Walk down any supermarket aisle and you’ll see consumers reading ingredient labels, comparing nutritional information and avoiding certain additives. We’ve become remarkably literate about what goes into our food. But when we buy a pair of pants, a nursing bra, a baby carrier or a wearable device, most of us stop reading after the fibre composition. The reality is that fibre content only tells part of the story.
A label that reads 78% nylon, 22% elastane says nothing about the dyes, finishes, coatings, adhesives or treatments that contribute to how a product performs. As products become more technical, those material systems become more sophisticated—and often more difficult for consumers to understand.
This isn’t an argument that these technologies are unsafe. Many exist because they solve consumer needs and engineering challenges. The question is whether consumers have enough information to make informed choices.
Engineers rarely think about a product as a single material. We think about systems. Take a modern performance garment. Alongside the primary fibres, it may also incorporate moisture-management finishes, antimicrobial treatments, printed inks, seam tapes, elastics, adhesives and heat-transfer graphics.
A baby diaper combines nonwoven materials, cellulose pulp, superabsorbent polymers, barrier films, adhesives, elastic systems and skin-care lotions into a single engineered product.
Wearable technologies introduce conductive textiles, structural foams, silicone interfaces, pressure-sensitive adhesives and encapsulated electronic components.
Every one of these materials serves a purpose. The challenge is helping consumers understand the trade-offs that come with increasingly sophisticated material architecture.
As awareness grows, several classes of chemistries are receiving greater scientific, regulatory and public attention. Rather than creating unnecessary concern, I believe consumers should simply understand why these substances are discussed and ask informed questions about when and why they are used.
Questions to ask:
Historically used in some water- and stain-resistant finishes, PFAS are under increasing regulatory scrutiny because many are highly persistent in the environment and certain compounds have been associated with adverse health effects. Many apparel brands are now transitioning to PFAS-free alternatives. For many everyday apparel categories, PFAS-free is increasingly realistic and becoming the industry direction, and particularly important for next to skin solutions (i.e. Underwear, Baby Clothing) PFAS-based chemistry however provide levels of durability and performance that alternatives have not always matched. If a product promises exceptional water or stain resistance, it’s worth asking how that performance has been achieved. Many brands are transitioning away from PFAS-based finishes as alternative technologies mature, while others continue to balance performance requirements with evolving regulations and customer expectations.
Odour-resistant apparel often relies on antimicrobial technologies, including silver- or zinc-based systems and other active chemistries. These technologies can provide legitimate performance benefits, particularly in athletic or medical applications. At the same time, consumers may wish to understand whether antimicrobial functionality is genuinely necessary for the intended use of the product.
Questions to ask:
Certain wrinkle-resistant or easy-care finishes have historically relied on formaldehyde-releasing resins. While regulations have significantly reduced allowable levels in many markets, consumers with sensitive skin may prefer products certified to recognised low-emission standards.
Certain azo dyes can break down into aromatic amines that have raised health concerns. Many countries prohibit these specific dyes in textiles, and reputable manufacturers should comply with these restrictions.
Phthalates have been used as plasticisers in some PVC-based prints, coatings and decorative applications. While their use has declined in many consumer products due to regulation, transparency around decorative coatings and printed graphics remains valuable.
Consumers don’t need to become textile engineers.
But asking better questions encourages better products.
Look for standards such as OEKO-TEX® STANDARD 100, GOTS (where applicable) or bluesign®, which evaluate different aspects of chemical management, restricted substances and responsible manufacturing. No single certification is comprehensive, but independent verification is an important signal of due diligence.
A waterproof hiking jacket used occasionally has very different performance requirements from underwear, baby products, wearable health devices or XR headsets that may remain in prolonged contact with the skin.
The duration and nature of skin contact should influence how we think about material choices.
If a product claims to be antimicrobial, stain resistant, wrinkle free or water repellent, ask what technology enables those properties. Performance almost always comes from engineering decisions—and understanding those decisions leads to better-informed purchasing.
Brands increasingly speak about sustainability. Fewer explain why specific fibres, coatings, adhesives or finishes were selected. Transparency is often a better indicator of long-term trust than marketing claims alone.
One principle we often return to in engineering is that complexity should always earn its place. Every additional layer, coating or treatment should deliver meaningful value—not simply add complexity.
There is no such thing as perfect material. Every engineering decision involves compromise.
The goal isn’t to eliminate chemistry from products. Modern textiles would not deliver the performance consumers expect without carefully engineered materials.
The goal is to continually develop safer chemistries, reduce complexity, improve transparency and help consumers understand the choices that have been made on their behalf.
We believe the next generation of innovation won’t be defined solely by what products can do. It will be defined by how thoughtfully we engineer the materials that make those capabilities possible.
Perhaps the next premium product won’t be the one with the longest list of features. It will be the one whose material architecture is simple, intentional, transparent and trusted. That’s the future of material innovation we hope we continue building toward.
Tehani Renganathan
Co-founder and CFO of Differentworks Inc.