‘Stain-resistant’ on a school uniform is a clue to forever chemicals

Angala Garland, a mother in Chicago, brought a proposed class action against The Children’s Place, saying the school uniforms it sold contained toxic “forever chemicals” without proper warnings.¹ U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly dismissed the case, but he said it was “at least plausible” that the uniforms contained PFAS; his point was that Garland had not shown the company lied or misled consumers in its marketing.¹ So the court never had to decide what was actually in the uniforms.

When a research group led by Venier tested 72 items, all 26 stain-resistant uniforms among them had PFAS.² PFAS were found only in products labeled as water- or stain-resistant, even when they were marketed as “green” or “nontoxic”.³ PFAS are a family of thousands of chemicals, and all of them are either extremely persistent, meaning they barely break down in the environment, or break down into other PFAS that are.⁴ Researchers don’t yet know how much gets through the skin, or what levels cause problems.²

YAN's view: a school uniform has no need to repel stains, and until anyone can show these chemicals are harmless against a child’s skin all day, we would choose one without the finish.

What you need to know

• Every uniform sold as stain-resistant in the main study contained PFAS.²
• Choose a uniform whose label and product page make no “stain-resistant”, “water-resistant” or “waterproof” claim; the fabric alone won’t tell you.
• There is no need to bin the uniforms you already own: wash them, and have children wash their hands before eating.
• California and France already ban PFAS in clothing, and a far wider EU restriction that includes textiles is expected to be adopted in late 2027 or in 2028.^5,6,7

What a stain-resistant finish is

A stain-resistant finish is a treatment applied to the fabric at the factory, so that spills sit on the surface instead of soaking in. That finish is what gave the chemicals away in a separate test of bedding, furnishings and clothing often used by children: PFAS turned up only in products labelled water- or stain-resistant, even ones marketed as “green” or “nontoxic”.³

Its highest reading of fluorine, the element that gives these chemicals away in a lab test, came from a school uniform shirt.³ That is why the words on the label matter more than the look or feel of the cloth: they are the one outward sign the finish is there.

The chemical industry stands by these finishes: the American Chemistry Council, its US trade group, says the type it makes for textiles is neither PFOS nor PFOA, the two older, best-known forever chemicals, and that for many uses “no suitable alternatives exist”.⁸ The Green Science Policy Institute, which published the uniform study, replies that stain-resistance “is not a necessary function” and that these treatments “likely have limited effectiveness in practice anyway”.^4,9 Miriam Diamond, a professor at the University of Toronto and a co-author of the uniform study, sums up the trade-off: “I don’t know any parent who values stain repellency over their child’s health.”¹⁰

What the uniform tests found

The main study was done by a research team led by Venier, which tested children’s clothing from school uniforms to bibs, hats, stroller covers and swimsuits.^2,10 Across all 72 items, the group found fluorine in about two-thirds.² Most of the samples, the researchers say, had “concentrations as high as those in outdoor clothing”, the kind of gear made to keep out rain.⁹

Uniforms made of 100 per cent cotton had the highest levels, though cotton spandex and cotton polyester uniforms carried the chemicals too.¹⁰ So a soft cotton shirt is no guarantee: the natural fabric can carry more of the finish than a synthetic blend.

How it could reach a child

Venier, whose team ran the tests, points out that a uniform sits directly on the skin for up to eight hours a day, worn by children “who are particularly vulnerable to harm”.⁴ The researchers list the ways in: skin absorption, eating with unwashed hands, and the “mouthing of clothing by younger children”, which in plain terms means chewing a collar or a cuff.⁴ “These chemicals can go through the skin,” Venier told Science News Explores.²

How worried should you be?

Look at the wider family and the record is worrying: this huge class of synthetic chemicals is associated with elevated cholesterol, kidney cancer and immune suppression, which means the body’s defences work less well.¹¹ Only a small fraction of the thousands of PFAS have ever been tested for toxicity, so for most of them nobody knows.⁴

Uniforms are only part of the picture, though: they are just one factor that may contribute to a child’s overall PFAS exposure.² So the sensible aim is to cut an easy source where you can, not to worry over every shirt.

