Unpacking the 'Low-Tox' Movement: Are the Clothes You Wear Harming Your Health?

From non-stick pans and food packaging to cosmetics and the clothes we wear every day, concern about the chemicals that surround us has become increasingly mainstream in recent months. The “low-tox” movement has prompted consumers to scrutinise everything from skincare ingredients to household cleaning products and, increasingly, the garments they are wearing.

That scrutiny intensified earlier this year when a formal investigation was launched in the US into whether Lululemon products contained so-called “forever chemicals”. In April 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a probe to discover whether clothes from one of the world’s most popular athleisure brands contain PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – a group of synthetic chemicals so resistant to breaking down that scientists have given them that moniker.

The company responded swiftly, saying it stopped using PFAS more than two years ago, but the damage had already been done. It got enough people talking and wondering about a topic that scientists, regulators, and manufacturers have been grappling with for years: whether the fabric that touches our skin is actually bad for our health.

PFAS, which can be found in waterproof mascara, have been used since the 1940s to make materials resistant to water, oil, heat and stains. PFAS are not one chemical. It is an umbrella term for a class of synthetic chemicals thought to number more than 12,000 individual compounds, and they do not all behave the same way. They contain the carbon-fluorine bond at their core, which is one of the strongest in organic chemistry, meaning they do not break down easily in the environment or the human body, but they do accumulate.

“A few are well studied, but most aren't,” says Clarisse Mar, founder of UAE-based lifestyle apparel brand Rawform, who’s been sourcing materials for years.

Among the best-studied compounds are PFOA and PFOS. In November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer – the cancer research arm of the World Health Organisation – classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. Those findings marked a turning point in how regulators approached the chemicals globally, and the industry has since been moving to phase them out. “For the thousands of others, there's simply not enough data yet,” adds Mar. “Not having data doesn't mean something is or is not safe. It means we don't know enough yet.”

In textiles, PFAS have historically been used to make fabric water-repellent, stain-resistant, wrinkle-free or able to wick moisture. While practical, those functions come at a cost. The European Environment Agency has flagged textiles as one of the largest sources of PFAS pollution in Europe and noted that, for most clothing categories, safer alternatives exist and the use of these chemicals is not a technical necessity.

The most commonly discussed route of concern is dermal, meaning absorption through the skin. Research has shown that certain PFAS compounds can pass through human skin – something Mar describes as “interesting and surprising to the industry”. But it would be fearmongering to turn that into “your leggings are poisoning you”, says Mar, noting that dosage matters.

“Your exposure is still overwhelmingly coming from food and water. Clothing is part of the picture, but it’s not the centre of it,” she adds. Dr Dema Mahdi Mohamed, a general practitioner at Medcare Medical Centre, echoes that sentiment: “It is sensible to be aware of PFAS. But there is no need to become overly anxious about everyday exposure … [as] the amount of exposure from clothing alone is generally considered to be low.”

Experts are keen to emphasise that there’s no need to panic or replace your entire wardrobe in a rush to go “low-tox”, as doing so is counterproductive for your wallet and the environment. Practically, Mar recommends prioritising by contact time, addressing base layers, underwear, and children's clothing first, and washing new clothes before wearing them to remove surface residue.