FOREVER CHEMICALS ARE UNINSURABLE. HERE'S WHAT THAT MEANS FOR BUSINESS.

The following information was released by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

Every year, new lawsuits reveal the shocking scale of PFAS contamination. These common and long-lasting synthetic "forever" chemicals have been quietly entering our water systems, soil, and bodies long before we had the tools to detect them. Now, as the increasing burden of the liability of PFAS contamination becomes clear, the institutions designed to absorb that risk, insurance companies, are walking away. The insurance industry is unable to price and therefore insure against a pollutant whose damage is vast, delayed, and still unfolding.

This retreat exposes a market failure compounding on itself: without strong federal safeguards like the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the primary U.S. chemical safety law current under threat in Congress, to curb PFAS at the source, production will continue unchecked, contamination will deepen, and communities and industries alike will be left with a bill that no one is willing to underwrite.

Litigation is turning hidden risk into real, escalating costs

In the United States, since 1999, over 9,800 lawsuits have been filed against 357 companies alleging harm from exposure to forever chemicals, resulting in nearly $16 billion in settlements across industries, though the issue extends globally. Each settlement creates a new benchmark, raising the floor for the expected future liability. Just this month, Chemours agreed to spend more than $450 million in the first comprehensive federal enforcement settlement with a major PFAS manufacturer. For insurers doing the math, the numbers show that the magnitude of risk associated with PFAS cannot be insured away.

To understand why, we need to break down the PFAS problem. PFAS pose a major risk to public health: some common forms of PFAS harm the immune system and the reproductive system and increase the risk of certain cancers. A recent study found PFAS exposure in drinking water contributes to more than 6,800 cancer cases annually.

Pollution caused by these chemicals is also a market failure a cost imposed on society that never shows up on a company's balance sheet. The scope of the current PFAS pollution was not identified until decades after they began to be produced and used, which makes pricing the risk a challenge. The lawsuits being filed today largely reflect pollution from ten or more years ago. Because these chemicals take hundreds to thousands of years to break down in the environment, they have earned the nickname "forever chemicals". By the time the severity of the pollution was recognized, they were already showing up nearly everywhere. And as long as we keep producing and using them, the risks will only increase.

"The new asbestos": Insurance markets are breaking down under PFAS risk

The insurance industry's retreat from PFAS is a coordinated effort that is accelerating. Last year, the Insurance Services Office which sets standardized policy language across the industry formally endorsed broad PFAS exclusions, making coverage denial effectively standard practice. PFAS has been labeled the "new asbestos," referencing how asbestos claims alone drove nearly $100 billion in payouts and made dozens of firms bankrupt.

In response, an emerging reinsurance market has stepped in, insuring the insurers who are no longer willing to cover PFAS exposure. But this is a stopgap measure, not a solution. When the entire insurance industry walks away, risk doesn't just land on companies directly holding PFAS liability. Instead, it spreads. Insurance works by pooling risk across firms, meaning PFAS-related losses drive up premiums for everyone, even companies that have never touched the chemicals. The only way to bring those costs down is for more companies to exit PFAS use altogether, which is exactly what strong regulation makes possible.

Weakening the Toxic Substances Control Act multiplies these risks

Settlements like the Chemours one and previous actions like the DuPont vs NJ DEP case signal that regulators are serious about making polluters pay. However, they don't require companies to stop using or releasing PFAS. Financial liability is a necessary enabler of action, but it is not a mandate for change.

This is where TSCA becomes critical. Insurance and litigation are after-the-fact responses that deal with damage already done. TSCA, if implemented properly, manages the risk upstream by regulating which chemicals enter and stay on the market in the first place, with the ability to force companies to test, monitor or even switch to safer alternatives. Without that mandate, voluntary action is unreliable. Companies delay. And those with existing PFAS liability have every incentive to lobby against the very regulations that would expose them.

Today, this vital chemical safety law is under attack in Congress. Prior to 2016, PFAS entered the market with limited assessment of their full risks. At the same time, PFAS contamination created a classic market failure: companies and insurance providers couldn't accurately price long-term harm, and markets didn't correct it in time. TSCA was amended with bipartisan support in 2016, which raised the bar for safety and led to stronger restrictions for chemicals that get approved. Without strong upfront review, markets systematically underprice chemical risk and businesses pay later.

Maintaining a strong Toxic Substances Control Act is a market-stabilizing tool

The bottom line: more PFAS means more lawsuits, higher premiums, and greater financial risk for everyone, not just direct users. Weakening TSCA doesn't reduce that burden, it just defers it. For companies that want to get ahead of the next wave of litigation, the smartest move is to support sound rules that keep the next generation of PFAS out of their supply chains. The insurance market has already sent its warning. The question is whether businesses and policymakers are listening.