Lululemon is under investigation for allegedly using permanent chemicals; studies suggest they may be carcinogenic—how can one identify whether such substances are present in clothing?

The athletic pants you paid over a thousand yuan for might be leaching substances into your skin every time you wear them for training—and the brand has no obligation to proactively inform you of this. Lululemon is under investigation by the Texas Attorney General’s Office for allegedly using PFAS—chemicals widely dubbed “forever chemicals” by the scientific community—in its athletic apparel. Lululemon responded that it began phasing out PFAS in January 2024, but the Attorney General’s Office clearly remains unconvinced and has demanded a full probe into the company’s supply chain practices and testing records. This development itself isn’t entirely surprising—but what truly unsettles people is another question: Does the clothing you’re holding right now contain these substances? And no one has told you. PFAS is not a single chemical—it’s an umbrella term for approximately 12,000 organic compounds featuring fully fluorinated carbon structures, including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Put simply, PFAS is a large family—not a single member. Saying “PFAS is toxic” is like saying “food is toxic”: technically true, yet misleading—because toxicity depends on the specific compound. Yet regardless of the specific variant, all PFAS share one alarming trait that makes them impossible to dismiss lightly: extreme environmental persistence. They degrade extremely slowly—if at all—in nature, posing long-term adverse effects on ecosystems, wildlife, and human health. Hence their nicknames: “forever chemicals” and “toxic time bombs.” You think washing removes them? It doesn’t. You think they’ll dissipate over time? They won’t. The danger of PFAS lies not in immediate harm from wearing them today. As Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, explained, wearing outdoor apparel containing PFAS won’t trigger obvious symptoms right away—but because PFAS are persistent, long-term accumulation may lead to serious health issues. Substantial evidence links PFAS exposure to impaired immune function, reproductive and developmental disorders, liver and kidney damage, pancreatic dysfunction, and increased cancer risk. Chronic accumulation is the most insidious form of harm—precisely because it’s so hard to detect. Now consider China’s situation—this is where many people remain genuinely unclear. China has included PFOS-, PFOA-, and PFHxS-related substances in its “Key Controlled New Pollutants List (2023 Edition),” banning their production, processing, and use—except for certain permitted applications. In textile-related uses, PFOA-class substances are exempted only for oil- and water-repellent fabrics designed to protect workers from hazardous liquids. It appears regulation exists—but the real issue lies in enforcement scope: it targets manufacturing and processing, not consumer-facing products. Is there a mandatory requirement for PFAS test reports on garments sold to consumers? No. Must brands disclose PFAS content on garment labels? No. If you ask customer service, “Does this item contain PFAS?”, most representatives will reply, “It complies with national standards”—and that’s where the conversation ends. Fashion industry expert Cheng Weixiong notes that China currently lacks regulatory requirements mandating PFAS labeling, whereas overseas jurisdictions enforce such legal obligations—hence the discrepancy between domestic and international product disclosures. Read that sentence again: The same brand discloses PFAS information to consumers in Europe and North America but omits it for Chinese consumers—not because the products differ, but because the rules do.

From Lululemon to eye drops—how could ‘forever chemicals’ possibly hide in both?

A recent news report made me pause: the Texas Attorney General launched an investigation into Lululemon, suspecting its apparel contains PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)—those so-called 'forever chemicals.' I was wearing Lululemon at the time—and my heart skipped a beat: Could everyday clothing worn directly against my skin harbor hidden health risks? What truly triggered my professional reflex—prompting me to dive into academic literature—was something else I use daily: eye drops. Six years ago, I underwent SMILE laser vision correction surgery. The procedure went smoothly—but left me with chronic dry eye. As a healthcare professional, I’d always assumed eye drops were purely topical agents: just a soothing splash onto the ocular surface, with minimal systemic impact. Only recently, while reviewing research papers, did I realize that two seemingly unrelated things—my workout gear and my eye drops—are linked by a shared keyword: fluorinated compounds (1). Is 'fluorination' a blessing or a curse? Why do everyday products—and even pharmaceuticals—so frequently incorporate fluorine? The answer lies in fluorine’s 'superpower.' On the periodic table, fluorine possesses the highest electronegativity, forming exceptionally strong carbon–fluorine bonds. Industrially, this grants materials water- and oil-repellent properties; in drug development, adding fluorine atoms is a classic design strategy. A single fluorine atom acts like a 'stabilizing anchor' within a drug molecule—enhancing metabolic stability, slowing degradation, and strengthening binding affinity to target proteins. Today, roughly 20%–30% of approved small-molecule drugs contain fluorine—including widely used medications like fluoxetine (Prozac) for depression and sitagliptin for diabetes. Without these fluorinated drugs, modern medicine would undoubtedly advance far more slowly. Yet in recent years, more and more products have begun actively 'de-fluorinating'—removing PFAS. Europe has started restricting certain PFAS uses; U.S. environmental agencies continue lowering safe limits for PFAS in drinking water; and epidemiological studies increasingly associate long-term exposure to specific PFAS with liver injury, altered immune function, thyroid disease, reproductive abnormalities, and elevated cancer risk (2). Hold on before tossing everything out—the 'pros and cons' of fluorinated pharmaceuticals Growing media coverage of PFAS has led many to mistakenly assume: 'If it contains fluorine, it must be dangerous.' In reality, safety hinges on multiple factors—not merely the presence of fluorine. These include molecular structure, exposure dose, duration, and metabolic behavior. Here’s a crucial clarification—one of the internet’s most common oversights: 'Containing fluorine' does NOT equal 'toxic.' For instance, certain PFAS members face strict regulation due to environmental persistence and bioaccumulation; meanwhile, numerous fluorinated drugs have undergone decades of clinical validation and deliver clear therapeutic benefits to millions of patients. A 2022 study published in iScience (3) pointed out that, under overly broad definitions of PFAS, many globally prescribed fluorinated drugs would themselves qualify as PFAS. Yet discussing toxicity without considering chemical structure, exposure dose, and metabolism is scientifically meaningless.

Texas AG Investigates Fruit of the Loom, Hanes Over Toxic Chemicals in Children's Underwear

15 hours ago

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton investigated Fruit of the Loom and Hanes over potential toxic chemicals like PFAS in children's underwear. The probe cites health risks linked to synthetic materials and chemical additives in textile manufacturing.

reuters

2026-10-06

Texas AG Investigates Fruit of the Loom, Hanes Over Toxic Chemicals in Children's Underwear

Texas AG Investigates Fruit of the Loom, Hanes Over Toxic Chemicals in Children's Underwear

FAQ