Protecting Health, Saving Billions: OECD Makes the Economic Case for Safer Chemical Policies

An OECD study covering over 116,000 people across 28 countries reveals that harmful chemical exposure causes serious health problems and substantial economic losses, particularly through cancer, kidney disease and childhood illnesses. The report urges governments to strengthen chemical safety regulations, highlighting that preventing diseases can save money, improve quality of life and protect public health.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), through its international research initiative, Surveys on Willingness-to-pay to Avoid Negative Chemicals-related Health Effects (SWACHE), has revealed the enormous economic and human costs of exposure to harmful chemicals. The research, involving environmental economists, public health specialists and chemical safety experts, provides new evidence on how chemical pollution affects people's health and finances. Published in 2026, the report draws on 96 surveys conducted across 28 countries between 2022 and 2025, covering more than 116,000 respondents. It examines how much people are willing to pay to avoid serious illnesses linked to chemical exposure and explains why governments should consider these costs when introducing environmental regulations.

The Hidden Price of Chemical Pollution

The study highlights that harmful chemicals can cause serious health problems, including cancer, kidney disease, asthma, infertility and complications during pregnancy. However, the true cost of these illnesses goes far beyond hospital bills and lost income. Patients and their families may experience emotional suffering, reduced quality of life, long-term medical treatment and difficulties carrying out everyday activities.

According to the OECD, traditional economic assessments often overlook these personal and social consequences. As a result, the benefits of stricter chemical regulations may appear smaller than they actually are.

To address this problem, researchers asked people how much they would be willing to pay to reduce their chances of developing different illnesses. Their responses helped calculate the economic value of preventing one statistical case of each disease.

The findings provide governments with a practical way to compare the costs of controlling dangerous chemicals with the benefits of protecting public health.

From Cancer to Childhood Illness: What the Numbers Reveal

The research found that preventing very low birth weight carried the highest economic value, estimated at approximately USD 1.27 million per statistical case. Babies born weighing less than 1,500 grams can face serious developmental problems, long-term disabilities and other health complications.

Preventing chronic kidney disease was valued at USD 927,000, followed by non-fatal cancer at USD 883,000. These high figures reflect the lasting physical, emotional and financial difficulties associated with such conditions.

The study also revealed considerable concern about reproductive and children's health. Preventing miscarriage was valued at USD 448,000, while preventing childhood asthma was valued at USD 438,000, compared with USD 285,000 for adult asthma.

Other estimates included USD 186,000 for underactive thyroid, USD 96,000 for infertility and USD 53,000 for hypertension. Preventing skin sensitisation was valued at approximately USD 5,000.

Researchers also examined the effects of chemical exposure on children's intelligence. Respondents were willing to pay an average of USD 667 annually over five years to prevent the loss of one IQ point in children.

These figures do not represent compensation paid to individual patients. Instead, they show the estimated economic value people place on reducing the risk of illness across a population. The monetary estimates are expressed in comparable 2023 US dollars adjusted for purchasing power.

Why Protecting Health Makes Economic Sense

The OECD argues that these findings could significantly improve environmental policymaking by helping governments measure the benefits of chemical restrictions more accurately.

For example, an illustrative assessment involving France showed that preventing 1,000 miscarriages annually over four years could generate approximately EUR 858 million in discounted economic benefits.

Similarly, an assessment in the United Kingdom examined restrictions on persistent organic pollutants, chemicals that remain in the environment for long periods. It found that preventing approximately 83 to 119 disease cases could be sufficient to offset additional regulatory costs of £68 million.

The research also found that people's willingness to pay for better health protection varies according to income, education, personal experience and the seriousness of the disease. Parents often place greater value on protecting children from health risks.

To help countries that lack their own survey data, the OECD developed methods for adapting the findings to different national economies. Estimates are available for all 38 OECD member countries and South Africa, although researchers caution that transferring values between countries introduces uncertainty.

A Stronger Case for Safer Chemicals and Healthier Lives

Despite its findings, the report acknowledges several challenges. Some chemicals contribute to multiple diseases, making it difficult to calculate their combined economic impact without counting the same benefits twice.

The study also raises concerns about inequality. Lower-income communities may face greater exposure to harmful chemicals but have less money available to spend on reducing health risks. Their lower willingness to pay therefore does not necessarily mean that protecting their health is less important.

Researchers emphasise the need for further studies on vulnerable populations, overlapping illnesses and the long-term consequences of chemical exposure.

The OECD concludes that preventing chemical-related diseases should be recognised not only as a public health priority but also as an important economic investment. By accounting for suffering, disability and reduced quality of life alongside medical expenses, governments can make better-informed decisions about chemical safety.

The central message is clear: stronger chemical regulations can deliver substantial economic benefits while protecting families, improving quality of life and reducing the hidden burden of environmental pollution.