The damaging consequences of chemical toxicity are “greater than is generally appreciated”, according to a new report that drew on peer-reviewed studies and more than 50 interviews with scientists, start-ups and NGOs.
Public health and toxic chemical pollution – including from food contact materials and pesticides – are “deeply intertwined with toxicity impacting human health through conditions like cancer, obesity, dementia, infertility, and heart and respiratory problems, as well as causing potential damage to the environment and ecology”, the authors warned.
The report, titled ‘The invisible Tsunami’ and produced by Deep Science Ventures, outlines the full spectrum of damages caused by toxic chemicals, highlighting the “outdated” regulatory frameworks and testing methods, as well as “insufficient” monitoring and a lack of investment in safer alternatives.
“While it is difficult to objectively compare two all encompassing and complex phenomena, toxicity appears to be a threat to the thriving of humans and nature of a similar order as climate change,” the authors wrote. “However, with toxicity we are still in the 1990s in terms of public awareness and action, but we’re in 2025 in terms of consequences.”
The researchers reported that over 3,600 synthetic chemicals from food contact materials are found within human bodies globally, while PFAS have “contaminated the entire world, with levels in rainwater often exceeding safe drinking water limits”.
The authors also warned that “the impact of pesticide use on cancer incidence may rival that of smoking and is linked to leukaemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, bladder, colon, and liver cancer”.
Despite widespread attempts to address the ingestion of harmful chemicals in food through regulation, conventional frameworks – based on ‘safe’ exposure limits – “are frequently inadequate” in protecting against chronic, low-level exposure which an emerging scientific evidence suggests causes harm to human health, DSV’s experts wrote.
DSV called for stricter regulatory standards, improved testing methodologies and the promotion of responsible agricultural practices. There is for example much hope in regenerative approaches to farming that could reduce reliance on chemical inputs.
Regarding the development of safer alternatives, the major barrier is cost.
Consumers and caterers face a cost premium when choosing PFAS-free non-stick cookware, for example. Innovative and novel approaches to pest control show promise but are far pricier than the widely-used mainstream and controversial options like neonicotinoids.
Harry Macpherson, who co-authored the report, said the “real opportunity lies in modernising regulations, investing in R&D for safer chemicals, and increasing the knowledge and understanding of consumers”.
