Sometimes it seems to us that they are far away from us, but in fact they hug us on rainy days, wrap us up when we want to warm up, or even share our plate. Most of those who have seen the film Dark Waters, in which Oscar-nominated actor Mark Ruffalo plays the lawyer Robert Billiot, who exposed the mass contamination of drinking water in West Virginia in the United States by DuPont, probably thought that “this is none of our business.” “. It’s the same when looking at studies documenting the very serious health effects on workers from exposure to high levels of poisonous substances in China or other Asian countries where clothes for the West are made. And yet, toxic substances are not as far away as we think.

In both cases, human and groundwater poisoning is associated with the use of toxic perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkylated chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). PFAS are widely known as “permanent substances” as they are very durable, do not decompose, do not dissolve. They are a set of 4000 substances, very persistent, toxic and very mobile. And in Europe, however, it is estimated that around 100,000 production units create or have created PFAS contamination.

However, PFAS are found not only in factories, but also in many everyday items that impart waterproof and flame retardant properties. For example, they are widely used in waterproof coatings on many jackets. Also in non-stick cookware coatings, as well as packaging and wrapping paper in fast food and food distribution, especially fatty foods.

The use of “persistent toxins” in clothing is widespread, especially in waterproof winter jackets, many of which are also on the Greek market.

“PFAS have the property of preventing water from being absorbed by fabrics and are therefore used in some garments such as jackets, waterproof coats, gloves and boots. Any garment that claims to be waterproof likely contains some PFAS,” explains Dania Valvi, associate professor and director of the MS in Epidemiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, K.

How can “permanent substances” get into our body from clothes? “PFAS can pass through our clothing into the body through inhalation or even through the skin. In addition, the increased use of PFAS in clothing and other consumer products has caused widespread contamination of the environment and the food chain, leaving us daily exposed to PFAS through our diet,” stresses Dr. Valvi. In fact, as he notes, “exposure to young children is of particular concern to us because PFASs can disrupt the endocrine system that regulates normal development in children, hence increasing the risk of chronic disease from childhood on.” Well, especially when it comes to children’s clothing, much more attention is required.

But what causes PFAS? “We now know that exposure to PFAS can increase the risk of high cholesterol, hypertension, thyroid disease, allergies, and certain cancers. New studies show that PFASs likely increase the risk of diabetes, liver disease, and also reduce the response of our immune system to vaccines (influenza, COVID, etc.),” the epidemiologist clarifies.

Under the weight of scientific discoveries, a trend is emerging in European legislation leading to a ban on the use of a number of PFASs, mainly in consumer goods, or to determine a schedule for their replacement. “This is an important step forward, but we also need ongoing reviews to ensure that new legislation is implemented immediately, as well as thorough reviews to ensure that any new chemical used in consumer products is safe for the environment and our health before it will be released. on the market,” emphasizes Dr. Valvi.

“The chemicals that go into making clothes were not designed to be toxic. On the contrary, the goal of their manufacturers was to improve quality and satisfy the consumer. But, unfortunately, they did not achieve their goal at all, because along with their properties as chemicals, they also carry their side effects, which are skin irritation and, most importantly, endocrine disruptors, and perhaps they have carcinogenic effect. Unfortunately, the problem does not stop there, because, dispersing them in the environment, they pollute the most valuable commodity on the planet – water, ”says“ K ”Mrs. Polyxenia Nikolopoulou-Stamatis, Honorary Professor of the Athens School of Medicine. Medical and scientific director of the postgraduate program “Environment and Health”.

In recent years consumer organizations have launched a campaign to force manufacturing companies to free their products from PFAS. Many leading outdoor brands have made a commitment to eliminate “permanent chemicals” by 2020. The European Environmental Bureau has verified the developments of some of the industry’s key companies. According to the EEB, some companies have responded and developed quality jackets that are completely free of the dangerous PFAS. These companies were inspired by the duck feather technique and introduced PFAS-free solutions. These garments are labeled “free PHAS” and are considered to have high waterproofing properties, etc. but without toxic substances.

