What can a clothing label tell us—and what can it leave unanswered? As a veteran-owned, mother–daughter resale business, Dee & Dee Brown LLC spends time thinking about clothing, product descriptions, and the information shoppers need. A June 2026 report on PFAS in textiles gave us another reason to ask careful questions.
Tom Perkins’s June 15 Guardian article brought our attention to the findings. We followed it to NRDC’s original report, No PFAS, No Problem, to understand the evidence and its limits. [1] [2]
Research on PFAS in textiles invites questions about product treatments and reliable information. Clothing shown is illustrative, not tested.
PFAS in Clothing: Why Treatments Matter
PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large group of manufactured chemicals. Some have been used in textile treatments for water and stain resistance. EPA identifies clothing and other treated fabrics among potential sources of exposure. [3]
The term “forever chemicals” refers to persistence. It does not establish that every garment contains PFAS or that a particular item will cause illness. EPA says health effects depend on the substances and exposure, and research continues. [3]
For us, the everyday question is straightforward: when a listing says “water-resistant” or “stain-resistant,” what evidence supports the claim, and what do we know about the treatment?
We can describe an item’s documented features without turning a performance description into a chemical-safety claim. Those are different kinds of information.
What the June 2026 Report Found
NRDC purchased 115 textile products in California and New York between March and June 2025, after restrictions took effect. The sample targeted categories with a history or possibility of PFAS use; it was not a random survey of every garment sold in the United States. [2]
The report measured fluorine markers used to assess potential PFAS presence. It found 79% of tested products below 100 parts per million, 70% below 10, and 60% below 5. Being below a threshold does not establish zero PFAS or prove that no PFAS was intentionally added. [2]
NRDC’s release highlighted substantial reductions in sampled rainwear and continuing concerns in some tablecloths, pet accessories, and reusable diapers. The organization interpreted the findings as evidence that restrictions can drive changes. [4]
Why it matters: The findings show progress in the tested market while leaving questions about individual products. A useful explanation should preserve both parts of that message.
What This Does Not Tell Us About a Secondhand Garment
The study tested selected purchases in 2025. It did not test our inventory, every older garment, or every version of a brand’s product. [2]
A new brand policy does not provide a chemical history for an older item. Likewise, a care tag can tell us how to maintain a garment without documenting every treatment used during manufacturing.
We should not call an item “PFAS-free,” “non-toxic,” or “chemical-free” based on appearance, fabric type, or a brand name alone. If a manufacturer makes a relevant statement, we need to check which product, version, and production period it covers before using it to describe a resale item.
This is an information limit, not a conclusion that all secondhand clothing is unsafe. The responsible response is to describe what we know and avoid filling the gaps with assumptions.
Product-specific documentation can support a claim; appearance and a care label alone do not establish PFAS status.
Does Washing Solve the Problem?
NRDC discusses PFAS moving from textiles into wastewater during washing. That is not evidence that ordinary laundering reliably eliminates every PFAS treatment. [2]
We would not tell a customer that washing an item makes it PFAS-free. We also would not claim that PFAS can never leave any textile: the report’s discussion of wastewater shows why that absolute statement is misleading.
Cleaning instructions and chemical testing answer different questions. We can follow an item’s care directions while recognizing that cleaning is not a certification of its chemical composition.
Our Resale Connection: Improve the Information We Provide
Much of our resale work has involved our own pre-owned items and clothing obtained without a purchase cost. This article gives us a reason to strengthen how we research and communicate about items, rather than imply that we have laboratory knowledge of our inventory.
A practical review process could include:
- Identify the item: Record its brand, model or style number when available, and relevant labels.
- Research the specific product: Look for manufacturer information that matches the item, rather than relying on a general brand statement.
- Describe accurately: Separate visible condition, documented features, and unknown treatment history.
- Keep the evidence: Save the source and date behind any product claim.
- Answer honestly: If we cannot verify PFAS status, say so clearly.
A possible customer reply is: “We have not tested this item for PFAS, and the available label does not verify its PFAS status.” That is more useful than an unsupported assurance.
We can also review any treatment products we consider adding to garments and avoid assuming that a spray improves an item without creating additional questions about its ingredients.
For Dee & Dee Brown LLC, the practical connection is careful research, accurate descriptions, and honest answers.
Why It Matters Beyond the Headline
Environmental reporting can help us ask better business questions. It also requires care: one study should not become a sweeping claim about every product or every shopper’s health.
Our goal is to turn learning into useful information. In this case, that means understanding the study, explaining its limits, and improving the evidence behind our descriptions.
For readers, try one small activity: choose a garment with a performance claim and look for product-specific information about that feature. Note what the source confirms and what remains unknown.
Learning. Applying. Building.
Meet Donnetta and Dominique · Explore our Poshmark closet
Sources and Scope
- Tom Perkins, The Guardian: article on state restrictions and PFAS in textiles, June 15, 2026.
- NRDC: No PFAS, No Problem — full report, June 2026. See executive summary and sampling methods.
- EPA: Understanding the human health and environmental risks of PFAS.
- NRDC: release describing textile-testing findings, June 8, 2026.
Research reviewed October 12, 2026. Business examples are our reflections and proposed practices. This post does not test or certify any garment, assess an individual’s health risk, or determine which laws apply to a particular resale transaction. Illustrations do not depict tested products.
Comments
Post a Comment