A new Chemosphere review warns that pulp, paper, and textile industries are major PFAS polluters, posing serious challenges and underscoring the urgent need for innovation beyond PFAS reliance
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are widely known as “forever chemicals.” Their unique resistance to heat, oil, and water made them a mainstay in packaging, textiles, and countless consumer products. But these same properties—once celebrated for their utility—now underpin a global crisis. PFAS do not break down easily, they bioaccumulate in living organisms, and they are increasingly linked to serious health effects, including cancers, developmental problems, and immune system disruption.
A new review in Chemosphere highlights the scale of the challenge, focusing on the pulp, paper, and textile industries. These sectors contribute significantly to PFAS contamination, both directly through wastewater discharges and indirectly through PFAS-containing end products that persist in landfills or recycling streams. The review warns that while the performance benefits of PFAS have long driven innovation, the future will be shaped by how quickly industries transition away from them.
The rising financial burden
The economics of PFAS are sobering. Wastewater treatment costs in the United States alone are projected to exceed USD 3 billion annually as utilities attempt to manage contamination. Healthcare expenses related to PFAS-linked illnesses surpass USD 62 billion per year, covering conditions ranging from metabolic disorders to cancer. Attempting comprehensive remediation is effectively out of reach—researchers estimate that removing PFAS contamination globally would cost more than the world’s USD 106 trillion GDP.
Already, the financial risks are visible in litigation. In one notable case, a paper mill agreed to pay USD 11.9 million to settle claims of PFAS pollution dating back over a decade. Similar lawsuits are proliferating, with industries across the supply chain—from chemical manufacturers to consumer goods companies—being held accountable for contamination.
For pulp, paper, and textiles, the financial implications extend beyond settlements. Products containing PFAS are increasingly at risk of losing sustainability certifications, cutting off access to premium markets. In some cases, sales growth has already fallen by 70% when eco-labels are revoked.
Policy momentum: from local bans to global action
While the United States has introduced enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water, federal action remains limited, covering only six individual compounds. This limited scope leaves thousands of PFAS unregulated. In response, over a dozen U.S. states have taken matters into their own hands, introducing bans on PFAS in food packaging, textiles, and personal care products. Minnesota and Maine, for example, are moving toward broad restrictions across nearly all consumer goods where PFAS are deemed non-essential.
Globally, the European Union is advancing a class-based regulatory strategy that could prohibit around 10,000 PFAS, far surpassing the U.S. approach. Canada and Japan are also adopting broader frameworks, while the Stockholm Convention continues to expand international restrictions. This divergence in regulatory ambition creates both challenges and opportunities for companies operating internationally. Those aligned with stricter frameworks will be better positioned to maintain compliance, protect market access, and anticipate future shifts.
Beyond compliance: why prevention is strategic
For industry, the PFAS challenge is not merely a compliance issue—it is a test of resilience and foresight. In the pulp and paper industry, PFAS have been widely used as greaseproofing agents in food packaging. In textiles, they deliver stain resistance, water repellency, and durability. Yet viable alternatives already exist, from bio-based coatings for packaging to advanced, durable water repellents for fabrics.
The case for transition is not just ethical or environmental—it is economic. Prevention avoids the spiralling costs of remediation and litigation, secures access to sustainability-driven markets, and protects reputational capital in an era of heightened consumer scrutiny. Importantly, the loss of eco-certifications has already translated into billions in lost revenue for companies slow to adapt. Conversely, firms that invest in safer alternatives early are more likely to capture new market opportunities and maintain long-term competitiveness.
A historical lesson: the dioxin precedent
The pulp and paper industry has faced a similar reckoning before. In the 1980s, dioxins—unintended byproducts of chlorine bleaching—were discovered in mill effluents and downstream fish populations. Though little understood at first, their carcinogenicity and persistence triggered sweeping regulatory reforms. Within a decade, companies were compelled to transition to chlorine-free bleaching processes, incurring an estimated annual compliance cost of USD 260 million. The result was a dramatic reduction in dioxin releases and a restoration of public trust.
The lesson is clear: once the risks of a persistent pollutant are established, regulation and litigation follow quickly, often at a scale that dwarfs the cost of proactive adaptation. PFAS now stand at that same inflection point.
The global stakes
The consequences of PFAS extend beyond corporate balance sheets. Recent studies reveal PFAS contamination in drinking water supplies serving nearly 200 million Americans. They are present in soils, crops, freshwater fish, and even in the blood of the vast majority of the global population. The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic, adding urgency to the regulatory push.
Addressing PFAS is therefore not only about mitigating financial risks for companies—it is about safeguarding ecosystems and public health on a generational scale. The choices made by the pulp, paper, and textile industries today will have consequences for decades to come.
A leadership moment
The PFAS crisis presents industries with two paths. One is to wait for regulation, litigation, and consumer backlash to force change—an approach that risks escalating costs and eroded trust. The other is to lead the transition by phasing out PFAS, investing in innovation, and collaborating with policymakers and stakeholders to build a safer, more sustainable future.
Prevention will always be cheaper and more effective than remediation. Companies that recognise this now will not only reduce risk but also help shape a new standard of corporate responsibility—one that places health, environment, and long-term profitability on equal footing.
PFAS may be “forever chemicals,” but their role in industry does not have to be permanent. The opportunity—and the obligation—to end their legacy lies in the hands of today’s leaders.
