Starting January 1, New York will ban PFAS in clothing. Here’s what you need to know

PFAS, also called forever chemicals, have unique properties that make them useful for apparel. They can make clothes stain resistant, water repellent, and durable, especially in different temperatures. But these chemicals also come with a host of negative attributes: They stick around for thousands of years, polluting our environment and our bodies. They’ve been linked to increased risk of cancer, developmental delays, decreased fertility, and other health impacts.

And beginning January 1, 2025, they’ll be banned in apparel in New York State. The law is part of a growing trend of legislation that aims to limit our PFAS exposure. There’s been a focus to get them out of our drinking water, both with state initiatives like a New York limit on maximum PFAS levels, and nationally with the EPA taking steps to limit exposure. “But we also know that PFAS is in a lot of consumer products,” says Kate Donovan, Northeast Environmental Health director with the Natural Resources Defense Council and a senior attorney for the nonprofit.

PFAS has been found in everything from clothing to carpets to furniture; makeup, toilet paper, and cookware; and even dental floss, ski wax, and food wrappers. The ban on PFAS in apparel is just one step, but Donovan says experts and lawmakers have been “on this trajectory of looking at these different consumer products, and trying to phase out as many uses of PFAS as possible.”

Why focus on PFAS in apparel

After looking at PFAS contamination in things like drinking water and firefighting foam (a particularly prominent cause of ground contamination), New York turned to apparel. It’s a sector that California has been focusing on too—on January 1, 2025, California’s state ban on PFAS in textiles goes into effect, a law similar to New York’s but a bit more broad in terms of what it covers—so New York officials took cues from that state.

Apparel was targeted in part because of stories from workers like flight attendants, who, after getting new uniforms, began seeing rashes and other health issues. Reports of those problems began as early as 2012, gained more prominence around 2016, and persisted over the next few years. And they weren’t limited to one airline; employees at Southwest, Delta, American, and others experienced it. Testing revealed that the uniforms were full of PFAS.

“That kind of cued us into the fact that these chemicals are being used in textile manufacturing. It’s a finishing chemical for heat stability, or stain or oil repellency, as well as wrinkle-free finishes that became very common,” Donovan says. From there, experts looked for—and found—PFAS in school uniforms, athletic wear, outdoor gear, and other clothing items.

PFAS has also been found in textiles that aren’t apparel, like towels, bedding, upholstery, and drapes. California’s law also covers these use cases; Donovan says New York is working on a bill that will also ban PFAS in non-apparel textiles and household products like paint and floss, as well as two bills that aim to ban the chemicals in cosmetic and menstrual products respectively.

Both states’ laws do have exceptions for “severe wet weather” clothing. Bans for that category don’t go into effect until January 1, 2028, in order to give companies more time to comply. Neither bill requires companies to disclose their items as PFAS-free either, but Donovan says many are likely to broadcast it as a selling point.

What does the law mean for companies that make clothes with PFAS?

New York and California’s bans were both passed in 2022. That’s given retailers more than two years to make changes to their manufacturing processes in order to be compliant. But many were already working on this issue, especially as we’ve learned more about the harms of PFAS. Long before these bans were in place, shoe company Keen spent four years removing PFAS from its products. Patagonia has also been removing PFAS from its items; it took the company five years to get PFAS out of its Torrentshell rain jacket. H&M, Zara, and Levi Strauss & Co are all already PFAS-free.

Still, many companies are lagging behind, and they’ll need to comply with the new bans. “Companies will have to really evaluate their entire product supply chain. They’ll need to understand where all the components of their product are coming from to ensure that there’s no intentionally added PFAS,” Donovan says. “And then, under New York State law, they can provide a certificate of compliance that basically says that they are not aware of any use of the chemical in the final product.”

While the law doesn’t require compliance testing, Donovan says there are a number of third-party testing organizations that may check products and bring any findings to state regulators, or work with brands themselves. (Retailers are encouraged to get compliance certifications from their manufactures, and must show them to the Department of Environmental Conservation upon request.) Even without required testing, though, she says brands seek to comply with state law.

The laws will also mean that companies can’t distribute any PFAS-contaminated products in New York or California. If a company sold a piece of clothing in New York—whether online or in person—and testing showed that it contained PFAS, then Donovan says they would be in violation of the law. (Donovan can only speak specifically to the New York law, as her work focuses on the Northeast.) In New York, the penalty is up to $1,000 a day for as long as the violation continues, and up to $2,500 for a second violation. (In California, penalties won’t begin until July 2030, and would be no less than $10,000 for the first violation.)

How New York’s PFAS ban reaches beyond the state

Though retailers can’t sell apparel with PFAS in New York beginning in January, the law doesn’t, of course, restrict individuals from bringing such items into the state themselves. But the laws in New York and California are likely to impact products sold across the country. These are big states that drive a lot of demand, and they’re also locations where many companies have headquarters or manufacturing facilities.

That means companies are likely more inclined to comply with the law. And “they’re not going to be shipping different products to other states,” Donovan adds. “If they start changing their manufacturing and their applications and the use of these chemicals in one state, other individuals in other states who buy those products are also going to benefit.” This broad impact has been seen before, like with California’s Prop 65, which requires labels for toxic chemicals.

The impact of these bans is twofold, Donovan says. Not only is it curbing PFAS exposure through direct contact from clothing, “where this type of chemical could be absorbed into our skin,” it also helps reduce the amount of PFAS that contaminate the environment when these items are manufactured, or when they’re tossed into landfills or incinerators. “When we start reducing the demand for PFAS in particular products, we’re also getting at sources of PFAS that are coming from up upstream . . . or through disposal,” she says.

Still, the amount of products found to contain PFAS can seem overwhelming. But the chemicals were only discovered in the 1930s, and so they weren’t always so prevalent in our everyday products. The bans are a way to force companies back to that, and to end “non-essential” uses of PFAS where a safer alternative exists. (That itself gets complicated, though; companies may claim there are no alternatives. “Until we start regulating it, industries are going to use what they know and what’s easiest, and may not be compelled to develop safer solutions for the use of PFAS,” Donovan says.)

These laws are a step in the right direction, but much more regulation is needed. “There’s so many additional non-essential uses of PFAS we need to tackle and regulate,” Donovan says, “to ensure we have the safest products available on the market.”