Summary: PFAS Isn’t Over – What Comes Next for Outdoor Brands?

Podcast: The Rock Fight: Outdoor Industry & Adventure Sports Commentary
Episode: PFAS Isn’t Over: What Comes Next for Outdoor Brands?
Date: November 7, 2025
Host: Colin True (with Owen Comerford, Producer Dave)
Guest: Alex Laver (Former Director of Materials & Sustainability at Outdoor Research, now at Douglas Strategies LLC)

Episode Overview

This episode explores the present and future of PFAS (so-called “forever chemicals”) regulation, removal, and impact within the outdoor industry. Colin, Owen, and Producer Dave are joined by industry sustainability expert Alex Laver at the Grassroots Outdoor Alliance (GOA) Connect show in Kansas City to provide an unflinching look at what’s actually happening with PFAS post-California ban, how regulation is evolving, and what headaches and (few) silver linings might await outdoor brands.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. PFAS Regulation Isn't Over—It's Spreading

• California was only the beginning: The initial shock and coverage came with California’s AB 1817, but other states (Maine, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont) are rolling out regulations through 2028. The "forever" part isn't hyperbole: PFAS aren’t going anywhere fast.
  • Alex: "We’re entering into a period where the world’s fourth largest economy has banned these chemicals... there is a series of states that are still coming." (09:23)

2. Knock-on Effects: Unexpected Complications

• Tariffs and Duty Rates: DWR (durable water repellent) coatings, often PFAS-based, influence a garment's import tariff category—removing PFAS can have financial impacts beyond the environmental scope.
  • Owen: "They actually work on optimizing how a product gets categorized... so that it gets categorized as a lower tariff category." (10:28)
• Mechanical Textile Recycling: Laws may unintentionally ban mechanical recycling if the source material contains PFAS, since the chemicals persist through recycling processes.
  • Alex: "California may have made it illegal to mechanically recycle textiles... you’re not removing those chemicals." (11:00)

3. The Double-Edged Sword of Environmental Legislation

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Textile Recovery: New proposed bills (like California's SB707) would make brands responsible for a product’s end-of-life handling—and PFAS presence may raise fees.
  • Alex: "Whether or not your garment has PFAS may change your eco modulation, which is the fee that you’ll pay that pro in the future." (12:37)
• Political Pushback & Calls for Nuance: Not every ban proposal passes; leaders like Gov. Newsom have cited lower-income impacts (e.g., cookware) and the need for measured implementation instead of “easy yes” policies.
  • Alex: "In the moment of PFAS being an easy yes button, he [Newsom] said no... he wants to consider the consequences." (14:22)

4. Good News & Silver Linings

• Supply Chain Health & Safety: The removal of PFAS is most immediately beneficial to supply chain workers, not end consumers—a nuance often lost in public discourse.
  • Alex: "...the people who benefit literally today and tomorrow are the supply chain workers that are exposed to this." (13:44)
• Scientific Hope: Research is underway on microbes that can naturally break down PFAS, but the solution is years away and must be approached carefully.

5. Communication & Consumer Expectations

• End-User Education is Lacking: As PFAS are removed, performance (especially in rain gear) may change, but retailers and brands aren’t adequately preparing consumers for differences.
  • Alex: "How do we communicate to the consumer that it’s different? Like what has changed and how do we tell them to expect it to not behave the way that it used to?" (17:05)
• Legal Gray Areas in Marketing Claims: Terms like "PFAS-free" are legally risky; the correct approach is "no intentionally added PFAS."
  • Alex: "From a legal perspective, it’s not PFAS free. You’re not PFAS free. It’s in your blood." (18:17)
  • Owen: "...some brands say that not sort of intentionally added is basically...the legal way to say it." (18:56)

6. Skeletons in the Closet: What’s Next?

• Other Chemical Threats: Solvents (DMF, MEK, toluene), BPA (making a comeback in some recycled synthetics), phthalates, and antimicrobials (like silver salts and their environmental impact) are waiting in the wings as future hot-button issues.
  • Alex: "Absolutely. There’s all kinds of stuff out there right now... BPA is back... phthalates... antimicrobials." (22:28, 23:28, 24:10)

7. Natural Fibers vs. Synthetics

• The demonization of cotton (“cotton kills”) was context-specific. The industry is revisiting the role of natural fibers as synthetic scrutiny grows, especially with new generations of outdoor users.

8. Who’s Leading on Innovation?

• Standouts: Polartec's parent Milliken made a rapid, high-consequence PFAS exit (even on military side). Nikwax is cited for having long avoided PFAS. New membrane technologies using minerals or castor beans are emerging.
  • Alex: "Polartec deserves a nice shout out. The Milliken group went PFAS free very quickly...Nikwax...is doing a great job." (27:12)

9. Ingredient Brands in Flux

• Gore-Tex and its parent, W.L. Gore & Associates, have struggled most with compliance due to the nature of their ePTFE membrane. Significant innovation is still required to produce high-performance, PFAS-free alternatives.
  • Alex: "I still think…W.L. Gore is still struggling with this...it doesn’t matter whether Gore Tex was a PFAS. It doesn’t pass the screening method." (28:12)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Real Stakes of PFAS Removal:

  • "From an apparel standpoint, the citizens of California are not that much safer...the people who will benefit literally today and tomorrow are the supply chain workers."
    — Alex Laver (13:44)

• On the Consumer Awareness Gap:

  • "How do we communicate to the consumer that it’s different? Like what has changed and how do we tell them to expect it to not behave the way that it used to?"
    — Alex Laver (17:05)

• On “PFAS-Free” Claims:

  • "From a legal perspective, it’s not PFAS-free. You're not PFAS-free. It’s in your blood."
    — Alex Laver (18:17)

• F. Marry. Kill. (Labeling PFAS Claims):

  • "You gotta marry the non-intentionally added; that is the right way to say it right now from a legal perspective. I would have to kill PFAS-free because that’s the one that gets a lot of people in trouble."
    — Alex Laver and Colin True exchange (30:06)

• On Ingredient Brands Facing the Music:

  • "Polartec deserves a nice shout out...Nikwax...I think they’re the best...I still think W.L. Gore is still struggling with this..."
    — Alex Laver (27:12, 28:12)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• PFAS: Ongoing State & Federal Action – 09:23
• Financial Knock-On Effects (Tariffs, Duty) – 10:28
• Risks of Mechanical Recycling – 11:00
• Legislative Nuances (EPR, SB707) – 12:04–13:20
• Who Benefits Most: Supply Chain Impacts – 13:44
• Political Pushback (Newsom’s Veto) – 14:22
• Emerging Science & Hopeful Research – 15:00
• Legal Language & Consumer Messaging – 17:05–19:05
• New Chemical Concerns (BPA, Solvents, Antimicrobials) – 22:28–24:48
• Next-Gen Materials & Brand Leaders – 27:12–29:12
• Labeling: F. Marry. Kill. Game – 29:55

Tone & Takeaways

The conversation is candid, often irreverent, and unafraid to dig into the messiness—debunking feel-good headlines and challenging industry self-congratulation on PFAS progress. The message is clear: regulatory and technological battles over “forever chemicals” are just getting started, brands face complex challenges in both compliance and communication, and there's no room for complacency.

For listeners: If you care about what goes into your jacket—and how your favorite outdoor brands are handling the fallout of PFAS bans—this episode is a must-listen. The story is still unfolding, and, as Alex notes, the next regulatory curveball is already on the horizon.

Further Reading:
Alex Laver’s LinkedIn series on removing PFAS from Outdoor Research’s line