A probe into ‘forever chemicals’ in activewear lays bare fashion’s greenwashing problem

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 launched a formal investigation 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 denied the claims. 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

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used to make fabrics resistant to water, stains and sweat. They have also been used in nonstick cookware and some food packaging.

They earned the name “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily 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 Greenpeace’s “Dirty Laundry” investigation 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 leggings and sports bras across the sector. The transition has been slow because finding safer alternatives 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 absorbed through the skin during intense exercise.

Exposure has been linked to serious health risks, 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 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is increasingly scrutinising such claims and has the power to take action against businesses that mislead consumers.

Research shows many companies use “green” language to build a positive image without making real environmental changes.

Evidence submitted to a 2023 Australian Senate inquiry into greenwashing 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 found to be misleading, yet consumers still struggle to identify deceptive sustainability claims.

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 noted, 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 voluntary, a stark contrast to the European Union, where mandatory regulations are already coming into force.

There are more than 100 voluntary certifications 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 questionable environmental claims, with clothing and footwear among the worst-performing sectors.

While guidelines released in December 2023 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.