With new legislation in the US and stricter measures implemented by sustainable chemicals organisations ZDHC, bluesign and Oeko-Tex, the use of PFAS and possibly fluoropolymers is on its way out. For Dr Rüdiger Fox, CEO of Sympatex, these bold and courageous steps signal the definitive demise of chemicals that he says should have been banned years ago.

For many the writing was on the wall. A growing body of science has found PFCs and PFAS, otherwise known as ‘forever chemicals’, to be highly persistent and to accumulate in the environment and in living organisms. Now, a number of respected organisations advocating for cleaner and safer processes and products in the textile and apparel industries are making moves to proscribe PFAS chemistry in the short- to mid-term. In its new regulations for 2023, sustainable chemistry organisation Oeko-Tex has issued a general ban on the use of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS/PFC) in textiles, leather and footwear for its Standard 100, Leather Standard and Eco Passport certifications.

Switzerland-based bluesign has announced that from this July all PFAS-based chemicals will be phased out from its bluesign finder resource for sourcing approved products and, from July 2024 on, all formerly approved bluesign fabrics treated with PFAS formulations will be removed from the bluesign guide. A new policy implemented by Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC), otherwise known as the Roadmap to Zero programme, states that “the use of any formulation based on, or including PFAS, is not permitted for fashion, sport or outdoor clothing, apparel and home textiles”.

In addition to these restrictions, new legislation in the US is also restricting the use of this class of chemicals now. Laws addressing the presence of these unwanted chemicals in textiles and apparel have been voted in California, Maine and New York, while regulation at a national level is also being considered by the Federal congress. In the European Union, Reach has pushed back its latest update, but PFAS is on the list of unwanted chemicals at the European chemicals Agency ECHA. This February, the agency officially published a proposal to restrict PFAS covering no fewer than 10,000 products.

The regulatory landscape is changing, is this what you see as a decisive step that may make PFAS chemistry a thing of the past in outdoor apparel?

What we are seeing is that a timeline for the phase out of PFAS now has specific cut-off dates. California has banned their presence from early 2025 and the UN’s Environment Programme (UNEP) is funding exit programmes in countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam to the tune of $43 million1. The EU is preparing an extension of REACH regulation but real courage has now been shown by Oeko-Tex, bluesign and the ZDHC, which will no longer certify materials containing any form of PFAS, whether in coatings or fabrics, from mid-2024. This is a courageous step because it is not natural to consider the proportionality of the means by which our industry markets products to consumers in search of market share, using disingenuous arguments. We have known since the 1960s that fluorochemicals pose health risks in the medium and long term and, moreover, once they enter the food chain, they continue to accumulate, hence the term “forever chemicals”. Yet many brands unflinchingly justify their use for their water- and oil-repellency benefits.

You have said that alternatives have existed for a long time. Why has there been a reluctance to use them? Why have designers and other decision-makers preferred to continue using PFAS?

Adequate solutions have been brought to market in recent decades that can ensure water repellency and waterproofing at the same high level. Even for high-performance requirements, there are proven alternatives, both for the durable water-repellent finishing of textiles and for the replacement of PTFE membranes. All we have lacked so far is the courage to make the final decision in our design offices to initiate the change that is long overdue. When I began working in this industry seven years ago, my initial thought was that companies would operate according to logic, and that logically PFAS chemicals would be phased out. But there is little-to-no public discussion on this issue; our industry is responsible for covering it up. Sports and outerwear brands have known since at least 2010 that the chemistry is toxic. The background is that some very commercially successful brands’ identity is linked to fluorochemicals. There are many reasons why they continue to market these materials, one of which is to maximise profits. There continue to be, to this day, international tenders that require ePTFE membranes. Certain parameters for ePTFE are better (its resistance to heat is one), but I don’t believe they are necessary. A firefighter wearing a laminated garment that can resist 150°C won’t survive if temperatures reach that level. The parameters we’ve created are artificial.

The performance sportswear industry has long been fixated on providing consumers with high-tech equipment that can withstand extreme conditions and uses. In your opinion, what is the best way to communicate effectively with the end consumer on a matter, related to chemicals, that is complex?

PFAS is an extreme chemistry that should only be used in extreme conditions, like asbestos. The industry has created a market demand that is difficult to change. I believe we need to rewrite the story. Sustainability has a long history of promoting ‘negative’ stories; we see this in organic produce where an organic apple is, by default, expected to be an ugly apple. But what do we really need? Justifying extreme and highly unlikely use cases is not the solution. Do we need outdoor wear to look brand new all the time? Do we change the oil in our cars when we are in the mountains? And if we consider oil rig workers, we are not talking about fashion. I say an SUV should be dirty. What I see is that we are still basing our arguments on worse-case scenarios, ski school instructors’ suits for instance still seem to require C6-based DWR. The question we need to ask is what is the price that society should pay for unneeded performance? What we are talking about is a few stains versus the future of the planet. It is far beyond what we need.

How confident are you that PFAS chemistry will be banned in Europe and elsewhere?

I am absolutely 100% confident. Political willingness is now strong, it is under way at REACH and in the EU’s Textile Strategy. We should expect it to come. Legal consequences could be high. Two years from now will be too late. With today’s media, brands had better start acting now. The new rules at Oeko-Tex, bluesign and ZDHC apply to the Fall 2024 ranges of outdoor brands. 

What is at the root of greenwashing? And what is the key to bringing greenwashing to an end?

I love greenwashing! It signals the beginning of conscious change. It is a first sign of transition. A few years back, in 2016 or 2017, there was very little talk of sustainability. Things have changed, now everybody recognises the need. And as a next step, as seen in France and in Norway, brands are now being asked to justify their sustainability claims. 

Which other products should performance textiles producers move away from? Which substances are in danger of becoming the new PFAS? Is there a risk that some products could be banned without good reason?

As a newbie in the industry, I don’t see any other health issue that comes anywhere close to that of PFAS. It is clearly a family of chemicals that we need to get rid of. The other issue that could become a cause for concern is the plastic-free movement. Plastics are certainly bad for the environment, but not all plastics end up in the oceans. The clothing we wear today is two-thirds synthetic. Is it possible to replace manmade fibres with natural ones? Natural materials have their own issues, such as leather and cotton, and I don’t think a banana fibre will be a viable solution. With the industrialisation of the past 50 years, it will be difficult to find alternatives that are scalable. I don’t think bio-based synthetics will be a solution either. Plastic is not all bad; it can be recycled. We need to support the industries that can and do recycle. There is certainly room for progress. What we need, I think, is a scientific discussion of the impacts of plastics and synthetics and a collaborative roadmap towards circularity in our sector. PFAS is by far the real devil. Future generations will ask us why they have to pay the price for the fact that we started looking for alternatives so late and how the continued use of PFAS for so long can be justified, just for the sake of keeping clothing drier. Kicking the can down the road on this issue is no longer acceptable and the time to act is now. This is the sentiment that I felt clearly at ISPO last November. The battle is over. In 18 months, PFAS will be gone. 

References
1. Textile-producing nations unite to reduce chemical waste, source United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/textile-producing-nations-unite-reduce-chemical-waste

CEO of Sympatex, university lecturer, author and innovative thinker, Dr Rüdiger Fox is an aerospace engineer and business economist with a PhD on corporate happiness. In his 30-year career, he has served as CEO of medium   and large companies in aerospace, telecoms, textiles and engineering. 
All Credits: Sympatex Technologies 

Share this story: