Alright so we’re fresh off of talking about outdoors gear and the GORPcore trend in fashion — I mentioned in my last article that despite the veneer of environmental stewardship, a lot of the chemicals used to make outdoor gear are actually really bad — not just for the environment, but for us as well.
I’m sure you’re already familiar with microplastics and their total ubiquity in the environment (and our bloodstreams), so I won’t spend too much time harping on how bad they are (even though they are very bad) — instead, this article is going to discuss the lesser known issue of perflourochemicals (PFCs).
This article is going to be a bit more technical than normal, so apologies in advance:
PFCs are a group of specialty chemicals that are used as coatings that make items heat, oil, and/or water resistant. These chemicals are widely used (you’ll most likely encounter them on nonstick cookware, food packaging, or waterproof clothing), but we are just now (over the last few years) beginning to understand that their use comes at a cost to our health.
The most common form of PFCs that you’ll encounter are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), often referred to as polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). All of these are captured under the umbrella of the acronym PFC, hence my usage here.
PFCs have thus far been linked to a variety of negative health effects including liver damage, thyroid dysfunction, decreased fertility, and increased likelihood of many cancers (most notably testicular and kidney cancer).
PFCs are still relatively under-studied, and we are actively learning about their effects on human health. Notably, the EPA has revised its acceptable exposure limits multiple times. The current (as of 2022) guidelines limit PFOS to 0.002 ppt and PFOA to 0.004 ppt — this is a decrease of more than a thousandfold from the guidelines set in 2016 (70 ppt for both PFOS and PFOA).
This is INSANE. I’m genuinely finding it difficult to convey over text how unbelievable this is.
We measure generally harmful molecules/chemicals in parts per million (e.g., our atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 421 ppm). The current guidelines suggest that anything over 20 & 4 parts per QUADRILLION (respectively) is unacceptable. Literally any presence of this stuff has adverse side-effects.
I also would like to include GenX chemicals and PFBS under the PFC umbrella as well — these are the new chemicals that are supposed to replace PFCs now that they have an EPA health advisory for them, but the latest research seems to indicate that GenX and PFBS are just as harmful, albeit less studied.
A small tangent here: GenX and PFBS being developed to replace PFCs because they got a toxicity tag is very similar to what’s happening with BPA (bisphenol A). We know that BPA is bad, but it is an absolutely necessary component of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins (at least a compound from the bisphenol family of chemicals is).
Since everyone knows BPA is bad (it is a xenoestrogen), all that’s been done to make BPA-free products is to swap it with less-studied compounds like bisphenol F (BPF) or bisphenol S (BPS), which appear to be just as bad, if not worse (but we don’t know definitively yet so there’s no stink about using them (yet)).
Perhaps the worst part of these chemicals is that there is nothing in nature that is readily capable of breaking them down - they will likely persist in the environment for thousands of years, and bioaccumulate in other animals, especially those of the marine persuasion.
On top of that, it takes our bodies multiple years to process and get rid of PFCs, allowing them to do untold damage to our insides in the meantime.
On top of that first “on top of that“, more than 99% of Americans have this stuff in our bloodstreams. It’s already pretty ubiquitous in our environment, especially in America.
Okay so we know this stuff is turning out to be really bad, so why are we still using it? Well, it turns out that they are extraordinarily effective at what they do, and many industries rely heavily, or even entirely, on their ability to continue using PFCs, as there are no available alternatives.
That’s not a good excuse!
Yes I’m aware, but again, better the devil you know than the one you don’t — the alternatives are likely worse.
Anyway, just know that this stuff is used very widely and in many instances, there’s not really anything that you can do to effect change on that front. Instead, we can focus on the two areas that you’re most likely to encounter them (cookware and clothing), and how you can take measures to reduce your own exposure to them.
Some Things to Help You Limit Exposure
Step 1: Throw away your non-stick cookware.
