Unpacked: Retail’s growing PFAS problem

As awareness of PFAS and the biological fallout grows, more companies are facing legal action and more regulators are taking note. This year has seen a number of high-profile lawsuits, including one against Costco alleging the company failed to disclose that its Kirkland brand baby wipes contain PFAS, despite being labeled as natural ingredients. Costco did not respond to a request for comment from Modern Retail. But in response, parents across the internet took notice. Some moms gave away baby wipes on Facebook, others with a following took to Reels or TikTok to share their concerns. One of the most viewed TikToks is from a user called AntiPlasticLady, who posted about the case in early July.

On the regulatory front, the Environmental Protection Agency in April classified two types of PFAS as hazardous materials, meaning companies could be on the hook for paying to clean them up. In February, the Food and Drug Administration announced that PFAS will no longer be used in food packaging as part of a voluntary agreement with food manufacturers.

Yet the extent of the damage that PFAS can cause is still far from completely understood, making the landscape murky to navigate. Miguel Garcia Castillo, principal at the business incubator Co/Studios, said the discussion around PFAS has changed as scientists, makers and consumers learn more. “This is a discussion everyone’s been having for the last five years,” he said. “But as the years progressed, there is a more nuanced conversation.” He added that the understanding has evolved around what goes into these things and why they’re important, and the things that we can create a solution.” 

He points out how when it was invented, PFAS itself was innovative. But now, technology is more advanced, and scientists are able to engineer solutions. “We are at the cusp of what I think could be a pretty exciting, innovative time,” Garcia Castillo said. “The people who solve this are going to be in a really important place.”

Here’s a breakdown of the current conversation around PFAS and how consumers and brands are responding.

What are PFAS?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, a family of chemical compounds that’s been around since the 1940s with DuPont’s manufacturing of Teflon. There are at least 12,000 forms, according to the EPA, which are used across a variety of consumer products for multiple functions like water repellants or stain resistance. Some compounds have been used in food packaging to prevent sticking. Because the chemicals never biodegrade, they’re also known as “forever chemicals” — and they’ve become nearly ubiquitous.

Why are PFAS considered a problem?

Environmental advocates have been sounding the alarm of PFAS for years for its negative effects on the environment and human health. The proliferation of the chemical has led to detection in water, soil, air and fish, as well as breastmilk and blood.

One of the most-discussed risks of PFAS is concerns about the chemicals in water supplies. The Environmental Working Group counts at least 6,100 U.S. locations with detected PFAS contamination in public and private water systems. About 30 attorneys general have sued PFAS manufacturers for their links to water contamination, according to the Safer States initiative that tracks the cases.

Health effects of PFAS exposure can range from links to kidney or testicular cancer, hormone disruption or reproductive harm. Yet it’s difficult to pin down the extent of the damage PFAS can cause because there are so many types, and so many potential exposure points. Still, as the EPA puts it, “the more we learn about PFAS chemicals, the more we learn that certain PFAS can cause health risks even at very low levels.” Further, FDA researchers are looking into the extent of PFAS in food supply with the goal of estimating the exposure risk to the U.S. population.

What are the business risks of PFAS?

Beyond the biological concerns, PFAS are increasingly posing risks to companies’ reputations and bottom lines. In addition to the Costco suit that made headlines earlier this month, baby bottle companies Handi-craft and Philips-Avent are also facing a lawsuit around the alleged inclusion of PFAS in plastic baby bottles. Bic got hit with a similar suit in April. Last year, the period underwear industry came under scrutiny for PFAS in its products, with companies like Knix and Thinx still putting PFAS explainers on their websites.

Thinx, in November 2022, settled a lawsuit over allegations that its products contained PFAS. According to the original complaint, this “contradicts all of Thinx’s unvarying representations that the product is non-toxic, harmless, sustainable, organic, environmentally friendly and otherwise safe for women and the environment.” Thinx, for its part, denied all allegations as part of the $5 million settlement and maintained that PFAS “has never been a part of its product design.”

Earlier this year, a judge signed off on a settlement from 3M with public water supplies over PFAS used in its firefighting foam and other products. Valued at least $10 billion, the commitment will be paid out over 13 years to help remediate PFAS in drinking water supplies. 3M has also committed to removing PFAS from all of its products by the end of 2025. ProPublica’s Sharon Lerner in May published a piece with The New Yorker that explained how 3M downplayed its knowledge around PFAS exposure.

