Behind the colours, textures, and performance finishes of modern fashion lies an often-overlooked truth: the clothes we wear are steeped in chemicals. From water-repellent jackets to wrinkle-free shirts and vividly dyed activewear, many of these features rely on synthetic chemical treatments. But a growing body of research and regulatory scrutiny has exposed a darker side of these innovations: they often come with toxic legacies that harm both people and the planet.

Among the most concerning are PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), and other persistent pollutants sometimes called ‘forever chemicals.’ These substances are designed to resist degradation, which makes them useful in textiles but devastating in ecosystems. Once released, they accumulate in soil, water, wildlife, and human bodies, persisting for decades.

The fashion industry is now under increasing pressure from governments, consumers, and advocacy groups to address its chemical footprint. But transitioning away from toxic chemicals presents significant technical, financial, and logistical challenges. This article explores the scope of the problem, the risks posed by toxic substances in clothing, the current state of regulation and industry response, and the pathways forward to a cleaner, safer textile future.

Understanding the Chemicals in Fashion
The use of chemicals in textiles is not new. In fact, the modern clothing industry has always depended on chemical processes for dyeing, finishing, and performance enhancement. However, many of these chemicals pose significant health and environmental risks.

1. PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances): Known as ‘forever chemicals’, PFAS are widely used in water-, stain-, and grease-resistant coatings. They make rain jackets waterproof, yoga pants sweat-repellent, and school uniforms durable. But their molecular structure prevents them from breaking down in nature, leading to accumulation in waterways, soil, and human tissue. PFAS exposure has been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, developmental issues, and immune system impairment.

2. VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds): VOCs are chemicals that easily evaporate into the air at room temperature. In textiles, they are commonly found in dyes, adhesives, coatings, and finishing agents. Workers in textile mills and consumers alike may be exposed to VOCs through inhalation, leading to respiratory problems, headaches, and in some cases long-term organ damage. VOCs also contribute to smog and poor indoor air quality.

Other hazardous substances

  • Phthalates: Used as plasticisers in synthetic fibres and prints, linked to reproductive toxicity.
  • Formaldehyde: Employed in wrinkle-resistant treatments, known to cause skin irritation and classified as a carcinogen.
  • Azo dyes and heavy metals: Found in certain pigments and dyeing processes, associated with water pollution and human health risks.

The persistence of these substances in fashion is largely driven by performance demands and cost-effectiveness. PFAS coatings outperform most alternatives, VOC-based solvents remain cheap and effective, and phthalates provide flexibility unmatched by many bio-based options. But their toxic impacts are increasingly impossible to ignore.

Environmental and Human Health Impacts
The impacts of toxic chemicals in fashion ripple far beyond factories and retail shelves, touching ecosystems, workers, and consumers alike. Unlike carbon emissions, which have gained mainstream recognition, the chemical footprint of fashion has remained under-examined, even though it poses equally severe risks.

1. Water Contamination: The textile industry is among the world’s largest polluters of freshwater, with dyeing and finishing processes alone responsible for about 20 per cent of global industrial water pollution. In textile hubs like Bangladesh, India, and China, untreated wastewater containing PFAS, azo dyes, formaldehyde, and heavy metals is frequently discharged into rivers. These rivers often serve as sources of drinking water, irrigation for crops, and even daily bathing for local communities. As a result, chemical runoff does not just stay local; it seeps into food systems, contaminates rice paddies and fish stocks, and eventually travels downstream into global supply chains.

For example, a 2022 Greenpeace investigation found PFAS contamination in rivers near textile facilities in Zhejiang, China, with measurable impacts on aquatic biodiversity. Similar studies in Dhaka have linked chemical effluents to massive fish die-offs, undermining both food security and local economies.

2. Health Risks for Workers: The brunt of exposure is borne by garment workers, many of whom operate in poorly ventilated facilities with inadequate protective equipment. VOCs released from solvents and adhesives can cause dizziness, nausea, and long-term respiratory problems. Chronic exposure has also been linked to occupational asthma, dermatitis, and fertility issues, particularly in women who make up the majority of the textile workforce.

