|
Hi Future Fit Asia community, |
You may think toxicity has nothing to do with your investment thesis. Think about it again. |
Ask most food and agriculture companies about toxicity and you are likely to get one of two answers: an embarassing silence, or a compliance statement about meeting regulatory standards. |
That is understandable. Toxicity is an uncomfortable subject. It forces difficult questions about supply chains, materials, workers, consumers, ecosystems—and ultimately, who bears the cost when something goes wrong. |
But for investors in particular, there is a bigger problem with ignoring it. Toxicity is not an investment vertical. It is a cross-cutting risk embedded in some of the biggest investment themes of our time. |
The WHO estimates that exposure to selected chemicals was associated with 2 million deaths and 53 million disability-adjusted life years in 2019—and stresses that the true burden is likely higher because data exist for only a fraction of chemical exposures. |
Exposure is not just something happening somewhere out in the environment. It can be measured in people. In Singapore, PFOS, PFOA and PFNA were detected in all 300 participants studied, and more than 96% of 12–19-year-olds had measurable concentrations of four legacy PFAS between 2017 and 2020 in the USA. PFAS is just one example of how chemical exposure sits directly within the systems that investors are already allocating capital toward, food, climate, water, health and the blue economy. |
So what happens when we put toxicity through the lens of the investment themes we already care about? |
|
|
|
1. Climate: the transition has a toxicity problem |
The climate transition is accelerating demand for new materials, chemicals, manufacturing processes and infrastructure. |
That creates enormous opportunity—but also new exposure pathways. |
And climate change can make existing chemical risks harder to manage. FAO notes, for example, that climate change can alter the occurrence and distribution of chemical hazards including heavy metals, pesticides, mycotoxins and algal biotoxins in food systems. |
A toxicity lens can reveal a deeper promise within familiar climate opportunities. Precision agriculture, for example, can help farmers use chemical inputs more sparingly reducing runoff and exposure. Biologicals offer a similar path: replacing harsher chemical inputs with nature-based alternatives that protect crops with a lighter footprint. |
It is not to say that climate investment creates toxicity, but that the transition does not happen in a chemically neutral world. Ignoring it does not eliminate the risk. It simply leaves it unpriced. |
|
|
|
2. Longevity: we are trying to add years while ignoring exposures accumulated over those years |
How do we live longer—and stay healthier for longer? Better nutrition. Better medicine. Better diagnostics. Better lifestyles. An expanding universe of supplements and interventions. |
But if longevity is about extending healthy years, what about the chemicals we are exposed to along the way? Many contaminants are persistent, can accumulate in the body, and may contribute to chronic health risks. Yet for many chemicals, the evidence base remains incomplete and the long-term health burden remains poorly characterized. |
That makes prevention itself an investable longevity strategy. Safer materials and chemical substitution—such as replacing PFAS in food packaging, phthalates in personal-care products and plastics, and bisphenols in food-contact materials—can become part of a broader strategy: helping people live longer, with more healthy years. |
|
|
