Looking Cute May Be Coming At A Cost Beyond Our Wallets: The Problem of Polyester In Our Clothing

This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Scranton chapter and does not reflect the views of Her Campus.

The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect the views of The University of Scranton.

Our Lululemon and Alo workout sets, as well as those cute tennis skirts from Target, have drawbacks. As much as I love them, I might start checking the labels before I buy, as they are coming at a serious cost: our health. Several studies suggest commonly used synthetic “fabrics,” such as polyester, nylon, and spandex, may be a cause of a host of health issues, including infertility in women. While I wish that these studies were inconsequential and simply fear-mongering, which is an incidence that can often occur these days when statistics are misconstrued, I do believe these studies have merit and are actually part of a much wider concern about toxic chemicals in everyday products. Researchers are gradually uncovering how relatively new chemicals in our clothes are being tested.

Most athleisure clothing, including brands like Lulu Lemon and alo, are made of fabrics consisting primarily of polyester, nylon, or spandex. Unlike historically used fabrics such as cotton or linen, which contain naturally occurring fibers, these types of fabrics are all chemically processed plastics derived from oil; they do not occur naturally, but are actually manufactured polymers synthesized through chemical reactions (The Impact of Synthetic Fabrics on Women’s Health). To create polyester, manufacturers these “forever chemicals”, which persist in the environment and resist breakdown, and turn them into fabric we wear on our bodies in these materials. Some examples of these chemicals include polyester, phthalates, PFAS, and bisphenols, all of which can be found in clothing. We then wear these chemicals on their skin, and these substances can leach into our bodies when we sweat, significantly increasing the absorption of chemicals from fabrics (Drescher).

Polyester is perhaps the biggest culprit of the harm caused by these chemically created fibers. Polyester disrupts hormone health through two main mechanisms: creating electrostatic fields that interfere with the body’s electrical systems and by releasing endocrine-disrupting chemicals that mimic or block natural hormones. This can lead to fertility issues, hormone imbalances, poor sleep, mood changes, and more (Alahmari). Scientists have found that polyester acts as a dielectric material, meaning it conducts electricity poorly but polarizes easily, creating significant electricity. Fascinatingly, simple activities like walking can generate electric fields above 10 mV/mm, and touching electronic devices can push these fields past 100 mV/mm—an electrical current large enough to power some small bioelectronics. This is created by simply walking in leggings (Song, et all). These seemingly harmless shocks can mess with your body’s electrical systems, impacting cell membranes and throwing off the electrical balance that keeps your hormone production running smoothly. 

In 1992, researcher Ahmed Shafik initially studied how polyester impacted male reproductive health, finding both immediate and lasting negative effects, well before the athleisure trend. Shafik’s largely ignored, but revolutionary study found that men who wore polyester scrotal slings had zero sperm count after about 140 days, which only returned to normal 75-145 days after removing the sling. In some subjects, however, some germ cells showed persistent damage half a year later (“Contraceptive Efficacy of Polyester-induced Azoospermia In Normal Men”). 

Shafik continued his research into polyesters in 2008, this time including female populations in a study conducted with the National Center on Biotechnology Information. Shafik examined the way textiles impacted canine fertility, studying 35 female dogs who were subsequently divided into groups which wore pants made from varying materials, including “100% polyester, a polyester-cotton blend, cotton, and wool.” He then monitored their reproductive hormones and ability to conceive. Dogs clothed in polyester showed a significant decrease in serum progesterone levels during their estrus cycle and failed to conceive. As previously seen in the 1992 study, the polyester undergarments were removed, their hormone levels normalized, suggesting a reversible effect, at least in under a year of wearing the clothes. The study postulated that the previously mentioned electrostatic potentials generated by the polyester might disrupt ovarian function. Interestingly, polyester also impacted male dogs, as Shafik also tested 14 male dogs wearing polyester, and noticed that they experienced decreased sperm count due to their sensitive skin’s exposure to polyester, often indicating difficulties in reproduction and reduced testosterone (“An Experimental Study on The Effect of Different Types ow that we are out of the age of ignorance, we cannot remain in the age of complacency. Consumers deserve transparency, regulators must demand accountability, and companies must innovate responsibly. The fabrics we live in every day should sustain us, not silently harm us. Real progress will mean shifting away from individual responsibility alone and toward systemic change—because safe clothing should not be a privilege, but a baseline right.of Textiles On Conception”). 

