For decades, the promise sounded almost magical: a jacket that could keep rain out, allow sweat to escape and survive years of hard use.
That promise helped turn GORE-TEX into one of the most recognisable names in outdoor clothing. It also rested on a family of chemistry now facing uncomfortable questions around the world.
They are called PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — although most people know them by a more unsettling name: forever chemicals.
PFAS have been used in everything from non-stick cookware and food packaging to firefighting foam, medical equipment and waterproof clothing. Their great commercial advantage is also the reason they have become such a serious environmental problem. The carbon-fluorine bonds that make them resistant to water, grease, heat and stains are exceptionally difficult to break down.
Once released, many PFAS can remain in the environment for an extremely long time. They have been detected in water, soil, wildlife and people around the world. Research has linked exposure to some PFAS — not every chemical in this very large family — with harmful effects on human and animal health.
The story of forever chemicals is therefore not simply one of a useful material turning out to have drawbacks. It is a story about what happens when durability at the product level becomes persistence on a planetary scale.
What do forever chemicals have to do with outdoor clothing?
Waterproof outdoor clothing has traditionally relied on fluorinated chemistry in two places.
The first is the membrane hidden inside the garment. Traditional GORE-TEX products became famous for a microporous membrane made from expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, or ePTFE. PTFE is a fluoropolymer and falls within the broad PFAS definition used in the proposed EU restriction.
The second is the durable water-repellent finish, usually called DWR, applied to the face fabric. This treatment makes rain bead up and roll off. It is not the same thing as the waterproof membrane: a jacket can remain technically waterproof after the outer fabric begins to absorb water, but it will feel heavier, colder and less breathable — a problem known as “wetting out”.
This distinction matters. Over the years, some brands moved away from the more notorious long-chain PFAS used in surface finishes but continued using other fluorinated substances. “PFOA-free”, “PFOS-free”, “PFC-free DWR” and “PFAS-free” do not necessarily mean the same thing. The exact wording — and what part of the product it covers — matters.
GORE-TEX changes its membrane
Gore began introducing a new expanded polyethylene, or ePE, membrane in GORE-TEX products in 2022. The company now describes its next-generation ePE laminates, including their DWR treatment, as PFAS-free. Its asterisk is worth reading: Gore defines this as made without intentionally added per- and polyfluorinated substances, while acknowledging that trace amounts may be present.
This was a major technical shift. The company had to preserve the qualities customers expected — waterproofing, breathability, wind resistance and durability — without depending on the same fluorinated membrane chemistry.
It would be too simple, however, to describe the change as the industry suddenly discovering an environmental conscience. Several forces arrived at once.
Public understanding of PFAS contamination grew. Campaigning organisations placed pressure on outdoor brands whose environmental marketing sat awkwardly beside their use of highly persistent chemicals. Retailers started setting chemical policies for their suppliers. Governments began moving from restrictions on individual substances towards regulation of PFAS as a group. Litigation created financial and reputational risk. And, crucially, alternative materials became commercially viable.
The market could see the direction of travel. A jacket designed today may remain on sale for years and move through supply chains in several countries. Waiting until every restriction is final would leave manufacturers trying to redesign products, qualify factories and replace materials against a legal deadline.
In other words, the industry did not change for one reason. Science created the warning, campaigners made it visible, lawmakers made it urgent and innovation made it possible.
The legal case hanging over W. L. Gore
The change in Gore’s consumer products does not settle questions about historic manufacturing.
In December 2024, the State of Maryland filed a federal lawsuit against W. L. Gore & Associates. The state alleges that PFAS, including PFOA and PTFE, were released from 13 Gore facilities in and around Elkton, contaminating natural resources and putting nearby communities at risk. The amended case includes common-law claims and claims under state and federal environmental legislation.
This is an active legal dispute, and the allegations have not been finally determined by a court. Gore says it has worked with Maryland regulators, removed PFOA from its raw-material supply chain years ago and invested in testing and proposed remediation. In a February 2026 community update, the company said its data indicated an area of limited impact near its Cherry Hill facility and referred to an interim remediation plan submitted to Maryland regulators.
The state’s case is not the only litigation. Residents have also pursued claims concerning alleged contamination near Gore’s facilities, while separate consumer litigation has challenged environmental claims made in the marketing of GORE-TEX products.
That wider legal picture makes the issue larger than the contents of a jacket hanging in a shop today. Substituting a new membrane may reduce future use, but it does not answer who should investigate, clean up or pay for pollution allegedly released over previous decades.
What is the EU doing?
The European Union already restricts certain individual PFAS through existing chemicals legislation. Its most ambitious step, however, is a proposed restriction covering PFAS as a broad group under REACH, the EU’s main chemicals regime.
