in vitamins.

The “Make America Healthy Again” movement is targeting artificial dyes and colorants in food and cosmetics. Safer alternatives are widely available, unlike with PFAS, where some companies are fighting to preserve existing formulations, according to Walsh.