What do the new PFAS regulations mean for the domestic industry?

You’ve probably seen a lot of headlines about PFAS in the past few years. Short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are man-made chemicals that have been used extensively in consumer products since the 1950s for their stain- and water-resistant properties. But the appeal of these properties comes with a downside: PFAS are now known to enter the human body through touch and even air, and they don’t break down. The chemicals have been linked to a growing list of health problems, including kidney and testicular cancer, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, thyroid problems, and decreased immune response to vaccines in children.

The fashion and homewares sectors are particularly engaged in the discussion around “forever chemicals” (a term they have earned because they are essentially indestructible) because textile applications alone account for 50 percent of PFAS used globally. Because PFAS are so ubiquitous – they can now be found in carpets, cleaning products, clothing, cookware, cosmetics, food packaging, furniture, outdoor clothing, paint, foam products and toilet paper (not to mention drinking water in the US) – and so disturbing health consequences, governments from the local to federal level have begun to introduce regulations to limit them. At the highest level, the Biden-Harris administration recently finalized the first-ever national drinking water standard in an effort to prevent exposure to “forever chemicals” in water supplies. At the state level, 34 states have enacted 302 PFAS policies to date, several of which directly impact household products such as carpets, rugs, fabric treatments and paints.

A phrase that appears frequently in legislation surrounding forever chemicals was “intentionally added” – a term that would specifically exclude PFAS, which can be found in recycled materials. Fabrics made from recycled materials, such as ocean plastic or water bottles, will still contain PFAS and bypass such legislative initiatives.

In 2021, California began classifying PFAS rugs and carpets as a toxics control priority, paving the way for other states to follow. Colorado recently passed a bill banning the sale of indoor textiles or upholstered furniture intentionally added with PFAS, effective January 1, 2025, as well as outdoor textiles and upholstery by 2027. A bill currently working its way through the New York State Assembly would phase out the use of PFAS in textiles and paints by 2026 and would require manufacturers to provide notices on products containing these chemicals (potentially similar to California’s Proposition 65 warnings).

While all of these legislative initiatives will certainly prompt many national brands to adapt their offerings, some companies have already begun to transition away from the use of PFAS in their products. Ikea eliminated PFAS from its home textiles in 2016 and has documented its efforts to retool the rest of its product lineup; Home Depot has eliminated chemicals from its rugs and rugs and aims to launch PFAS-free patio and decorative products by 2025; and performance fabrics giants like Crypton and Sunbrella have already phased out chemicals from their products.

The PFAS phase-out is, on its face, good news, and legislation in key states is likely to prompt manufacturers to make radical changes to their products, to the benefit of all consumers. But doing so also leaves many unanswered questions—namely, what chemicals are replacing them to achieve the same effects? A report on possible alternatives to PFAS (from silicones to polyurethanes to paraffin wax treatments) by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control details the known risks of each, and while they cause somewhat less panic than those attributed to PFAS, there are still concerns about reproductive harm, neurotoxicity, and cancer.

In some cases, when governments begin to regulate one chemical of concern, manufacturers replace it with a similar but less-studied alternative. For example, when bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used to make materials such as plastic containers and children’s toys flexible, was found to cause asthma, neurodevelopmental problems, cancer, diabetes and heart disease, it was phased out only to be replaced in many cases by bisphenol S or F. These alternatives turned out to be no safer, just less researched, but they allowed companies to advertise their products as BPA-free.

Ikea has acknowledged this checkered history, pledging to avoid “pathetic substitutions” as it explores alternatives to eternal chemicals. However, the company also points to the challenges of replacing PFAS in categories such as electronics, where PFAS-free materials and technologies may not yet exist and will need to undergo rigorous testing before being brought to market.

In short, while the wave of legislation that has emerged over the last few years is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, there is still work to be done. Resources highlighting the dangers of PFAS are plentiful, but there is much less guidance for manufacturers on how to make informed changes to their product lines. Brands like Ikea, which have large R&D teams, may be able to test alternatives, but smaller companies may be left in the lurch because there are limited statutory deadlines to change their approach to offerings and they have to take their chances on new formulas.