At the same time, of course, not without the famous “green underwear”. Instead of the generic and required “PFAS Free”, which means clothing does not contain persistent toxic substances, some companies have placed labels that say “PFOA Free” or “PFOS Free”, which are modules of chemicals that are not necessary for waterproofing. and can be replaced relatively easily.

“Exposure to PFAS may increase the risk of high cholesterol, hypertension, thyroid disease, allergies, and certain cancers.”

As commented by Dr. Valve: “Some products claim they don’t contain e.g. PFOS and PFOA, but this does not guarantee us that they do not contain other PFAS or other chemicals potentially harmful to our health.” And notes: “Consumers have the right to know which products contain PFAS, but unfortunately, companies are still not required to disclose this product information. It is important to know what chemicals each product contains so that we, as consumers, can make informed choices for our health. Today we have the technology with which this can be done very easily, for example. through an application on our mobile phone, where we can see which chemical compounds each product contains and whether they are considered safe for our health,” he emphasizes.

“When asked what we can do as consumers, the answer is that we choose clothes made from natural materials such as cotton, wool, silk, leather. We are made aware of the presence of so-called “toxic chemicals in synthetic clothing” so that we can make appropriate decisions and not throw our old clothes in the trash, but recycle them,” says Ms. Nikolopoulou-Stamatis. from her side.

We wear them to cover up, keep warm or feel beautiful, but using them can hide toxic risks to our health. The reason is in clothing and fabrics, the processing of which is a process involving a large number of chemicals, not always innocent. In fact, the fact that most fabrics and clothing in Europe are imported mainly from Asian countries, with questionable environmental compliance, raises even more questions, especially since control – at the national and European level – is insufficient.

“Textiles use either natural raw materials such as cotton or wool, which are processed into yarn, or synthetic materials. Natural fabrics are obtained from animals and plants, while synthetic ones are created in the laboratory. The scientific literature on the possible adverse health effects of chemicals used in the textile industry is extensive and is mainly related to human exposure during the production of textile products, ”K Thessaly, a professor in the department of biochemistry-biotechnology of the university, tells K Thessaly. , Dimitris Curetas.

“While there are significant controls at the EU level for many hazardous substances, the constant relocation of textile production to countries with less environmental restrictions and labor standards, the complex supply chains of raw materials, as well as the large number of participants involved in various stages of production, make it very difficult to manage. strict control over the presence of certain toxic chemicals in textiles in general and in clothing in particular,” emphasizes Mr. Curetas.

Unfortunately, there are many publications and studies on the presence of substances associated with toxic effects in clothing. “Polybrominated ethers, organophosphates and bisphenol A are widely used in the textile industry as flame retardants and are associated with endocrine toxicity,” notes a professor at the University of Thessaly.

Other studies have determined the concentration of several metals in various skin contact clothing. Samples of tops, underwear, children’s pajamas and bodysuits were analyzed. They found high levels of chromium in dark polyamide clothing, antimony in polyester clothing, and copper in some green cotton fabrics. “A known allergy to azo dyes and aromatic amines in contact with fabric dyes,” notes Mr. Curetas. “The appearance of other potentially harmful organic compounds in clothing, such as quinolines or bisphenol A, is also a concern, requiring further study of their presence in textiles. Recently, perfluorinated PHAS compounds with known reproductive, developmental, metabolic, liver and kidney toxicity, and immune system dysfunction have been reported to migrate from tissues, which may indicate a direct and indirect source of human exposure to these chemicals.” , adds the professor of biochemistry-biotechnology.

“It is necessary to assess the health risk from human skin exposure to potentially toxic chemicals through fabrics and clothing that come into contact with the skin. Even under certain exposure conditions, they can pose an unpredictable carcinogenic risk to consumers and especially to infants,” he emphasizes.

For this reason, the intervention of states is required to prepare a study organized at various levels and in many samples. “The list of results should be made public so that consumers avoid clothing brands that are proven to use materials that pose a risk to humans, and especially to certain populations such as children, pregnant women, patients, etc.,” suggests Mr Curett.

In any case, it is necessary to protect health and inform the public about the safety of clothing, which, according to most people (wrongly), does not pose a threat of toxic-chemical exposure.