Activewear has become everyday wear for many people. It’s comfortable, it performs well, and it’s marketed as part of a healthy lifestyle. But there’s a growing tension between the image these brands sell and what’s actually being found in some of their products. One of the biggest names in the space, Lululemon, is now under scrutiny as the Texas Attorney General investigates whether certain items contain PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals.” This isn’t just a headline designed to stir attention. It points to a broader issue in the apparel industry that’s been building for years.

What Are PFAS and Why Are They a Concern

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals used to make products resistant to water, oil, and stains. They’re incredibly effective at what they do, which is why they’ve been used in everything from cookware to food packaging to textiles. The downside is that they don’t break down easily. Once they’re in the environment or in the body, they tend to persist. That persistence is where the concern comes from. Research has linked certain PFAS compounds to hormone disruption, fertility challenges, and other long-term health effects. Not every PFAS behaves the same way, and the science is still evolving, but the overall pattern has been enough to trigger regulatory attention across multiple regions.

Why Activewear Is a Unique Exposure Point

Clothing might not seem like a major source of chemical exposure, but activewear changes the equation. These fabrics are often engineered to be moisture-wicking, odor-resistant, and quick-drying. Achieving those features sometimes involves chemical treatments, including PFAS-based finishes. The issue isn’t just that the chemicals are present. It’s how and when they’re being used. During a workout, your body temperature rises, your pores open, and you sweat. That combination can increase the likelihood that substances on the fabric will come into contact with your skin. Add friction from movement, and you have a more direct, sustained contact point than with everyday clothing.

The Gap Between Wellness Marketing and Product Reality

Brands like Lululemon have built their identity around health, performance, and well-being. That’s part of why this issue resonates. When a product is positioned as supporting a healthy lifestyle, there’s an implicit expectation that it aligns with that goal across the board. The potential presence of PFAS challenges that assumption. To be clear, the investigation is ongoing, and not every product or brand uses the same materials or processes. But the situation highlights a larger disconnect between marketing language and material transparency in the apparel industry. Consumers are often left to fill in the gaps without clear information about what’s actually in the fabrics they wear every day.

It’s Not Just One Brand

Focusing on a single company can make the issue seem isolated, but it isn’t. Reports indicate that dozens of states are now looking into the use of PFAS in consumer products, including textiles. That suggests this is a category-wide concern rather than a one-off case. Many brands have relied on similar chemical treatments to achieve performance features, and only recently has there been significant pressure to phase them out or disclose their use. Some companies have started moving toward PFAS-free alternatives, but progress is uneven, and labeling is not always clear.

How These Chemicals Enter Your Daily Routine

One challenge with PFAS is that exposure typically doesn’t come from a single source. It’s cumulative. You might encounter them in water, food packaging, household items, and clothing. Activewear adds another layer, especially if it’s worn frequently and for extended periods. Washing these garments can also release PFAS into wastewater, which contributes to environmental buildup. That environmental persistence eventually circles back into human exposure through water and food systems. It’s a loop that makes individual choices feel small, but they still matter within the bigger picture.

What You Can Do

You don’t need to throw out your entire wardrobe overnight. A more practical approach is to start paying attention to what you’re buying in the future. Look for brands that explicitly state they are PFAS-free or that provide clear information about their materials. Simpler fabrics with fewer performance treatments tend to carry lower risk, even if they don’t check every box for high-tech features. Rotating your clothing, avoiding wearing the same tight synthetic garments for long periods, and changing out of workout clothes soon after exercising can also reduce prolonged skin contact. They’re small adjustments that lower overall exposure.

The Bigger Shift Toward Transparency

Situations like the investigation involving Lululemon and the Texas Attorney General tend to accelerate change, even before conclusions are reached. They push companies to disclose more, reformulate products, and respond to consumer demand for safer materials. That shift doesn’t happen overnight, but it does reshape the market over time. The more awareness there is around issues like PFAS, the harder it becomes for brands to rely on vague claims without backing them up.

A Low-Tox Perspective on Everyday Choices

From a low-tox standpoint, this is all about identifying the areas where exposure is frequent, close, and largely avoidable. Activewear fits that description for many people. Being more intentional about what you wear, especially during activities that increase skin absorption, is a reasonable step. Over time, those decisions reduce the overall load on your body.

References:

1. Fenton, S. E., Ducatman, A., Boobis, A., DeWitt, J. C., Lau, C., Ng, C., Smith, J. S., & Roberts, S. M. (2021). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance toxicity and human health review: Current state of knowledge and strategies for informing future research. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 40(3), 606–630.https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4890
   
2. DeWitt, J. C., Goldenman, G., Lohmann, R., Ng, C. A., & Wang, Z. (2025). Emerging toxicological awareness of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: The rising concern over “forever chemicals.” Disease Models & Mechanisms, 18(11), dmm052647.https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.052647
3. Kim, K. W., Kang, J., Cho, S. Y., Yoon, S., Kim, D., & Park, H. W. (2026). Association between outdoor clothing use and serum perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Korean National Environmental Health Survey cycle 4. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 38, e4.https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2026.38.e4
   
4. Yang Y, Wang J, Tang S, Qiu J, Luo Y, Yang C, Lai X, Wang Q, Cao H. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Consumer Products: An Overview of the Occurrence, Migration, and Exposure Assessment. Molecules. 2025 Feb 21;30(5):994. doi: 10.3390/molecules30050994. PMID: 40076219; PMCID: PMC11901761.