What are the labeling concerns around PFAS?

One of the central concerns in the litigation is over how products that label themselves as green, non-toxic or eco-friendly may contain PFAS. Because the chemicals won’t biodegrade, many consumers see PFAS as something that fails to live up to any sort of environmentally-friendly standard.

Sarah Paiji Yoo, co-founder of cleaning company Blueland, said that while cleaner ingredients are seeing more momentum, “I think that existing products are trying to lean more into clean and green messaging,” “But I think there’s still a lot of, you know, consumer awareness that needs to happen to be a driving force to see more of this change in the actual products and ingredients and packaging.”

She points to third-party certifications like those from EWG or Leaping Bunny as ways that brands and customers can get more educated about ingredients.

What steps are brands taking to avoid PFAS?

Many brands are setting their own goals around PFAS elimination. Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit that advocates for ingredient safety, lists 32 businesses that aim to ban PFAS in certain product categories, packaging or products. Home Depot and Lowe’s, for example, said they would stop selling rugs or carpets with PFAS over four years ago. The list includes outwardly environmentalist brands like Patagonia as well as fast-food chains like Chik-Fil-A, McDonald’s and Burger King that have committed to banning PFAS in packaging.

Alastair Dorwad, CEO of the cleaning company Dropps and former CEO at Method, said eco-friendly brands are seeing more traction from retailers these days, in part because of consumer interest. One way that Dropps has been able to cut down on the use of PFAS is by making and packaging its products in recycled cardboard. 

The company has about 300,000 subscribers and is currently in 100 retail doors, with more on track for later this year. “The elimination of plastic is a mega trend — it’s not a fad,” he said. “I think it’s a generational push and one we just fundamentally embrace.”

Are there alternatives to PFAS?

Dirty Labs, a cleaning company founded in 2020 that doesn’t use any PFAS in its products, also said it is seeing major growth as concerns rise. Sales are on track to double this year after 3.5 times sales growth last year. The company’s chief marketing officer, Soyoung Park, said the growth is largely driven by repeat customers and consumer reviews. “We’ve spent a lot of time building trust with our customer around our ingredients and explaining how we’re different from everybody else,” she said.

Some of the customers’ motivations, though, have changed. “There are a number of reasons why people come to us. Initially, it was the cohort of people looking for plastic-free. I think there’s been a shift more toward the safety thing,” she said.

But like most innovations, the replacement journey to rid products of PFAS may be a long one. Park said major companies may be loathe to invest in PFAS-free development at the risk of dethroning their own current products. And because it avoids PFAS, it can be a longer research and development cycle.

“These things are complicated, and there are times where we’re limiting ourselves in our ability to proliferate SKUs or put out new scents, but it’s very mindful and very intentional,” Park said.

How are governments responding to PFAS concerns?

If companies don’t eliminate PFAS from their products on their own, regulation could soon force the decision. In addition to the EPA and FDA actions taken this year, many state governments are taking various actions to ban PFAS. A dozen states have laws that aim to phase out use of PFAS in food packaging, according to the Safer States initiative, while six have required their phase-out in menstrual products, among other category-specific laws. In California, a new law effective in 2025 will ban sales of apparel containing PFAS above levels of 100 parts per million.

Blueland’s Paiji Yoo has been an active advocate for eliminating PFAS and PVA, a polymer used in many cleaning products like laundry pods. She’s made many trips to Albany, New York, to advocate for legislation there. However, she also said that consumer demand will ultimately lead to changes. 

“We’ve always been the biggest believer that businesses and government are the larger lever for change,” she said. “And we think consumers are a key part of that in moving the really big important levers because unless people care, unfortunately, businesses and government are not likely to change.” 

Garcia Castillo from Co/Studios said that for his part, there’s concern that blanket regulations could stifle future innovation in the space, or leave little room for case-by-case exceptions.

“It is nerve-wracking to leave the private market to make their rules because there are tons of bad actors,” he said. “But it’s a better choice than being dictated from the top down, and there’s a lot of good actors trying to solve it.”