A “PFOA-free” label does not rule out other PFAS: in a test of snowsuits, the testers found PFAS in the outer material of one labelled “PFOA-free”, at levels they say indicate intentional use.¹² The same test found most of the snowsuits free of PFAS.¹² The testers stayed calm about it: “one snowsuit with unwanted chemicals is not in itself a health problem.”¹²

At YAN we would rather a child’s uniform went without the finish, and a quick cold rinse did the job it promises.

We would change our mind if someone measured how much of these chemicals children actually take in from treated uniforms and found it negligible, or tested uniforms sold in Britain and Europe and found them clean.

Does washing get it out?

For uniforms already in the wardrobe, the Green Science Policy Institute says there is “some evidence” that multiple washes can reduce PFAS levels.⁹ A study of coated polyester and polyamide fabrics, summarised by the European Commission, found that washing and drying lowered many PFAS but, in some fabrics, raised others that can break down into long-lasting ones.¹³

The summary itself warns that it covers “only one study”.¹³ Uniforms were not part of it, so washing will probably lower what sits on a uniform over time, but it is not a dependable way to remove the finish.

What the rules say

Rules are arriving country by country, and none yet guarantees a uniform free of these chemicals. California has banned regulated PFAS in textile articles since 1 January 2025, and its definition of clothing names school uniforms.⁵ France has banned PFAS in clothing and footwear sold to consumers since 1 January 2026, with some exemptions.⁶ Denmark is next: it is banning clothing and footwear high in fluorine, though shops there may sell off what they already hold until 1 January 2027.¹⁴

Across the EU, a narrower rule took effect on 10 October 2026: clothing for the general public may no longer contain more than tiny amounts of PFHxA, one particular forever chemical, or of related substances, though clothes placed on the market before that date are not covered.⁶ It is not yet clear whether this rule covers the finishes used on uniforms, so it is no promise that a new uniform is free of them.

A far wider EU ban is on its way, covering these chemicals in everything from electronics to textiles, and in March the EU’s own scientific experts agreed that PFAS pose risks to human health and the environment.^7,15 The officials weighing the costs favour a general ban, with exceptions only for uses where no alternatives exist yet and the wider costs justify one.⁷ Their final advice is due by the end of 2026, and the ban is expected to be finally agreed in late 2027 or in 2028.^6,7 So the wide ban won’t touch this year’s or next year’s school clothes, and whether stain-proofed clothing wins an exception is still undecided.

We think parents should be able to trust that clothes sold for children come without these chemicals; until the rules make that true, the label is your best guide.

What to choose

At YAN we would buy the plainest uniform on offer: cotton with no finish claim of any kind. That matches Diamond’s own advice to parents, which is to avoid “stain-resistant,” “weather-resistant” or “waterproof” lines of clothing.¹⁰

Keep the uniforms you already have; there is no need to bin them today. Start with the free habits: have children wash their hands before eating, and gently discourage chewing on collars and cuffs. Wash a new uniform before its first wear, then as usual.

When you next buy, let the label do the work:

• Skip any uniform described as “stain-resistant”, “stain-repellent”, “water-resistant”, “weather-resistant” or “waterproof” on the label or product page.
• Polyester is not a way round it: the finish is what matters, so check for the claim.
• Skip “non-iron” and “easy care” uniforms too, since we prefer cotton with no finish at all.
• Don’t read “PFOA-free” as PFAS-free: it rules out just one old chemical, and the snowsuit above carried that label with PFAS in its outer fabric.
• A “PFAS-free” label is a good sign but not proof.
• If the product page doesn’t say, ask the seller once: “Does this uniform have a stain-resistant or water-repellent finish?”

Alternatives already exist: a study of products labelled stain- or water-resistant found PFAS in most of them, but also found PFAS-free products in each of the three main product categories it looked at.¹¹ If the school’s official supplier sells only treated uniforms, ask the school whether a plain garment in the same colour is acceptable. When a uniform is outgrown or worn out, replace it with a plain one.

And for the stains the finish promises to stop, a quick rinse in cold water before the evening wash does most of the job.