Have you ever paid more for a product just because the brand said it was good for you and the planet? Many activewear shoppers do exactly this, believing that the “healthy” image on the label matches what’s actually in the fabric. That trust is now being questioned.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office has launched a formal investigation into activewear brand Lululemon. Question: Does that activewear contain PFAS, a group of toxic “permanent chemicals”?
This is off-putting for a brand built on wellness. Lululemon denies the claims. The company says it will phase out PFAS in 2023 and that these chemicals were previously only used in a small number of water-repellent items. No wrongdoing was found.
But the case highlights a broader issue: the gap between what fashion brands promise and what’s actually in their products.
Industry-wide habits
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used to make fabrics resistant to water, dirt, and sweat. It is also used in nonstick cookware and some food packaging.
These are not easily broken down in the environment or in our bodies, hence the name “eternal chemicals.” Instead, it accumulates over time.
This is not a single brand issue. It’s something that’s widespread. These are used in much of the fashion industry.
The issue first gained widespread attention in 2011, when Greenpeace’s Dirty Laundry investigation named several major global companies involved in dumping perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), now widely classified as PFAS, into China’s waterways.
Health risks from PFAS exposure
Although most major brands have pledged to phase out PFAS by 2020, follow-up research has shown that leggings and sports bras across the spectrum still contain PFAS. The transition has been slow because finding safer alternatives with comparable performance is expensive and technically complex.
This is important depending on how you wear your activewear. Scientists have found that sweat can increase the amount of these chemicals absorbed through the skin during intense exercise.
Exposure is associated with serious health risks, including kidney and testicular cancer, hormonal disruption, and immune system damage.
Brands that promote a “wellness” identity find it difficult to ignore the marketing and chemistry gap.
The language of greenwashing
Walk into a sports store and you’ll see labels like “clean,” “conscious,” and “responsible.”
While these words are reassuring, they have no legal definition under Australian law, so brands can use them without meeting specific criteria. However, Australia’s consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is increasingly scrutinizing such claims and has the power to take action against companies that mislead consumers.
Clothing labels that claim to be water resistant, sustainable insulation, and PFAS-free.
Provided by the author (not reusable)
Research shows that many companies use the word “green” to build a positive image without actually changing the environment.
Evidence submitted to the 2023 Australian Senate Inquiry into greenwashing highlighted how new buzzwords can be created on social media in real time without oversight. This makes it almost impossible for shoppers to tell the difference between true sustainability and clever marketing.
Around 60% of environmentally friendly claims by European fashion giants have been found to be misleading, but consumers still struggle to identify deceptive sustainability claims.
This is not the shopper’s fault. When a brand charges a premium for “wellness,” it’s natural to expect the word to mean something specific.
As the Texas Attorney General has pointed out, companies should not:
Harmful and harmful substances are sold to consumers at premium prices under the guise of health and sustainability.
Non-compliance with voluntary standards
The real problem is that the fashion system operates on self-regulation. Most of Australia’s sustainability standards are voluntary, in stark contrast to the European Union, where mandatory regulations are already in place.
For clothing brands, terms like “sustainable” have no legal definition, and there are no independent bodies to verify these claims.
Andres Ayrton/Pexels
In the textile industry alone, there are over 100 voluntary certifications worldwide, but they lack consistent definitions and independent oversight. Brands choose whether to follow them and report their own results, with no practical repercussions if they are not met.
Regulatory authorities are finally starting to take action. In 2022, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that 57% of companies surveyed made questionable environmental claims, with clothing and footwear being the worst performing sector.
Guidelines published in December 2023 require green claims to be supported by evidence, but it is still easier for brands to say they are “sustainable” than to prove it.
Lululemon’s research isn’t a reason to panic, but it is a reason to ask difficult questions. If a brand uses a “clean” label, who checked it? What criteria did they use? At this point, the industry doesn’t have a good answer.
Until we move from a system of voluntary commitments to one of legal requirements, “sustainable” will remain a marketing choice rather than a guarantee.
