Is that raincoat leaching "forever chemicals"? The current state of PFAS and waterproof wear

The "Forever Chemicals" Lurking in "Water-Repellent Clothing"—The Story of Raincoats and PFAS

A reliable raincoat on a rainy day. Many people have been impressed by how water droplets roll off, thinking, "That's well-made." However, the BBC's headline is provocative—"Does Your Raincoat Contain 'Forever Chemicals'?". Widely quoted as a lead sentence is the question, "Could PFAS be absorbed through the skin via raincoats?"

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are referred to as "forever chemicals" because they are difficult to break down and tend to persist in the environment. Their applications are surprisingly wide, but in clothing, they have been used for years to achieve "water-repellent," "stain-resistant," and "oil-repellent" properties.

Why PFAS Have Been Used in Raincoats: Water Repellency (DWR) and Waterproof Membranes

Waterproofing in outdoor wear generally involves a two-layer approach.

• The outer fabric repels water droplets with "Durable Water Repellent (DWR)"

• For water that still penetrates, the inner waterproof membrane or structure stops it

PFAS have been considered an "ideal material" for DWR and some waterproof technologies because they strongly repel water and dirt even in small amounts, and their performance tends to last longer. Outdoor brands themselves explain that PFAS have contributed to water repellency and weather resistance.

However, this "long-lasting" feature is troublesome in another sense. Once released into the environment, they are hard to break down and difficult to retrieve. Therefore, regulations are being strengthened, especially in Europe, and the UK government has also stated its intention to announce a PFAS countermeasure plan by 2026.

The Biggest Concern: Can It Enter the Body Just by Wearing It?

This is where the BBC headline hits home.
"Can the PFAS in raincoats be absorbed through the skin?"

In the Panorama special mentioned as a related program, it is summarized that PFAS may remain in familiar products like waterproof coats for children, and expert comments suggest that absorption could occur through prolonged skin contact.

There are also research reports on skin absorption itself. For example, a British newspaper introduced a study (a skin model experiment by university researchers) that suggested the possibility of PFAS being absorbed through the skin, adding a new perspective to the previously dominant exposure routes of "mainly water and food."

However, what's important is that "what is absorbed, to what extent, and how significant it is as a health impact" varies greatly depending on the type, amount, and contact conditions of the chemical substance. PFAS tend to be discussed as a "single group," but their toxicity and behavior are not uniform. This point lays the groundwork for major debates on social media.

Current State of Health Impacts: EFSA Indicates "Mainly Dietary" + "Impact on Immunity"

So, how do public institutions organize this information? The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has compiled information on PFAS in an FAQ, explaining thatexposure mainly comes from diet, particularly fish and eggs. They also treat "reduced immune response to vaccination" as an important impact in their evaluations and have set a tolerable weekly intake (TWI).

Thus, it's dangerous to simplistically conclude that "raincoats are the biggest cause." For many people, other routes like diet are likely more significant. However, since exposure from clothing cannot be completely ruled out, there is room for debate, especially depending on conditions like children or prolonged wear.

Reactions on Social Media: "Educational" vs. "Too Alarmist"—Reasons for the Split

This theme easily ignites on social media because it's something "we come into contact with every day." Compared to pots and water, raincoats feel "closer to our skin." In fact, the Panorama episode on PFAS has sparked widespread dissemination and debate.

• Sharing Awareness and Crisis
  Posts from research groups encourage viewing the program as an "important episode," raising awareness of the health and environmental impacts of PFAS.

• Criticism of "Fear-Mongering" (Dissatisfaction with Science Communication)
  On the other hand, comments from bio networks criticize the program for having "strong elements of fear but lacking important details, potentially causing unnecessary anxiety." Discomfort with discussing PFAS as a single entity is clearly expressed here.

• Debates in Comment Sections (Expertise, Balance, Practical Advice)
  On LinkedIn, posts dismissing the program as "scientifically sloppy" and "untrustworthy BBC" are met with counterarguments like "awareness is still necessary" and "practical advice is meaningful," leading to a flow where participants (program guests) explain their "professional backgrounds." This is a typical example of social media becoming a "debate forum."

This conflict is not about one side being completely wrong, but rather about different focuses.
The side that wants to "widely inform about risks" and the side that wants to "carefully convey uncertainties and nuances." PFAS is indeed a theme where such clashes easily occur at the intersection of science and daily life.

How Are Companies Responding? The Reality of "PFAS-Free"

Amidst increasing regulations and public opinion, the outdoor industry is beginning to steer towards "not intentionally using PFAS."

For example, Patagonia has clearly stated its policy totransition to materials and water repellents that do not intentionally add PFAS in new products from spring 2025 onward.

Brands like Rab, Haglöfs, and Deuter also explain the uses of PFAS (water-repellent processing, membranes, etc.) and their phased reduction policies.

However, "PFAS-free" is not a magical label. It involves performance, durability, cost, and supply chains. Even in company materials, trade-offs such as "fluorine-free water repellents require re-waterproofing and maintenance" and "oil stain resistance tends to decrease" are discussed.

What Can Consumers Do? (Without Excessive Fear, Realistically)

Finally, let's organize everyday options. The key is not a "zero-risk illusion," but a "reasonable way to reduce."

• Prioritize products labeled as "PFAS-free/PFC-free" (though the basis and scope of labeling vary by brand)

• Differentiate by use: Separate scenarios where "performance is crucial," like mountain climbing in heavy rain or work use, from those where commuting or city use is sufficient, and avoid buying unnecessarily high-performance items

• Use for a long time/maintain: Since fluorine-free water repellents are more likely to require re-waterproofing, as explained by companies, choose with care in mind

• Have multiple sources of information: Don't make judgments based solely on strong language from programs or social media; also refer to summaries from public institutions (like EFSA)
  
  
  

Conclusion: Raincoats as an "Entry Point"—The PFAS Issue Reexamines Our Life Blueprint

"Water-repellent clothing" is a symbol of convenience. However, behind it, there may be a chain of chemicals that persist in the environment. The BBC's question challenges us through the familiar product of raincoats—what materials are we using to create comfort, and at what cost?.

Social media is divided. Yet the fact that it is divided itself indicates the "life closeness" of the theme. Regulations are advancing, companies are moving, and consumer choices are beginning to change. What is needed next is not "fear-mongering" or "ignoring," but transparency and a sense of understanding.