{"id":327,"date":"2025-11-03T18:03:36","date_gmt":"2025-11-03T19:03:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/?p=327"},"modified":"2025-11-17T09:50:27","modified_gmt":"2025-11-17T09:50:27","slug":"is-your-ski-jacket-poisoning-you-how-the-industry-is-phasing-out-pfas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/2025\/11\/03\/is-your-ski-jacket-poisoning-you-how-the-industry-is-phasing-out-pfas\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Your Ski Jacket Poisoning You? How the Industry Is Phasing Out PFAS"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n

With wear and tear, PFAS-treated jackets can release toxins that are harmful to the environment.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Most skiers and riders don\u2019t think twice about what\u2019s in their outerwear\u2014only whether it keeps them dry. But the same chemical technology that made modern ski jackets nearly invincible against rain and slush also created an invisible environmental legacy that won\u2019t go away anytime soon. <\/p>\n

Those waterproof coatings are often made with PFAS, a class of \u201cforever chemicals\u201d that don\u2019t break down naturally, accumulate in our bodies, and have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and immune issues.<\/p>\n

But now, for the first time in decades, the ski industry is rethinking the very chemistry behind the jackets we rely on. And while the shift away from PFAS is complicated, it\u2019s happening faster than most skiers and riders realize.<\/p>\n

What PFAS Are (and Why They\u2019re Everywhere)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

PFAS\u2014short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances<\/em>\u2014have been the secret ingredient in outdoor gear since the 1950s. These synthetic compounds are prized for one thing: performance. They create a microscopic armor that repels water, oil, and dirt better than almost any alternative. Whether it\u2019s the DWR (durable water repellent) finish on your jacket or the membrane inside your gloves, there\u2019s a good chance PFAS are behind your gear\u2019s waterproofing superpowers.<\/p>\n

The problem is that PFAS don\u2019t stay put. Over time, they can shed into the environment during washing or manufacturing, or leach into soil and water once garments are discarded. Some have been detected in alpine snowpack and even remote mountain streams. And because they don\u2019t naturally degrade, they can persist for thousands of years; this has earned them the nickname \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Regulatory Pressure Is Rising<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Governments are now catching up to what scientists have warned about for years. The European Union plans to ban nearly all PFAS by 2030, with proposals already in motion to limit their use in textiles and consumer products. In the U.S., states like California, Maine, and New York have passed their own phase-out laws for apparel, forcing outdoor brands to adapt quickly or risk losing access to key markets.<\/p>\n

For an industry built on technical performance, this creates a daunting challenge: replace a chemical technology that\u2019s nearly irreplaceable. The reformulation process takes years of testing, supply chain audits, and quality assurance to ensure jackets still meet waterproof and durability standards. But as bans approach and consumer awareness grows, the race to go PFAS-free is on.<\/p>\n

The Industry Leaders vs. The Laggards<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Some brands are taking the initiative rather than waiting for regulation. Montec<\/a> and Dope Snow<\/a>, two direct-to-consumer outerwear companies known for making premium gear at more accessible prices, have emerged as early movers. Montec now states that it does not intentionally use any PFAS in its fabrics or components, with a bonded waterproof membrane that\u2019s both \u201cbluesign APPROVED\u201d and PFAS-free. The company also publishes performance data showing its PFAS-free DWR maintains strong waterproof ratings even after ten wash cycles\u2014proof that sustainability doesn\u2019t have to mean compromise.<\/p>\n

Dope Snow has gone a step further by setting an aggressive deadline: by Fall\/Winter 2025, all of its outerwear and accessories will be \u201cbluesign Product qualified\u201d, with 95% of its fabrics already meeting that standard. The brand\u2019s \u201cRenewed\u201d program, which refurbishes and resells used garments, reinforces its broader sustainability push. Together, Montec and Dope represent a new wave of outerwear brands proving that innovation and responsibility can coexist.<\/p>\n

Still, progress remains uneven. Many larger companies continue to advertise \u201ceco DWR\u201d or \u201cPFC-free\u201d coatings without clarifying what that means\u2014or whether those claims extend beyond the surface finish to include membranes, zippers, or seam tape. Transparency is improving, but full accountability across the supply chain is still rare.<\/p>\n

How Consumers Can Tell What\u2019s Real<\/strong><\/h3>\n

For most skiers and riders, it\u2019s hard to know which brands to trust. The best way to cut through the noise is to look for specific, verifiable claims\u2014not vague buzzwords. A jacket that explicitly states \u201cPFAS-free\u201d or \u201cPFAS not intentionally added\u201d is a good sign. Certifications like bluesign, OEKO-TEX, or Fair Wear indicate stricter chemical management and worker safety practices, though none guarantee absolute PFAS elimination.<\/p>\n

Be wary of brands that rely on unqualified marketing language like \u201ceco coating\u201d or \u201csustainable waterproofing.\u201d If a company can\u2019t point to independent verification, published test data, or clear targets, the claim probably doesn\u2019t mean much.<\/p>\n

Durability also matters: the longer a jacket lasts, the smaller its lifetime footprint. Buying one well-made, responsibly produced shell is far better than cycling through three cheap ones in five years.<\/p>\n

Should You Replace Your Current PFAS Jacket Now?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

If you\u2019ve been skiing for a while, there\u2019s a good chance you already own outerwear treated with PFAS. However, replacing it immediately isn\u2019t automatically the most sustainable choice. In fact, the most responsible thing you can often do is keep wearing it for as long as it performs safely and effectively<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The primary concern with PFAS is long-term environmental contamination from production, washing, and disposal, not acute toxicity to the wearer. If your jacket is intact, not shedding its membrane, and still repelling water after washing, it\u2019s generally fine to keep using.<\/p>\n

That said, if the fabric is showing any signs of flaking, delaminating, or visibly degradation, it\u2019s a sign the PFAS may start to let loose\u2014and cause risks to you and the environment. At that point, it\u2019s time to replace it, ideally with a PFAS-free alternative. When you do, don\u2019t just throw the old one away. Look for textile recycling programs or donation channels that handle outdoor gear responsibly.<\/p>\n

Final Thoughts<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In 2025, the ski industry is finally cleaning up its act (literally). The same companies that once defined performance are now being forced to reckon with the environmental impacts their original designs have brought about, but in the process, we\u2019ve seen significant innovations to align with a more sustainable future. PFAS-free outerwear is no longer a faraway goal, and is now clearly becoming the new standard.<\/p>\n

So the next time you\u2019re shopping for ski gear, the question isn\u2019t necessarily just whether your jacket will keep you in good shape. It\u2019s whether it\u2019ll help keep the planet that way too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 With wear and tear, PFAS-treated jackets can release toxins that are harmful to the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":329,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=327"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":331,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327\/revisions\/331"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/329"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}