A 2023 study by the National Library of Medicine provides additional insight into the harm of wearing synthetic chemicals on our body. The study found that chemicals like polyester are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that block the body’s natural hormones, as the chemicals in the fabric can harm estrogen or testosterone levels in the human body. This creates a domino effect impacting your endocrine system which further impacts the reproductive system (Ullah, Sana et al. Researchers found that sweating, the primary effect of working out in the work-out clothes, causes this process to occur at a much higher level by pulling these chemicals out of the polyester fibers faster, absorbing the toxins into our bloodstream at a quicker rate. Moreover, sweating in the fabric can essentially trap bacteria on our bodies, creating a petri dish on our skin that can be a hotbed for bacterial infections (“The Unseen Risks of Polyester: How Synthetic Fabrics May Impact Fertility”). 

Other studies have found that polyester and its chemical components can also disrupt thyroid function, alter cortisol and melatonin levels, and harm egg quality in women undergoing fertility treatments. These disruptions extend further, influencing metabolism, stress response, mood regulation, and even our happiness, as about 90% of serotonin is produced in the gut, and it can also be an area impacted by these chemicals. Microplastics that can shed from the polyester fabric worsen the picture, as immune cells exposed to them die three times faster than unexposed cells, and as these microplastics break down into nanoplastics, they penetrate cells and release harmful chemicals throughout the body. Children are especially vulnerable, with studies showing that high exposure to synthetic fabrics weakens their immune response to vaccines. Even sleep can be impacted, as research comparing sleepwear materials found that polyester wearers experienced significantly more sleep fragmentation than those wearing natural fibers like wool, though I can’t say I know many people who sleep in their athleisure. 

If all of this seems rather extreme and doom and gloom, or perhaps an extreme reaction, I would encourage you to remember that despite these harmful effects clearly evidenced in scientific study, polyester is 88% of all of all fiber produced globally and used in our clothes. It’s one of the most common materials in our closets, so we are impacted (Ladha). Moreover, it is women who are most likely to be impacted by these chemicals as athleisure is disproportionately marketed and purchased by women. The production of polyester has doubled in the past twenty years and is slated to continue to double again in the next twenty years(Osimitz, Thomas G et al).

It’s hardly a secret that fast-fashion brands like Shein and Temu cut costs by using cheap fabrics. One investigative product testing by the South Korean government found that items like shoes and nail polish sold on sites like Shein, Temu and AliExpress contained chemicals, including microplastics from polyester, phthalates and formaldehyde at dangerous levels. In the study, agents examined 144 pieces of merchandise from each of the three “brands” finding items such as clothes, shoes, bags, and nail polish contained hazardous chemicals at levels hundreds of times above legal safety limits. It doesn’t simply stop there, as according to Elle, “One pair of Temu shoes, for instance, contained 11 times the permissible level of lead, a metal that the World Health Organization warns can be absorbed through skin contact and, even in small amounts, impair multiple organs. Nail polish from Shein contained three times the allowable level of dioxane, a possible carcinogen, while its caps held twice the safe limit of formaldehyde.” Similarly, a separate investigation by CBC Marketplace, led by environmental chemist Miriam Diamond from the University of Toronto, found that one out of every five items tested of children and adults clothing contained dangerous levels of lead, PFAs, or phthalates, with Shein identified as the worst offender(Mitchell).

While we may expect this from fast-fashion companies, we do not expect it when paying for high end policies like $100 jackets, or pants leaving us with lasting effects. Moreover, due to the fact that we are the first generation to wear polyester in these high numbers, we are essentially the beta test for these fabrics, the canaries in the coal mines when we start to become sick. As previously mentioned, the above studies demonstrate that these effects, after a year, can be reversible in dogs, but what about people? I’ve worn yoga pants almost every day for the better part of my life, what are the potential side effects on my body? Don’t we as consumers deserve to know those effects? 

