Unpacking Toxicity in Textiles: Myths, Facts, and Solutions


The word "toxic" carries weight. It conjures danger, harm, and things best avoided

Yet in the textile industry -  Where between 3,000 and 10,000 chemicals move through the supply chain, a reflexive fear of the term is one of our biggest obstacles to progress.”


WRITTEN BY DEBBIE McKEEGAN | CEO | Texintel


The word "toxic" carries weight. It conjures danger, harm, and things best avoided. Yet in the textile industry -  where between 3,000 and 10,000 chemicals move through the supply chain, a reflexive fear of the term is one of our biggest obstacles to progress.

At the Future Fabrics Expo 2026, a panel of leading voices in sustainable chemistry, material innovation, and investment did something the industry rarely does well: held an honest, nuanced conversation about textile chemistry and toxicity. Moderated by innovation advisor Sophie Mather (biov8tion), the discussion brought together Libby Sommer (green chemistry advisor), Matthias Foessel (co-founder and CEO of WTRLSS), Irene Maffini (investor and operator at Fashion Reimagined), and Sumitra Rajagopalan (founder and CEO of Bioastra Technologies).

This article distils the key takeaways and what buyers, designers, and brands should be asking right now.


Framing the Conversation: Toxicity Is Not a Binary

Sophie Mather set the baseline: toxicity is not simply "good" or "bad." It is the degree to which a substance can cause harm and always contingent on dose, exposure, and context.

"Take water and oxygen," she noted. "Neither is inherently good or bad. Both can cause harm through use."

Most stakeholders never engage with this nuance. The word "toxic" triggers alarm, and alarm rarely leads to good decisions. It leads to avoidance and avoidance is exactly how the industry ends up with regrettable substitutions, unexamined supply chains, and circular systems full of chemical leakages.

Why"Bio-Based" Does Not Mean Safe

The most damaging myth the panel addressed is the assumption that bio-based materials are inherently safe. Libby Sommer was unequivocal: "There is absolutely no correlation between whether something is bio-based and its safety."

She pointed to research around the USDA's BioPreferred programme, where most institutional purchasers surveyed believed "bio-preferred" meant "safe." It does not. It means only that the carbon comes from a biological source. The identical molecule can be produced from either a biological or petroleum-based source with no difference in its toxicological profile.

What determines safety is molecular structure, not the origin of the carbon. As brands rush to communicate sustainability through bio-based claims, that distinction matters. Without interrogating the chemistry, such claims mislead consumers, obscure real risks, and as Irene Maffini noted, create products that are unrecyclable at end of life.

The Chemistry Lurking in Your "Sustainable" Materials

As an investor who has backed over 40 climate tech companies and Chief Commercial Officer of DyeRecycle, Irene Maffini has watched commercial pressure quietly dismantle good intentions.

"A lot of companies start with very high ambitions," she said. "They want to create a 100% bio-based, mono-material that can be home composted. Then the commercial reality hits." A polyester backing here, a flame retardant there - each decision makes sense alone. "But when you put it all together… you've created a little monster that cannot be recycled."

Her concern is acute around PFAS. The transition from C8 to C6 to C0 chemistries has repeatedly produced what she calls "regrettable substitutions." "I'm very concerned that a lot of C0 chemistries… are creating a lot of other regrettable substitutions where we actually have no idea about the toxicology profile," she warned.

The Circularity Crisis Hidden in Plain Sight

The panel exposed a broken feedback loop between textile chemistry and recycling infrastructure.

Today, 99% of recycled polyester comes from plastic bottles - not from textiles. The reason is simple: chemistry in clothing actively prevents recycling. Blended fibers, dyed fabrics, and elastane-laced garments are largely untouchable.

DyeRecycle addresses this as a pre-processing step, removing colour, elastane, and finishing chemicals so fiber can enter recycling systems. What was waste becomes a platform.

The problem will only intensify. Bottles are set to return to packaging under incoming regulation. If textile-to-textile recycling cannot scale, the entire circularity narrative collapses and the primary barrier to scaling is chemistry.

Reduce the Chemistry, Reduce the Risk

Matthias Foessel offered a counterintuitive question: rather than swapping hazardous chemicals for safer ones, why not eliminate entire process steps?