Authorities from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden submitted the proposal in 2023. The logic is straightforward: regulating one substance at a time can lead manufacturers to replace a restricted PFAS with a closely related alternative. A group restriction is intended to prevent that cycle of substitution.
As of September 2026, the broad restriction is not yet EU law. The European Chemicals Agency’s scientific committees have been assessing the proposal, its risks, economic consequences, possible exemptions and transition periods. The Risk Assessment Committee adopted its opinion in March 2026, while the socio-economic process was still due to conclude before the European Commission could prepare legislation.
Any eventual rules are likely to distinguish between uses for which alternatives already exist and specialised applications — including some medical, safety and industrial technologies — where substitution is much harder. This is one reason the process has taken years: PFAS are not one chemical used for one purpose, but a huge and varied family embedded throughout modern manufacturing.
The direction is nevertheless unmistakable. Companies selling clothing into the European market have had to prepare for tighter controls, even before the final scope and dates are known.
And what about the UK?
Brexit means an EU restriction would not automatically become law in Great Britain. Northern Ireland can be affected differently where EU product rules apply under post-Brexit arrangements.
The UK has retained its own version of REACH and has so far taken a more selective approach than the EU’s proposed broad restriction. In February 2026, the government published its first PFAS Plan. It promises action across the chemicals’ full life cycle, stronger monitoring, work to reduce releases and support for safer alternatives, while allowing continued use where substitutes are not yet available.
That is a programme of work, not a comprehensive ban on PFAS in waterproof clothing. The UK already controls some PFAS under existing rules and is developing targeted measures, including work on firefighting foams and drinking-water standards. But a shopper in Britain should not assume that every outdoor product containing PFAS is prohibited, or that UK law currently mirrors the proposed EU-wide approach.
The difference presents a practical problem for brands. Many do not manufacture a separate jacket for Britain and another for the EU. A stricter rule in a major export market can therefore influence products sold elsewhere. Regulation changes the market beyond the territory written into the law.
Why the whole industry had to move
For years, performance was the defence. Fluorinated treatments were exceptionally effective, particularly at repelling both water and oil. Alternatives could require more careful washing, more frequent reproofing or compromises in specialist conditions.
But that argument weakened as the cost was pushed beyond the garment. PFAS can escape during chemical production, fabric treatment, ordinary use, washing and disposal. A jacket may last a decade; pollution can remain far longer. Cleanup is technically difficult and expensive, and in some places the burden has fallen on water providers, taxpayers and affected communities.
The industry also faced a question it could not solve with a new slogan: if a product is sold as a way to enjoy and protect the outdoors, what happens when its chemistry contributes to contamination of that same environment?
Brands began treating PFAS substitution as a licence-to-operate issue rather than a niche sustainability project. The shift has not been perfectly tidy. Definitions vary, product ranges change at different speeds and “free from” claims often contain qualifications. High-performance professional equipment may follow a different timetable from an everyday walking jacket. Old stock and second-hand products remain in circulation.
Even so, the transition proves something important. The industry once presented fluorinated chemistry as essential to modern waterproof clothing. Faced with regulation, scrutiny and demand from customers, it found another route.
What should shoppers look for?
Look for a specific statement that the whole laminate, including the membrane and DWR treatment, is made without intentionally added PFAS. A claim that refers only to the surface finish may leave the membrane unanswered. Likewise, “PFOA-free” rules out one chemical, not the entire PFAS family.
There is no need to throw away a serviceable waterproof jacket. Keeping clothing in use avoids the impact of producing a replacement. Wash it according to the manufacturer’s instructions, restore the water-repellent finish when needed and repair it where possible. When replacement time arrives, check the current product specification rather than relying on the reputation of the brand or an old model name.
Forever chemicals earned their nickname because the pollution does not disappear when public attention moves on. The outdoor industry’s redesign is welcome, but it is only the beginning. The harder questions concern the contamination already in water and soil, the cost of removing it and whether companies that benefited from these chemicals will be made to carry that cost.
That is why the Gore cases matter. They are not only about one company or one famous fabric. They test whether the price of past performance will be paid by manufacturers — or left with communities for generations.
Regulatory and litigation status checked 7 September 2026. Court claims described above are allegations unless and until established by judgment.
Sources and further reading
- US Environmental Protection Agency: PFAS explained
- State of Maryland: complaint against W. L. Gore & Associates
- Federal court memorandum opinion in State of Maryland v. W. L. Gore & Associates
- W. L. Gore: February 2026 community update
- GORE-TEX: next-generation ePE products
- European Commission: PFAS pollution
- UK Government: PFAS Plan