Upfront Investment vs. Long-Term Costs: Comparing U.S. and European Approaches to Chemical Safety

When discussing how certain chemicals have become so common in our soil, air, and water, people often ask, "How did things get this bad?" One reason is the difference in how countries handle chemical safety. In the United States, there is often a "shoot first, ask questions later" mindset regarding chemical regulation. When it comes to chemical and product regulation, the United States mainly follows a reactive approach under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This means many chemicals are allowed on the market with little initial testing, and actions are only taken after a chemical is proven harmful. And while that means fewer barriers to manufacturing, it comes with a different kind of cost.

For example, cleaning up PCE (a chemical used in dry cleaning and industry) can be extremely expensive. It can cost between $100,000 and $1 million per contaminated site, not including legal battles over who should pay for the cleanup. Recently, two types of PFAS (a chemical found in many products) has been declared hazardous, and cleanup could be even more costly. Because PFAS is so widespread, almost every industry is affected, and cleaning it from drinking water alone could cost billions of dollars. And that doesn’t consider the cost of the thousands of lawsuits against PFAS manufactures and users.

In contrast, Europe takes a more cautious approach. European regulations, like REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals), require businesses to prove a chemical's safety before using it, which involves rigorous testing. Fewer chemicals enter the system, so fewer chemicals need to be taken off the market later.

Here’s something to consider: if businesses in the U.S. had been required to prove PFAS was safe before it was widely used, the overall costs might have been far lower than the costs we now face to clean it up. Is it too late for the United States to take a similar approach?  Or have we committed ourselves to an ongoing cycle of allowing chemical usage, finding out whether they create human health and environmental harm, limiting their use, investigating the problem, and cleaning up. Share your thoughts on whether we could or should consider adopting a precautionary approach like Europe’s which would create regulatory barriers in the short term but might avoid costs in the long term.