Gore-tex / PFAS apparel "ban" - NY & CA first

[Erict]

(Note - this isn't just about Gore-Tex..)

NY and CA are the first two states with laws prohibiting the sale of certain NEW apparel containing "PFAS". This includes traditional Gore-Tex and some other waterproof materials. A friend just tried to order some Sitka gear, and the online sale would not complete because of this. Both state laws get more restrictive through 2028. There are apparently other states with enacted laws whose effective dates have not been reached.

Yeah, it's not the end of the world. We've survived lead sinker and lead shot restrictions. Whether you agree or not with the ban, hunters, bikers, skiers, hikers, fishermen, etc. may want to learn about alternatives. In the meantime, know that this stuff won't be on the shelves or available online in those states.

I'm sure there are bigger fish in the ocean to fry, but technically, the NY law will apply to WKRs trying to sell certain "NIB" items.

NY
"Effective January 1, 2025, no person will be permitted to sell any new apparel containing intentionally added PFAS in New York. Apparel is defined to include clothing items intended for regular wear or formal occasions, such as undergarments, shirts, pants, skirts, dresses, overalls, bodysuits, vests, dancewear, suits, saris, scarves, tops, leggings, leisurewear, formal wear, outdoor apparel, onesies, bibs, and diapers..."

CA
"Effective January 1, 2025, no person will be permitted to manufacture, distribute, or sell any new textile articles that contain either intentionally added PFAS or levels of total organic fluorine that exceed 100 ppm (which will be reduced to 50 ppm by January 1, 2027) in California...."

 

[Ishootgunssometimes]

That damned umbrella lobby. Good time to start selling umbrellas in Hunter orange

 

[Desk Jockey]

Had not followed this. What is the issue with PFAS in apparel? Is it toxic to he wearer or are they just trying to eliminate them overall.

 

[ElDiablito]

Hmmm - wondering how this or laws like it will affect Kuiu.

Some DWR treatments use PFAS and some don’t, I’ve read. No idea what Kuiu is using.

 

[_S_R_]

Ban toxins not any material. If companies want to play along it wouldn’t be any issues

 

[_S_R_]

We getting back to era with organic cotton, wool and wax canvas.
In pass few years YouTube fashionists pushing hard PNW boots as daily wear that last lifetime. Premium denim that last for years and of course wool and cotton.

 

[BBob]

What is the issue with PFAS in apparel?

Fluorocarbons. They are toxic.

Many industries have been slowly eliminating them so it isn’t anything new. It’s just hitting apparel now. Gore has been eliminating all of their pfas containing Gore Tex this past year. Their GTex cycling clothing has been discounted heavily for months to get rid of it. Ski waxes went through this several years back.

Fluorocarbons (PFAS)—The Forever Chemicals - PMC

Fluorocarbons are fluorinated organic molecules widely used in industry and commerce. Nomenclature has changed over the years, with PFAS becoming the accepted umbrella term. The environment is heavily polluted with these toxins. Worldwide research ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[BBob]

Also being discussed in this thread:

Sitka shipping restrictions to CA and NY

Because of my employment I am able to buy direct from a lot of different outdoor industry companies through a promotional form. I just went on to purchase some SITKA gear and easily half of their Items now say they cannot ship to CA or NY. I went on a few of the other gear makers websites...

rokslide.com

 

[PBBananaHammock]

Fluorocarbons or “forever chemicals”. Very nasty hydrophobic chemicals that do not break down. Once used, or worn off, they permeate all water supplies forever as a pollutant. They can be found in the most remote streams in the most remote places.

They were very common in many items like aerosols and coolants, but for clothing, they’ll be in items containing a water resistance dwr. The companies without restrictions have adjusted to different degradable chemicals by choice because there has been plenty of information on this topic over the years. Gore and the others (mostly those using gore like Sitka) that are currently restricted are the ones being dragged kicking and screaming to the new standard for clothing. It’s not some surprise, it’s been a standard for other items and in other places in the world for quite a while.

 

[ETtikka]

Just the tip of the iceberg with PFAS, anyone remember how everyone loved Teflon when it first came out?, this is much broader , big chem just like big pharm , big bank, big oil, etc

 

[Mike Islander]

At first blush I did not like this. After some reading I say ban all forever plastics that are hormone disrupters. We can live without them.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Sorry to be dense, but is it toxic to wear this stuff, like do you absorb through skin, or is it more of an issue that the chemicals end up as pollutants downstream. Like I get it, non stick pans contaminate food but does wearing a jacket expose you to this stuff.

