The use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in clothing may soon become a thing of the past. This month, several states, including California and New York, have implemented bans on these so-called “forever chemicals.”
These states are not alone—at least 14 others have introduced measures to eliminate PFAS from apparel, with more likely to follow suit. Adding to this momentum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a new rule. It mandates a review and risk assessment before companies can manufacture or process 329 PFAS chemicals that have not been used in recent years.
But how concerned should you be about PFAS in clothing? Should you purge your wardrobe? Here’s what a toxicologist has to say.
PFAS are synthetic chemicals that have been in use since the 1940s, according to the EPA. They are known for their durability and resistance to heat, water, and oil, which is why they have been utilized in a wide range of products.
A major concern with PFAS is their slow degradation rate, allowing them to accumulate in people, animals, and the environment over time. The EPA reports that PFAS are present in everyday items such as drinking water, soil, food, household products, and dust.
Studies continue to uncover the effects of PFAS on human health. These chemicals have been linked to various health issues, including decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, increased risks of certain cancers, immune system suppression, and obesity, per the EPA.
“These ‘forever chemicals’ have garnered attention for their association with adverse health outcomes,” notes Jamie Alan, PhD, an associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University.
Certain clothing items are more likely to contain PFAS, particularly those designed to be water- and stain-resistant. Outdoor jackets are among the most common offenders, according to the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN).
A 2022 scorecard by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlighted brands based on their use of PFAS. Companies such as Macy’s, Nordstrom, Costco, REI, and Wolverine Worldwide scored poorly, while Levi Strauss & Co. earned top marks for removing PFAS from its supply chain. Among outdoor brands, Patagonia was noted as being the least likely to incorporate PFAS into its products.
L.L. Bean, Columbia Sportswear, and Patagonia have since announced that new items are free of intentionally-added PFAS, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
If you own a snow or rain jacket that might contain PFAS, you don’t necessarily need to discard it. Replacing such items can be costly and may contribute to environmental waste. Moreover, Jamie Alan emphasizes that ingesting PFAS through food poses a greater health risk compared to wearing it on your skin.
That said, awareness of your overall PFAS exposure is crucial. Since these chemicals are pervasive in the environment, limiting your exposure in other areas can help reduce potential health risks.
As bans and regulations surrounding PFAS continue to evolve, consumers are encouraged to stay informed and make conscious choices about the products they use.
Related Topics
- Oliviero Toscani, Iconic Benetton Photographer, Dies at 82
- Sustainable Fashion Brand Turns Away Fast Fashion Donations for LA Fire Victims
- Cameron Smith’s LIV Golf Team Secures Sponsorship with Luxury Brand Greyson Clothiers