Yeah it’s convenient, but they’re honestly pretty unnecessary. Just get a cast iron or a stainless/carbon steel pan. There’s a little upfront work to get them seasoned, but the sticking really shouldn’t be that bad.
A lot of you guys were interested about the stainless steel cookware trick I included in my Instagram story a little while back, so I wanted to include this video here. You can fast-forward to 3:42 below for the relevant info on the correct pan temperature:
Step 2: Don’t serve in the military
In the infographic with the test tube and the flask a couple pictures up, you might notice AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) as a source of PFCs. AFFF is a firefighting foam that the military has relied heavily on in the past, and it’s loaded with PFCs.
To date, there are at least 704 current and former military bases across the US that have likely PFC contamination (as an aside, I didn’t even realize we had this many military bases), with many of these locations being declared CERCLA superfund sites (i.e., environmental disaster sites of hazardous substance origins recognized by the EPA).
Step 3: Limit your exposure to GoreTex
GORPcore has had a hell of a year in fashion (“GORP“ is an acronym for Good Old Raisins & Peanuts) and outdoor gear has completely taken over the fashion world - every fashion house, even the ones with no business doing so, are cashing in on the trend.
The unintended consequence of this is that we end up with functional, overdesigned garments for people that will never use them for their intended purpose. Let’s be real, you don’t need a fully waterproof shell to walk your dog or drive to Starbucks or whatever.
Gore-Tex, thanks in part to its utilization of PFCs, maintains a near-impossible-to-replicate ability to be both waterproof and breathable. Their textiles are made using a process that involves bonding their proprietary waterproof membrane to a durable fabric, such as nylon or polyester. The durable water repellant (DWR) layer, which is composed of PCFs, does wear out over time and actually needs to be re-applied every once in a while depending on use.
One of the reasons I felt compelled to write this article however, is that the fashion industry clearly knows at some level about the dangers of PFCs and using fabrics like Gore-Tex, yet there is still an insane abundance of advertisement of waterproof products that use PFCs.
Indeed, many companies actually advertise their use of Gore-Tex as a marker of quality (“our products are ACTUALLY waterproof - none of that fufu lame shit like ‘waxed cotton’“). Whether this is an example of an industry preying on people’s lack of knowledge or the designers themselves not understanding the consequences is hard to say, however.
That being said, many companies are beginning to look for alternative methods that do not involve the use of these chemicals. However, in addition to finding effective alternatives capable of matching the performance of Gore-Tex, making sure that these chemicals aren’t equally bad will be a challenge.
For example, Patagonia currently has a pledge to eliminate all PFC usage from the company by 2024 and Marmot and Mountain hardware have had successful releases of PFC-free lines.
Fabric suppliers like Ventile and Polartec have made recent pledges to discontinue PFC usage, and despite my ragging on them above, Gore-Tex claims to have a fabric in the works that does not need PFC treatment.
The states of California and Washington are also in the process of auditing their regulations of PFCs and will likely clamp down on their usage going forward.
Fjallraven has never used PFCs in their products (except for their zippers, allegedly) and instead use their in-house G-1000 waxed nylon as a water-resistant alternative, which they boast is still capable of withstanding some of the harshest environments on earth.
To wrap things up, even though things look a bit bleak given the current ubiquity of PFCs, there are headwinds being made in the fashion industry to reduce reliance, and there’s a bit of light on the horizon.
Chemicals and issues of health are difficult topics to broach based on their inherent technicality, but really just knowing that this stuff exists is half the battle.
Thanks for reading my unhinged ranting lol. Hopefully didn’t lose too many of you along the way. Either way, really appreciate your readership!
These posts take a lot of time and effort for me to write out — if you liked this post, I would greatly appreciate a like/subscription. Engaging with you guys really does make a difference in my ability to dedicate time toward putting out quality content.
If you’re feeling really generous, I do offer a very cheap paid subscription option ($5/month or $40/year). Either way, your readership is very appreciated.
Thanks for reading and see you next time!
Great article! I cant believe how pervasive some of these chemicals are!