 

[Kronos]

Sorry to be dense, but is it toxic to wear this stuff, like do you absorb through skin, or is it more of an issue that the chemicals end up as pollutants downstream. Like I get it, non stick pans contaminate food but does wearing a jacket expose you to this stuff.

It’s not toxic to wear it, but it eventually gets into drinking water and it’s impossible to remove. PFAS has been found in extremely remote mountain lakes.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

Sorry to be dense, but is it toxic to wear this stuff, like do you absorb through skin, or is it more of an issue that the chemicals end up as pollutants downstream. Like I get it, non stick pans contaminate food but does wearing a jacket expose you to this stuff.

Only found one study that claims it does. So, maybe? Need more studies to confidently say for certain. PFAS are a big money maker for chemical companies like gore. It'll take time for more to come out about them because they are so heavily invested against it.

Study: PFAS Exposure Through Skin Causes Harm Similar to Ingestion

Exposure through the skin to the toxic fluorinated chemical once used to make Teflon could pose the same health hazards as ingesting the compound in water or food, according to a new animal study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH.

www.ewg.org

If you handed me a bottle of a chemical that doesn’t ever degrad and has been linked to respiratory illness I’d er on the side of caution getting it on the skin. But in the grand scheme of risk, probably not the end of the world. However it’s inefficient nature of adhering to clothing is what increases its quantity into the environment.

If you have clothing with PFAS, they will wash off into god knows where relatively quickly. DWR kind of blows in general. After a few uses, it needs to be reactivated/retreated and is never as good as it once was (which is mediocre), thus reinforcing it to be again reactivated/retreated. It’s a cycle.

I was hopeful with the “shake dry” design of rain jackets a few years ago that didn’t require dwr, they just weren’t very durable.

 

[EdP]

Humans have figured out how to make clean, safe, drinking water from our rivers containing sewage, heavy metals, ag runoff, and industrial pollution of all sorts. Better life through chemistry. We need to do the same for these "forever chemicals." I would also like to understand how they cause health issues if they are so inactive chemically that they do not breakdown in the environment.

 

[BBob]

I would also like to understand how they cause health issues if they are so inactive chemically that they do not breakdown in the environment.

They are everywhere. They are in your food, household dust and maybe your water. Lots of info in the link I provided above.

 

[Gwchem]

The vast majority of groundwater PFAS contamination and ingestion comes from a small number of compounds, none of which is goretex. Banning it won't change a thing.

Firefighting foam (AFFF) is the number one issue, having been used extensively in a number of industries, but predominantly aviation and munition holding sites.

 

[EdP]

So Bob, the linked article looks like a scientific publication but is actually an editorial, not a scientific paper at all. Even given its apparent deceptive presentation format, it admits "While PFAS body load correlates with many diseases, the actual increase is apparently relatively modest." How unfortunate that any increase is modest and not linked to increased exposure levels. Modest even though it "correlates with." What does "it correlates with" actually mean? It is scientific sounding mumbo jumbo. I want facts, not emotional driven drivel. I want to see an explanation of the morphology of disease related to PFAS exposure. It does not appear to exist.

Half life of 2 to 7 years is cited. A forever chemical? Not hardly. A half life of 7 years means 97% is gone in 35 years. A half life of 2 years means 97% is gone in 10 years. 35 years is a bit short of "forever."

I am old enough to remember when silicone breast implants were banned because junk science linked it to immune disease. The alarmists favorite saying at the time was "it's silicone so it goes straight to the immune sytem." Why would that be? Well it wouldn't, and it was shown to be junk science, no other useful implants were banned, just breast implants, and guess what, silicone breast implants have been back for a long time and there was never any link to immune system issues found, just a number of women who had gotten silicone implants and also had immune system issues and wanted a company with deep pockets to pay their medical bills.

Same thing with autism and vaccinations. The scare was eventually shown to be based on junk science. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3136032/

I will also point out that many men and women are exposed to gold for much of their lives. The exposure typically begins at the age of marriage and correlates with the onset of symptoms of aging with a continued decline in physical and mental capabilities in general, which ultimately ends in their death. Those damn gold wedding rings should be banned.

I will wait on some legitimate scientific studies before jumping on this bandwagon.

 

[cuerro viejo]

This is old news. California banned it a few years back, why all the new DWR’s suck compared to old ones.

Sitka, Kuiu, NF, Columbia etc already moved away from PFAS

 

[Further]

I believe it is possible to filter out PFAS from home drinking water using recognized lab, independently certified devices that make claims. It's my belief that we do not yet know the actual extent and specific health risk impacts that PFAS may incur. There are studies on 1/2 life reductions in the body, but again do not believe we thoroughly understand the effects by concentration, exposure over time, age, sex, etc.