From non-stick pans and food packaging to cosmetics and the clothes we wear every day, concern about the chemicals that surround us has become increasingly mainstream in recent months.
The “low-tox” movement has prompted consumers to scrutinise everything from skincare ingredients to household cleaning products and, increasingly, the garments they are wearing. That scrutiny intensified earlier this year when a formal investigation was launched in the US into whether Lululemon products contained so-called “forever chemicals”.
In April 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a probe to discover whether clothes from one of the world’s most popular athleisure brands contain PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – a group of synthetic chemicals so resistant to breaking down that scientists have given them that moniker.
The company responded swiftly, saying it stopped using PFAS more than two years ago, but the damage had already been done. It got enough people talking and wondering about a topic that scientists, regulators, and manufacturers have been grappling with for years: whether the fabric that touches our skin is actually bad for our health.
What are PFAS?
PFAS are not one chemical. It is an umbrella term for a class of synthetic chemicals thought to number more than 12,000 individual compounds, and they do not all behave the same way. They’ve been used since the 1940s to make materials resistant to water, oil, heat and stains, but they contain the carbon-fluorine bond at their core, which is one of the strongest in organic chemistry. They don't break down easily in the environment or the human body, but they do accumulate.
“A few are well studied, but most aren't,” says Clarisse Mar, founder of UAE-based lifestyle apparel brand Rawform, who’s been sourcing materials for years.
Among the best-studied compounds are PFOA and PFOS. In November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer – the cancer research arm of the World Health Organisation – classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. Those findings marked a turning point in how regulators approached the chemicals globally, and the industry has since been moving to phase them out.
“For the thousands of others, there's simply not enough data yet,” adds Mar. “Not having data doesn't mean something is or is not safe. It means we don't know enough yet.”
Why clothing became a focus
In textiles, PFAS have historically been used to make fabric water-repellent, stain-resistant, wrinkle-free or able to wick moisture. While practical, those functions come at a cost. The European Environment Agency has flagged textiles as one of the largest sources of PFAS pollution in Europe and noted that, for most clothing categories, safer alternatives exist and the use of these chemicals is not a technical necessity.
Whether that translates into a meaningful health risk for the person wearing the garment is a different question.
The most commonly discussed route of concern is dermal, meaning absorption through the skin. Research has shown that certain PFAS compounds can pass through human skin – something Mar describes as “interesting and surprising to the industry”. But it would be fearmongering to turn that into “your leggings are poisoning you”, says Mar. “I don’t think the evidence supports that, and I don’t think that’s a helpful message.”
The question isn’t around whether the chemicals exist or, in some cases, even whether they can be harmful – but dosage matters. “How much exposure someone actually gets from wearing treated clothing,” explains Mar. So, the ability to pass through skin is “not the same thing as proving that wearing a shirt gives you a meaningful amount of PFAS exposure”, she adds. “Your exposure is still overwhelmingly coming from food and water. Clothing is part of the picture, but it’s not the centre of it.”
Dr Dema Mahdi Mohamed, a general practitioner at Medcare Medical Centre, echoes that sentiment. “It is sensible to be aware of PFAS,” she tells The National.
“But there is no need to become overly anxious about everyday exposure … [as] the amount of exposure from clothing alone is generally considered to be low.”
When to take headlines seriously
“Health headlines often simplify complex scientific research, which can make risks appear larger than they actually are,” says Mohamed. “Reliable advice usually comes from recognised public health organisations, medical professionals and regulatory agencies that assess all available evidence rather than isolated findings.”
The Lululemon investigation is still significant, however. Paxton's office framed the probe explicitly around Lululemon's wellness-orientated marketing, arguing that its claims may mislead consumers who choose the brand on health and sustainability grounds. This tension underlies the entire “low-tox” conversation in fashion. A brand can commit to phasing out PFAS, but individual products – made across different factories, with different supply chains – tell a more complicated story.
Mar, who has navigated this from the sourcing side, warns against taking brand-level certification claims at face value. “Certifications apply to products, not necessarily to an entire brand. When a brand says, 'We're OEKO-TEX certified,' that can sound like it applies to everything they make.” Lululemon's situation is, in that sense, a concrete example of what happens when that’s unclear.
The case also indicates where international regulation is heading. In the US, California and New York have both passed legislation restricting PFAS in textiles, and testing by the Natural Resources Defence Council, published in June 2026, found that PFAS levels in tested products dropped from thousands of parts per million to less than 10 ppm in a matter of years. The EU is moving in the same direction.
For Mar, the legitimate concern is less about personal health risk and more about the environment. “These compounds don't readily break down, so this isn't just a health conversation. It's an environmental one too.” It is precisely because PFAS accumulate in ecosystems, water sources and human tissue over time that regulators are acting, even where the direct health case for any single compound remains incomplete.
What to do
Experts are keen to emphasise that there’s no need to panic. Replacing your entire wardrobe in a rush to go “low-tox” is counterproductive. As Mar puts it: “People could be throwing out their entire wardrobe – and buying everything again is probably the worst thing you could do, both for your wallet and for the environment.”
Rather than worrying about every item in your wardrobe, it is more helpful to make informed choices where possible, adds Mohamed. “If you are buying new outdoor clothing or other specialist products, you may wish to look for PFAS-free alternatives.
“At the same time, it is important to remember that overall health is influenced far more by factors such as a balanced diet, regular physical activity, good sleep and avoiding smoking than by occasional exposure from clothing.”
Practically, Mar recommends prioritising by contact time: the garments that sit against skin for hours, get warm and sweaty – underwear, base layers, children's clothing – are worth addressing first. Performance fabrics marketed as water-repellent, stain-resistant or wrinkle-free are the ones most likely to carry functional treatments. “If you don’t need that function, you don’t necessarily need the chemistry that comes with it,” she says.
She also advises washing new clothes before wearing them to remove surface residue, though it will not shift a bonded treatment.
PFAS can also be found in a variety of other products, including some non-stick cookware, food packaging, stain-resistant carpets and furniture, and certain cosmetics, explains Mohamed. “However, not every product contains these chemicals, and manufacturers in many countries are increasingly moving towards safer alternatives as regulations evolve.
“For consumers, the most practical approach is to use products as intended, replace damaged non-stick cookware when the coating begins to peel, and choose products from reputable manufacturers. There is no need to throw away everything you own, as sudden drastic changes are unlikely to provide significant health benefits.”
Simple measures such as washing fruit and vegetables before eating them, following food safety guidance, avoiding unnecessary burning of plastics or waste, and using household products according to their instructions can also help reduce exposure, adds Mohamed.
“It is understandable that people feel concerned when they hear about chemicals in everyday products, but it is important to keep the risks in perspective,” she says. “Modern life involves exposure to many substances, and not all of them pose a meaningful health risk at the levels we encounter. Instead of striving for perfection, aim for informed choices and a healthy lifestyle.”