Moreover, informal workers in small-scale dye houses and tanneries, common in South Asia and Africa, often labour without any regulatory oversight, facing daily contact with chemicals like chromium, benzene, and phthalates. The result is a hidden epidemic of work-related illnesses rarely reflected in official health statistics.

3. Consumer Exposure: While consumers are exposed to lower concentrations of these chemicals, the risks are not negligible. PFAS and other finishing agents are designed to bond strongly to fibres and resist wear, but they also migrate slowly onto the skin during use. Infants and children, whose skin is more permeable and who frequently mouth textiles like bibs and blankets, face heightened vulnerability.

Another pathway of exposure is laundering. When synthetic garments are washed, they release microplastics embedded with chemical residues into wastewater systems. These particles bypass conventional treatment plants, entering oceans and reappearing in seafood and even table salt. Over time, this creates a cycle of re-exposure that is difficult to break.

4. Persistence in Nature: Unlike dyes that may eventually degrade, PFAS and other forever chemicals are extraordinarily resilient. Once released, they accumulate in soil and groundwater, traveling across borders and ecosystems. Researchers have detected PFAS in rainwater across all continents, in Arctic ice cores, and in the bloodstreams of both humans and wildlife, from polar bears in Greenland to dolphins in the Mediterranean.

This persistence means the chemicals used in a single garment can continue to circulate in the environment for decades after the product is discarded, long outlasting the clothing itself. The sheer longevity of these pollutants poses intergenerational risks, as they bioaccumulate in food chains and contribute to chronic diseases such as thyroid disorders, liver damage, and certain cancers.

5. A Hidden Crisis Equal to Carbon: The combination of direct health risks for workers and consumers, widespread contamination of natural resources, and the virtually permanent persistence of certain compounds has elevated chemical pollution to one of fashion’s most urgent sustainability crises. Unlike climate emissions, which are now widely measured and managed, chemical impacts remain under-regulated and under-reported. Yet they are arguably as damaging; silently eroding public health, biodiversity, and water security.

Growing Consumer and Regulatory Pressure
Growing awareness of fashion’s chemical footprint is driving change across the industry.

  • European Union: Under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), the EU is actively restricting hazardous chemicals in textiles. In 2023, the EU proposed sweeping restrictions on PFAS across all industries, including apparel.
  • United States: While federal regulation lags, individual states are taking action. California, Maine, and Washington have all enacted bans on PFAS in textiles, with phased deadlines for compliance.
  • NGOs and activists: Groups like Greenpeace have campaigned against toxic chemicals in children’s wear and outdoor gear, pushing brands to adopt safer alternatives.
  • Consumers: Demand for toxin-free clothing is growing, especially in children’s products, maternity wear, and sports apparel. Certifications like OEKO-TEX Standard 100 and bluesign are becoming selling points.

This combination of regulation, activism, and consumer preference is pushing brands to rethink their dependence on hazardous substances.

Industry Responses and Best Practices
Forward-thinking companies are already taking steps to address chemical risks in their supply chains:

  • Patagonia and REI have committed to phasing out PFAS in outerwear by 2025, even though finding durable water-repellent alternatives remains a challenge.
  • Levi Strauss & Co. has reduced VOC emissions by investing in waterless dyeing and finishing technologies.
  • H&M Group has committed to full chemical transparency through digital supplier reporting platforms.
  • Nike and Adidas are active participants in the ZDHC Roadmap to Zero, which sets guidelines for eliminating hazardous chemicals from supply chains.

Beyond brand commitments, industry certifications like bluesign ensure that chemicals used in textiles meet strict environmental and health standards. OEKO-TEX similarly certifies products tested for harmful substances. Emerging technologies such as bio-based coatings, enzyme-based finishing agents, and digital dyeing systems offer safer, lower-impact alternatives to legacy chemicals.

