Have you ever paid more for a product because a brand told you it was good for you and the planet? Many activewear shoppers do exactly this, trusting that the “healthy” image on the label matches what is actually in the fabric. That trust is now being questioned.
The Texas Attorney General’s office has into the activewear brand Lululemon. The question: does its activewear contain PFAS, a group of toxic “forever chemicals”?
This sits uncomfortably with a brand built on wellness. Lululemon has . It says it phased out PFAS in 2023 and that these chemicals had only ever been used in a small number of water-repellent items. No wrongdoing has been found.
But the case highlights a wider problem: a gap between what fashion brands promise and what is actually in their products.
An industry-wide habit
(per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used to make fabrics resistant to water, stains and sweat. They have also been used in and some .
They earned the name “forever chemicals” because they in the environment or our bodies. Instead, they accumulate over time.
This is not a single-brand issue; it is a widespread one. Their use runs across much of the fashion industry.
The issue first came to wide attention in 2011, when named several global giants for links to dumping perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), now broadly classified as PFAS, into Chinese waterways.
The health risks of PFAS exposure
While most major brands promised to phase out PFAS by 2020, follow-up testing shows they still appear in . The transition has been slow because that perform just as well is both expensive and technically complex.
This matters because of how we wear activewear. Scientists have found that sweat can increase how much of these chemicals are during intense exercise.
Exposure has been linked to , including kidney and testicular cancers, hormonal disruption, and immune system damage.
Brands that promote a “wellness” identity make the gap between marketing and chemistry hard to ignore.
The language of greenwashing
Walk into any sports store and you will see labels such as “clean”, “conscious” or “responsible”.
These words are reassuring, but they lack any legal definition under Australian law, meaning brands can use them without meeting a specific standard. That said, Australia’s consumer watchdog, the , is increasingly scrutinising such claims and has the power to take action against businesses that mislead consumers.
many companies use “green” language to build a positive image without making real environmental changes.
Evidence submitted to a 2023 Australian Senate highlighted that new buzzwords can be invented on social media in real time with zero oversight. This makes it almost impossible for shoppers to tell the difference between genuine sustainability and clever marketing.
Around 60% of green claims by European fashion giants have been , yet consumers still struggle to identify .
This is not the shopper’s fault. When a brand charges a premium for “wellness”, it is reasonable to expect those words to mean something concrete.
As the Texas Attorney General , companies should not
sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability.
The failure of voluntary standards
The real problem is the fashion system runs on self-regulation. Most sustainability standards in Australia are , a stark contrast to the European Union, where mandatory regulations .
There are globally in the textile industry alone, yet they lack consistent definitions and independent oversight. Brands choose whether to follow them and report their own results, facing no real consequences if they fall short.
Regulators are finally starting to act. In 2022, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found 57% of businesses reviewed made , with clothing and footwear among the worst-performing sectors.
While guidelines released now require green claims to be backed by evidence, it is still easier for a brand to say it is “sustainable” than to prove it.
The Lululemon investigation is not a reason to panic, but it is a reason to ask harder questions. When a brand uses a “clean” label, who checked it? What standards did they use? Right now, the industry does not have good answers.
Until we move from a system of voluntary promises to one of legal requirements, “sustainable” will remain a marketing choice rather than a guarantee.
Original article
Comments