Leggings and other activewear could be exposing millions of people to “forever chemicals” linked to a range of health problems, with a major legal investigation under way in the United States and growing pressure on regulators in the UK to act. Last month, the Texas attorney general announced a probe into the activewear brand Lululemon, known for its leggings, accusing the company of not accurately representing “the safety, quality, and health impacts of its products”. Lululemon has said its products comply with global safety standards. The case has thrown a spotlight on the widespread use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in performance clothing and the difficulty consumers face in knowing what they are wearing.
The activewear investigation
PFAS, often called “forever chemicals” because they take an extremely long time to break down, are man-made substances that accumulate in both the environment and the human body. They have been associated with negative health effects including high cholesterol, reduced immune response, impaired liver function, fertility issues, developmental problems and certain cancers. While they have been detected in everything from drinking water to household cleaning products and rain jackets, activewear has now emerged as a significant concern. The Texas attorney general’s investigation into Lululemon is the highest-profile legal action to date, but researchers say the problem is far broader. In one instance of lab testing, PFAS were detected in garments from athletic brands including Nike, Beyond Yoga and Alo Yoga. Dr Scott Bartell, a professor of environmental and occupational health at UC Irvine, noted: “What [may be] true for Lululemon [may be] true for most textile manufacturers of any source. It’s not just restricted to Lululemon.”
Some brands deliberately add PFAS to clothing to make them stain-resistant or water-repellent. But in many cases, the chemicals end up in garments unintentionally. Alyssa Wicks, a researcher at Duke University, explained: “There’s just so many places along the manufacturing process that PFAS can be used – in the machinery and different oils that may be used to keep all the machines running.” Research has shown that “trace amounts” may still wind up in consumer goods, even when a brand advertises its products as PFAS‑free. The textile sector is estimated to be responsible for a significant portion of PFAS consumption in Europe.
How forever chemicals seep into the body and surroundings
The primary route of PFAS exposure for most people remains diet and drinking water – a 2023 study estimated that 45 per cent of tap water in the US may contain PFAS. However, dermal absorption from clothing is a growing area of concern. “We don’t fully understand how PFAS permeate the skin,” said Wicks. “But if you’re wearing leggings, it’s going to be often, if you’re working out in them, you’re going to have sweat, which is going to presumably [result] in some permeation of PFAS through the skin.” Dr Graham Peaslee, professor emeritus of Duke University, identified the crotch area as especially vulnerable due to thinner skin with “high dermal absorption capability”. He added that underarms and neck are also susceptible, though leggings may be less of a concern there.
The environmental impact is just as troubling. Every time PFAS‑treated leggings are washed, the chemicals are shed into wastewater. “You may be shedding PFAS that then end up in our wastewater and can come back around to drinking water,” Wicks said. Peaslee emphasised the collective nature of the problem: “So even if I don’t wear leggings (typically), I will be exposed to PFAS by everybody else who wears leggings with PFAS.” This contamination cycle is already well documented in the UK. An Environment Agency report highlighted that PFAS are present in approximately 80 per cent of surface water samples and 50 per cent of groundwater samples. A study found that 98 per cent of 54 UK sites tested contained trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a type of PFAS, with some of the highest global concentrations recorded in rivers such as the River Kelvin in Scotland and rivers in North Yorkshire. PFAS have been detected in all fish samples tested in English waters. The Royal Society of Chemistry reports that over a third of water courses in England and Wales contain medium to high‑risk levels of the two most studied PFAS – perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro-octane-sulphonate (PFOS). In England, 17 out of 18 water companies have detected PFAS in their drinking water sources.
Despite this, the UK currently only regulates two out of more than 4,700 PFAS. The government published its first‑ever plan to tackle forever chemicals in February 2026, setting a framework to understand, account for and reduce exposure. However, the textile industry has questioned whether the plan goes far enough. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has proposed restrictions on PFAS in firefighting foams, textiles, furniture and cleaning products, with a decision expected in 2027. The EU is moving towards a universal ban under its REACH regulations, which could influence UK policy, though the UK’s own definition of PFAS under its REACH regulations is considered narrower than the EU’s, potentially excluding thousands of substances. Currently, there are no specific restrictions on PFAS use in textiles in the UK, and no statutory standards for PFAS in drinking water in England and Wales – though the Drinking Water Inspectorate has issued guidance values. As of January 2025, a new total limit for 48 measured PFAS in drinking water of 100 ng/L applies in England and Wales, while Scotland has adopted the same EU‑guidance limit.
Finding PFAS‑free alternatives
For those worried about PFAS in their activewear, the researchers offer reassurance and practical steps. Dr Bartell stressed that wearing leggings containing PFAS represents a “pretty small percentage of overall exposure” compared with diet and drinking water. “Think about how many sources you’re exposed to every day,” Peaslee said. “Your biggest source is probably what you drink and what you eat. This is because there is a direct pathway into the bloodstream from what you drink and eat, while the dermis is a pretty good protector against most chemicals.” There is no need to throw away leggings already owned, he added.
To reduce overall exposure, Bartell recommended using filters for drinking water, choosing hard floor coverings instead of carpeting (some of which are manufactured with PFAS), and donating blood, which has been shown to reduce PFAS levels by about 10 per cent (though he noted this transfers the chemicals to the recipient). People who menstruate also naturally lose blood, reducing PFAS levels. Dietary changes may also help: one study found that eating more fibre can help reduce PFAS already in the body. Additionally, a low‑salt diet and salt‑free cooking have been associated with reduced serum PFAS levels, and scientists are exploring probiotic supplements that may help gut bacteria absorb PFAS.
Identifying PFAS‑free activewear is currently difficult because there are no disclosure requirements on labels in most places. “You won’t be able to find that on the label,” Bartell said. Instead, consumers should look for independent certifications. Bartell advised looking for an OEKO‑TEX certification, which requires a product to be free of more than 1,000 harmful chemicals, including the intentional use of PFAS. Wicks also suggested the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), which prohibits PFAS. Among the brands offering PFAS‑free activewear, Mate The Label holds a GOTS certification and labels its products as PFAS‑free. LNDR holds an OEKO‑TEX certification, and in 2023, REI announced its own‑brand clothing products would be PFAS‑free. The UK’s regulatory framework, however, remains limited: the government’s definition of PFAS under its regulations is narrower than the EU’s, and there are no specific restrictions on their use in textiles – a gap that leaves consumers reliant on voluntary certifications and manufacturer claims. The UK’s capacity for PFAS detection and monitoring is also believed to be insufficient, raising questions about how effectively even the existing rules can be enforced.