Barriers to Change
Despite mounting awareness, eliminating hazardous chemicals from fashion supply chains remains a daunting challenge. Several structural and economic barriers explain why toxic substances persist:

1. Complex Global Supply Chains:  A single garment can pass through multiple tiers of suppliers such as fibre producers, dye houses, finishing mills, and assembly factories spread across multiple countries. This fragmentation makes it difficult to trace chemical inputs and enforce consistent standards.

2. Lack of Transparency and Disclosure: Many suppliers are reluctant to share full lists of chemicals used, citing trade secrets or fear of losing contracts. This secrecy makes it nearly impossible for brands to verify compliance with safer standards.

3. High Costs of Safer Alternatives: Non-toxic alternatives to PFAS or VOC-heavy solvents often cost more and may require retooling existing machinery. For low-margin suppliers in Asia and Africa, these upfront costs are prohibitive without financial or contractual support from brands.

4. Regulatory Gaps Across Borders: While the EU is moving ahead with bans on PFAS and stricter REACH regulations, enforcement in many producing countries remains weak. This mismatch creates loopholes that allow ‘toxic tourism’, where hazardous production shifts to countries with less stringent standards.

5. Consumer Unawareness: Many shoppers are unaware of the presence of chemicals in clothing or do not prioritise it in purchasing decisions. Without consumer pressure, brands face less incentive to accelerate detoxification efforts.

Pathways Forward
The good news is that solutions are emerging across policy, innovation, and market dynamics. A multi-stakeholder approach can accelerate progress:

1. Regulatory Alignment and Enforcement: Stronger international coordination on chemical bans is essential. For example, global frameworks similar to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants could expand to cover PFAS and other harmful textile chemicals. Harmonised standards would reduce loopholes and create a level playing field.

2. Chemical Substitution and Innovation: Investment in green chemistry is producing safer alternatives. For instance, bio-based water repellents derived from plant waxes and silicones are gaining traction as substitutes for PFAS. Partnerships between brands and universities can help scale these innovations.

3. Supply Chain Transparency: Digital tools like blockchain and chemical inventory platforms (e.g., ZDHC Gateway) allow brands to map chemical use across their supply chains, flag non-compliance, and track progress towards detoxification goals.

4. Financial Incentives for Suppliers: Brands can co-invest in safer chemical infrastructure or offer preferential contracts to suppliers who meet stricter standards. Shared responsibility models reduce the burden on smaller producers.

5. Consumer Engagement: Certifications like OEKO-TEX Standard 100 or Bluesign provide consumers with easy-to-read indicators of chemical safety. Clear labelling, storytelling, and brand communication can drive demand for toxin-free fashion.

Case Studies
Several pioneering efforts demonstrate that chemical detox in textiles is not only possible but scalable:

1. Greenpeace Detox Campaign (2011–present): One of the most influential campaigns, Greenpeace’s Detox initiative pressured dozens of major brands, including Adidas, H&M, and Nike to commit to eliminating hazardous chemicals by 2020. While not all goals were met, the campaign shifted the industry narrative and drove significant progress in disclosure and transparency.

2. Patagonia’s PFAS-Free Outerwear: In 2022, Patagonia announced a phased elimination of PFAS from its water-repellent outdoor gear, instead using bio-based alternatives. As a leader in performance apparel, its shift signals to the broader industry that alternatives can match functionality.

3. Stella McCartney and Bolt Threads: Beyond detoxing chemicals, luxury brands are partnering with biotech companies to integrate new, non-toxic materials like mushroom leather (Mylo). These collaborations show how eliminating harmful chemicals can align with broader innovation in sustainable textiles.

4. Bangladesh’s ZDHC Adoption: In one of the world’s largest textile hubs, several dyeing and finishing plants have adopted Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) wastewater guidelines. Factories participating in the programme report measurable reductions in chemical effluents and improved worker safety.