His waterless dyeing technology (WTRLSS) for denim does exactly that. Traditional denim involves 10 to 15 steps, each involving chemistry. His team asked why those steps need to exist at all. The result is a single-step digital printing process using bio-based ink activators, no post-washing, no steaming, and roughly two tablespoons of water per garment. Given that conventional dyeing uses four times more auxiliaries than dye, eliminating the steps eliminates those auxiliaries entirely.

"If I can find something that reduces the amount needed to be applied, it mitigates a lot of the toxic risks," Matthias observed. His next goal: applying bio-based finishes through digital printing heads, uniting dyeing and finishing in one step.

Design Molecules Like Engineers, Not Chemists

Sumitra Rajagopalan gave the most forward-looking perspective. The industry keeps trading one problem for another, she argued, because chemistry is still taught through a 19th-century lens.

"Chemistry is being taught today the way it was taught in my great grandfather's time," she said. "The same textbooks."

Her call: treat molecules as engineering challenges, not formulas to be catalogued as safe or unsafe. Just as a bridge must both hold weight and allow passage, materials must stop accepting the false trade-off between performance and safety. At Bioastra, this mindset produced a bio-based polyurethane alternative on a citric acid platform  without the isocyanate toxicity of conventional polyurethane. Performance, she notes, is often the easy part; the harder challenge is adoption within existing infrastructure at cost parity.

She also flagged an underserved issue: intermediate chemicals. "We've gone beyond the 100% bio-based claim to look at some of the intermediate chemicals that don't make it to the final product, but that affect workers."

The Tools to Act Already Exist

Libby Sommer introduced ChemForward - a tool born out of the Cradle to Cradle Institute, now piloting a system-level evaluation of chemistry across the textile industry.

The context matters. Of the 3,000 to 10,000 chemicals used in textiles, only around 400 appear on Restricted Substance Lists. Regulation typically lags 10 to 20 years behind a problem - PFAS being the defining example.

ChemForward maps the entire inventory of textile chemistry, assessing which substances are low hazard, high hazard, or simply unknown. It is the first system-level look the industry has taken at its collective chemical impacts. The goal is to embed this data into existing supply chain tools, moving stakeholders beyond RSL compliance toward genuine hazard assessment. A report is due later this year.


What Buyers, Designers, and Brands Should Be Asking Now?

The tools and knowledge already exist. What is missing is the confidence to ask the right questions.

On chemistry and materials:

  • Ask for a chemical hazard assessment, not just a life cycle assessment. LCAs will not tell you about toxicity.

  • When you hear "bio-based," ask what that means specifically the carbon source, or the molecule's safety and end-of-life behaviour?

On circularity and end of life:

  • Ask whether the material has been assessed for recyclability using current technologies - not aspirational ones.

  • Ask what pre-processing is required before it can enter a recycling stream, and whether that infrastructure exists at scale.

On PFAS and substitutions:

  • If a supplier is moving away from PFAS, ask what is replacing it and whether that replacement has been assessed for toxicology.

  • Request a credible, honest roadmap for managing current chemical liabilities.


A Note on Policy:

Libby noted that U.S. states (not the EU) are currently the most active jurisdictions on chemicals legislation, with little harmonisation between California, Minnesota, New Mexico, and others.

The deeper challenge is the collision between hazardous substance regulation and textile-to-textile recycling. Post-consumer textiles carry decades of legacy chemistry that may breach current rules. Regulation must help the industry navigate that tension, not simply add compliance burdens. As Sumitra put it, legislators write laws faster than innovators can develop substitutes - so industry needs a seat at the table when definitions like "bio-based" are drafted.

In Summary

The conversation around textile chemistry and toxicity is not one the industry can keep at arm's length. The complexity is real but the tools, data, and expertise to navigate it are increasingly accessible. The cost of continued avoidance, measured in unrecyclable waste, worker exposure, and regrettable substitutions, is rising.

Fear of the word "toxic" is understandable. Acting on that fear without understanding is not.



Next
Next

The Digital Product Passport (DPP) What Every Textile Printing Business Needs to Know