A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), published in June 2026, reveals a dramatic win in the long war against toxic “forever chemicals” in everyday clothing. The findings are striking: PFAS levels in clothing products sold in California and New York have plummeted from thousands of parts per million to below 10 ppm — a reduction of up to 99.99% — in just a matter of years.
The NRDC tested 115 textile products purchased in both states after landmark laws banning PFAS in apparel took effect on January 1, 2025. The results suggest that when governments act decisively, industries follow. And in this case, an industry that loudly insisted change was impossible turned around almost overnight.
This matters more than it might first appear. For decades, consumers had almost no way of knowing what chemical residues lived in the fabric of their daily lives — the raincoat hanging by the door, the yoga pants worn three times a week, the school uniform a child wears for eight hours a day. The new data offers a rare, measurable answer to a question that used to be answered only with corporate assurances and vague marketing language like “eco-friendly” or “sustainably made.”
What Are PFAS “Forever Chemicals,” Exactly?
PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals that have been used in manufacturing since the 1950s. They are incredibly useful from an industrial standpoint — they make surfaces resistant to heat, water, and oil, which is why they show up in everything from non-stick pans and fast-food wrappers to rain jackets, yoga pants, athletic gear, and even children’s clothing.
The problem is that PFAS never fully break down. In the environment, they accumulate in soil, seep into groundwater, and travel through food chains. In the human body, they build up in blood, organs, and tissues, sometimes staying there for years. Research has linked PFAS exposure to cancer, hormone disruption, immune dysfunction, and developmental delays in children. The National Cancer Institute classified one of the most common PFAS compounds, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), as a confirmed human carcinogen back in 2023. More recent peer-reviewed studies have also found links between PFAS exposure and breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, and testicular cancer.
And the contamination is not confined to factories or industrial zones. A 2026 analysis covered by ScienceAlert found detectable levels of PFAS in 98.8% of human blood samples tested in the United States. These chemicals are, quite literally, already inside most of us — a fact that makes the question of ongoing exposure through everyday products like clothing far from academic.
How the Study Was Conducted
The NRDC’s report, titled No PFAS, No Problem, was released on June 8, 2026. Researchers purchased 115 textile products from both brick-and-mortar and online retailers operating in California and New York. The products covered a wide range of categories: athletic pants, swimwear, raincoats, footwear, outdoor gear, tablecloths, reusable diapers, pet accessories, and household textiles.
The goal was straightforward — find out whether the new state laws banning PFAS in apparel had actually changed what ended up on store shelves and in consumers’ hands, rather than just changing what companies claimed in their marketing. Products were tested for total organic fluorine content, a reliable indicator of PFAS presence, since it captures the broader chemical family rather than just the handful of individual compounds that older testing methods could detect.
California’s law, Assembly Bill 1817, prohibits the manufacture and sale of any textile article containing intentionally added PFAS, or any product testing above 100 parts per million of total organic fluorine. New York’s law similarly bans the sale of apparel with intentionally added PFAS. According to Safer States, both laws went into effect on January 1, 2025, making California and New York the first states in the country to implement restrictions on PFAS specifically in clothing. The testing compared current results against the NRDC’s own prior-year testing, giving researchers a clear before-and-after picture rather than a one-time snapshot.
Findings From the Study
The results were better than many expected. PFAS levels fell dramatically across nearly every major clothing category. In previous testing, many products registered PFAS concentrations in the thousands of parts per million. After the laws took effect, those levels collapsed.
According to the NRDC’s official press release, 79% of tested products fell below California’s current threshold of 100 ppm, 70% fell below 10 ppm, and 60% fell below 5 ppm. The most dramatic improvements showed up in rainwear and outdoor gear — major outdoor clothing brands reduced PFAS concentrations in their raincoats by between 97% and 99.99% compared to earlier testing. Significant progress was also recorded in athletic clothing, swimwear, shoes, and other performance-focused products that traditionally relied heavily on PFAS-based treatments to achieve waterproofing and stain resistance.
Dr. Anna Reade, Director of PFAS Advocacy at the NRDC, summarized the shift bluntly: companies had long claimed they couldn’t remove PFAS from raincoats, kids’ products, and household textiles — but once states forced the issue, most companies adapted. In her words, two states acting alone produced safer clothes and housewares for the broader market.
The findings also revealed gaps. Not every product category showed improvement. Every single tablecloth tested in the study exceeded California’s maximum allowable limit. Six out of eight pet accessories and five out of nine reusable diapers also tested above acceptable PFAS thresholds. Outdoor furniture showed persistently elevated levels as well. This suggests that while apparel manufacturers largely complied, industries with less public visibility and less direct regulatory pressure are still lagging behind — a pattern worth watching as advocacy groups decide where to focus next.
The Argument Companies Made, and Why It Collapsed
Here is what makes this story more than just an environmental win. For years, the fashion and outdoor gear industries argued that removing PFAS from their products was technically impossible. Waterproof raincoats, they said, could not be made without PFAS-based durable water repellent (DWR) treatments. Athletic gear, performance swimwear, and hiking equipment all faced the same supposed limitation. Consumers who wanted protection from rain and moisture, the argument went, would have to accept the presence of forever chemicals as an unfortunate trade-off.
But here’s what most people don’t realize: that argument was far less about chemistry and far more about cost and convenience. Reformulating a supply chain, retraining manufacturing partners, and sourcing new water-repellent technology all cost money and take time — and as long as no law forced the issue, there was little incentive to absorb that cost voluntarily.
