France has enacted a national ban on ‘forever chemicals’, marking a milestone in long-running efforts to remove harmful PFAS (or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) from consumer products. The ban arrives against a backdrop of intense efforts within the fashion industry to move away from the use of PFAS — and may help to build momentum for a broader European ban.
“PFAS were used in the first place as they provided some unique properties that were highly desirable in fashion and other industries. However, the environmental and health risks far outweigh the functional benefits,” says Qing Wang, professor of marketing and innovation at Warwick Business School.
Chemicals from this umbrella group (of more than 10,000 in total) are used to manufacture clothing, particularly technical pieces, to make them waterproof or stainproof and increase durability. They are commonly known as forever chemicals because they leech into the environment and break down slowly, remaining for years in water, air, soil, the food chain — and in human bodies. Wang points to a 2023 European Environmental Agency report that found PFAS in nearly 100 per cent of European blood samples and linked them to cancers, hormonal disruptions and immune system issues.
French politician and environmentalist Nicolas Thierry first proposed the PFAS ban last year, with France’s parliament passing the law on 20 February, despite opposition from right-wing political parties. The law came into force on 27 February, meaning the manufacturing, importing, exporting and selling in France of numerous products containing PFAS — including textiles, clothing, shoes and the coatings that make them waterproof — are forbidden from 2026, with the exception of certain types of protective clothing for use in military or emergency operations. Materials containing only trace amounts of PFAS are not included in the law.
France’s ban — which follows a similar plan to ban PFAS in Denmark and bans that came into force at the start of 2025 in California and New York — could help pressure other European countries to follow suit. “This move by France is particularly significant as the world’s fashion capital,” Wang says.
However, industry-wide implementation is not a given; removing PFAS from supply chains takes time and money, and can affect the final look and functionality of garments. And as the European Union moves to dilute some of its other sustainability requirements, how far the forever chemical ban can go is in question.
New legislation is coming down the pike that will force brands to eliminate PFAS in their supply chains. The challenge? They’re everywhere.
Supply chain challenge
Many well-known fashion and outdoor brands, including Patagonia, H&M, Finisterre and Picture, have already moved away from forever chemicals.
But going PFAS-free is not a straightforward process. Those that are still using PFAS may need to rethink their supply chains and production processes to identify where PFAS are coming from and eliminate them to comply with the ban. This could mean seeking alternative materials with similar functionalities — but often at a higher cost — or in some cases opting to forego certain properties altogether, and accepting that may make a difference to their final product.
“Companies are going to need to interrogate their supply chain and suppliers to see what types of things they’re buying and if they may contain PFAS,” says Stephanie Metzger, policy advisor at the Royal Society of Chemistry. “That could be fabric, but it also could be in the equipment in the manufacturing facility used to sew or dye the clothes that could leave a residue on products.”
Eliminating PFAS from the supply chain is likely to lead to additional costs, Wang notes, as companies may need to invest more in research and development to find alternatives to PFAS coatings and materials, or carry out supply chain audits or collaborations with suppliers.
“Alternatives may not yet match the functional benefits provided by PFAS, potentially affecting the quality and performance of garments,” she says. “And the need for additional testing and certification for alternative materials can drive costs, which might be passed on to consumers.”
Customers may also notice the difference in their garments, with PFAS-free materials potentially looking and feeling different.
One alternative to PFAS materials is C0, a fluorocarbon-free DWR (durable water repellent), which uses a coating made up of millions of microscopic pores to allow the fabric to repel water, says Christina Dean, founder of Hong Kong-based sustainable fashion NGO Redress, which works with designers and manufacturers to drive fashion circularity. But this product has some limitations with resisting oil-borne stains and may not be adapted to all applications. Importantly, it could cost up to 15 per cent more than PFAS-based water-repellent materials, Dean says — costs that brands may have to absorb themselves or pass on to suppliers.
For Patagonia, going PFAS-free was far from simple. “We went through hundreds of combinations of fabrics and treatments before we were able to phase PFAS out while maintaining the quality and performance of our products,” says Patagonia communications executive Gin Ando. “For some of our products, an alternative was easy to find or we removed the waterproofing application entirely because we learnt it wasn’t necessary. Our technical products, however, are used in some of the harshest environments on the planet. For users whose lives depend on those products’ performance, we had to be sure what we put out worked, and that took time.”
Ando notes that “quality is an environmental issue, too”, as Patagonia did not want PFAS alternatives to shorten the lifespans of its products.
PFAS bans will also have a significant impact on recycling and reuse as brands find themselves with excess fabric that can no longer be used in certain markets, says Dean. “What ultimately happens one to two years after a ban or change in policy, is that we see all the waste coming out from the supply chain because they can’t use it,” Dean says. She points to moves to eliminate real fur from supply chains, which has generated waste that can’t be sold.
In some cases, the only feasible solution for brands and suppliers to avoid landfill may be selling materials to countries in which PFAS are still allowed — a move that only shifts the problem.
“Part of the challenge that brands have expressed to me is that they would have liked to have more time to deal more responsibly with the excess they’re sitting on,” says Dean.
But the ban will begin to have a positive impact on the circularity of the fashion industry in the years to come, because future goods will ultimately be free of forever chemicals. “As a strategy for the circular economy, having safe inputs is fundamental,” she notes.
A broader ban
The French PFAS ban comes at a time when climate campaigners in Europe are concerned that sustainability regulations are becoming less, not more, stringent. In the recent Clean Industrial Deal, the European Commission set out more lenient rules for the automotive sector, while campaigners say the bloc’s Omnibus package, aimed at simplifying sustainability reporting, will soften requirements.
Metzger hopes supply chain progress linked to the French ban will help drive broader progress towards eliminating PFAS in the region — if companies have to eliminate PFAS to sell or manufacture in France, they can also offer those PFAS-free products to other European markets. “The EU is so integrated that if you have a big country like France already using a lot of PFAS-free products, the supply chain is there and companies may just start offering those products everywhere.”
Campaigners, frustrated at the slow progress of plans to ban PFAS at a European level, see the French ban as a step forward. Julios Kontchou, rapid response campaigner and ecotoxicologist at Greenpeace, based in Germany, says: “I think this decision to ban PFAS on cosmetics and textiles in France is going to encourage other countries in the EU to take similar measures.”
A proposal to ban PFAS, submitted by several countries, is being assessed by the European Chemicals Agency, Kontchou notes, but this process is taking longer than it should and French law may help ramp up the pressure. “France’s ban is only going to put more pressure on the European Union to come up with a Europe-wide ban,” Kontchou says.
“By targeting a high-visibility sector like fashion, France is setting a precedent that could encourage other European nations and regulatory bodies to revisit their PFAS policies,” adds Wang.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