When California and New York passed their bans, companies did not collapse. They did not pull products from shelves. They found alternatives. Within a matter of years, the same brands that insisted compliance was impossible had reduced PFAS in their raincoats by up to 99.99%.
This is not the first time industry has used the impossibility argument to resist safety regulations, only to adapt rapidly when legally required to do so. The same pattern played out with leaded gasoline, asbestos, and ozone-depleting CFCs in aerosols. In each case, the chemicals were declared indispensable by the industries that profited from them, and in each case, safer alternatives emerged once regulation made the status quo untenable. The PFAS story in clothing is following the same arc — and it’s a useful reminder that “we can’t” often quietly means “we’d rather not have to.”
How the Study Applies to Real Life
You may not spend much time thinking about what’s in your yoga pants or your child’s raincoat. But the PFAS question is not abstract. The Environmental Working Group reports that as of 2025, PFAS contamination has been confirmed in 9,552 locations across all 50 U.S. states. These chemicals enter the water supply, the food chain, and eventually the human body through multiple routes, including drinking water, food packaging, cookware, and yes, clothing.
Research published through the National Cancer Institute has documented associations between PFAS exposure and kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and breast cancer. A study from the University of California San Francisco found that women who developed ovarian, breast, uterine, or skin cancers had significantly higher levels of PFAS in their bodies than those who did not.
For everyday consumers, the good news from the NRDC study is tangible. If you live in California or New York and you buy clothes from mainstream retailers, the athletic pants, rain jackets, and swimwear you purchase today are almost certainly carrying a fraction of the PFAS load that the same products carried three years ago. For parents, the reassurance extends to children’s clothing and school uniforms, categories that previously raised particular concern given how much time kids spend in close contact with their clothes. For outdoor enthusiasts, the news that major outdoor brands have reduced PFAS in raincoats by up to 99.99% without sacrificing core waterproofing performance should put to rest the idea that safe gear means ineffective gear.
What Still Needs to Happen
The progress is real, but the NRDC is clear that it does not tell the full story. Several product categories remain deeply out of compliance. Tablecloths, pet products, reusable diapers, and outdoor furniture all tested at concerning levels. This points to a gap in enforcement and industry awareness outside the apparel sector — categories that don’t carry the same brand visibility as a flagship raincoat line seem to be slipping through with far less scrutiny.
There is also a significant challenge around transparency. Because there is no federal requirement for manufacturers to disclose whether their products contain PFAS, consumers in states without bans have no reliable way to know what they are buying. Someone in Texas or Florida purchasing the same raincoat that has been cleaned up for the California market may be buying a product that still contains high concentrations of forever chemicals, with no label to warn them. According to reporting from Innovation News Network, the NRDC has called on brands and retailers to phase out PFAS across all their products globally, not just in states where bans are in place.
Shannon Goff, research associate at the NRDC and co-author of the report, framed it plainly: the results from this study are promising, and they show that regulations work to protect people and public health — but more action is needed to ensure people and the environment are fully protected from the harms of PFAS.
At the federal level, progress has been mixed. The EPA did set legally enforceable limits for six PFAS chemicals in drinking water in 2024, a significant milestone. But those regulations were partially rolled back in 2025, leaving a patchwork of protections that varies sharply depending on where you live — a reminder that state-level action has, in some ways, become more reliable than federal policy on this issue.
Why Two States Changed a National Market
One of the most significant implications of the NRDC study is what it reveals about the power of large-state regulation. California and New York together represent an enormous share of the American consumer market. When those two states ban a substance in clothing, manufacturers face a practical choice: reformulate their products for those markets and sell a cleaner version everywhere, or maintain two separate supply chains.
For most large brands, maintaining separate formulations is far more expensive than simply eliminating PFAS across the board. Running parallel production lines, tracking which inventory goes to which states, and risking accidental cross-shipment of non-compliant goods all add cost and legal exposure that most companies would rather avoid entirely. This is why laws passed in Sacramento and Albany end up reshaping what gets sold in stores across the entire country. It is the same dynamic that made California’s vehicle emissions standards a de facto national standard for decades.
Industry analysts tracking the apparel sector, writing for Modern Retail, noted before the bans even took effect that the sheer size of the California and New York markets would likely drive national reformulations across most major brands. The NRDC data now confirms that prediction was correct.
The Broader Lesson
The story of PFAS in clothing is really a story about what happens when public pressure, scientific evidence, and policy enforcement converge at the same moment. It took decades of research to establish the health risks. It took years of advocacy to build public awareness. It took litigation and, eventually, legislation to force corporate hands. But once that sequence completed, the change came fast. Products that carried thousands of parts per million of toxic forever chemicals three years ago now carry fewer than five.
That is not a small win. That is a near-total transformation of an industry in the span of a single regulatory cycle, and it happened faster than almost anyone — including the advocates who pushed for it — predicted.
The harder question is whether other industries that still rely heavily on PFAS, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, firefighting foam, and building materials, will face the same pressure before the same accumulation of harm occurs in human bodies. Unlike clothing, some of these categories don’t have an obvious two-state tipping point waiting to happen, which means the path to change may look very different — and possibly much slower.
For now, the clothes hanging in your closet are carrying a quieter, safer history than they did just a few years ago. And that happened because two states decided that “impossible” was not a good enough answer.
Sources: This article draws on the NRDC’s No PFAS, No Problem report and press release, reporting from Safer States, ScienceAlert, the Environmental Working Group, Innovation News Network, and Modern Retail, linked inline above.