It seems as though no one has brought a significant suit against these companies for not disclosing the harm. However, should such a lawsuit be brought, it could be revolutionary not only to athleisure companies but to the entire beauty industry. Most recently, researchers found that concerts about health problems from forever chemicals extended far beyond clothing but to almost every facet of our lives. Research now shows that everyday beauty and personal care products like shampoo, deodorant, and fragrance may also be harming our bodies because they include phthalates, a forever chemical mentioned above. One study tested whether reducing exposures to specific products containing phthalates could make a difference on breast cancer tissue. The women participating in the study were asked to stop using products with parabens and phthalates for just 28 days, and researchers compared breast tissue samples from before and after the trial. After the 28 days, they found major changes, with genes linked to breast cancer dropping, cells showed less resistance to normal cell death, and overall cell behavior shifted away from patterns associated with tumors. This is particularly important because only around five percent of breast cancer cases are inherited, demonstrating that phthalates may be a cause in breast cancer. Yet in the United States, companies are not required to disclose all the ingredients in their products. Many are protected as “trade secrets,” which means harmful substances like phthalates can be hidden from consumers. While trade secret laws might have originally been meant to protect business practices, they are now often used by companies to avoid transparency about toxic ingredients. This leaves consumers, especially women, more vulnerable to hidden risks. Other regions, like the European Union and Japan, have moved toward restricting or banning these substances, but U.S. regulations remain far weaker. As the study suggests, even short-term reductions in exposure can lower cancer risks at the cellular level. Without stronger rules to force disclosure and regulate harmful chemicals, consumers continue to face unnecessary danger in their daily routines(Lilley). 

Seen in this light, polyester leggings are not an isolated problem but part of a wider pattern of corporate negligence. Whether it is toxic chemicals in clothing or phthalates in shampoo, the story is the same: companies introduce products into our lives without fully testing their long-term effects and without warning us of the risks. This larger context makes the legal questions around design defects and failure to warn in polyester-based athleisure all the more urgent.

Under product liability law, consumers have the right to hold companies accountable when products cause harm. Liability claims are usually divided into three categories: design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. In the case of our athleisure leggings, concerns about the toxicity of polyester raise issues of both design defect and failure to warn. A design defect occurs when the very concept of the product is unsafe, even if it is built exactly as intended. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (1978) is a landmark case that ruled that businesses can be held liable for hazardous design defects. The Ford Pinto’s fuel tank placement made it prone to explode in rear-end collisions, not because it was poorly manufactured but because the design itself was hazardous. In a similar way, leggings made of polyester may be comfortable and durable, yet the material itself can release chemicals that leach into the skin, creating a health risk that is built into the product’s design.

Similarly, a failure to warn product liability case arises when companies neglect to inform consumers of hidden dangers tied to normal use of a product. If Lululemon markets polyester leggings without warning buyers of the potential health hazards of chemical absorption, it risks falling squarely into this category. Like the Pinto and talcum powder cases, it raises the question of whether companies prioritize profits over consumer safety(Franklin).

Now, you might question Lululemon or Alo’s belief in these studies. Perhaps they do not want to believe that their special product does not cause harm. Unfortunately, it seems far more likely that these companies using polyester in their leggings know the harm, they just have place profit over persons. While it can be difficult to believe the brands we patronize do not have our best interest at heart, it has been proven time and time again that companies are often flippant or negligent in warning consumers in order to line their own pockets. However, as seen in the famed Teflon case, DuPont knew about the poisonous effects of the chemical C8, a PFAS used in the making of Teflon, but continued to manufacture it anyway, and place it in their non-stick pans in order to line their own pockets. DuPont’s internal studies from the 1950s onward showed their knowledge of the toxicity of C8 in animals, and company records also document workers falling ill after smoking c-8-contaminated cigarettes. Yet, the company concealed or downplayed these risks. The DuPont company then deposited the chemicals they knew were toxic not just into products but into the environment, contaminating drinking water around Parkersburg, West Virginia. It was not until 1999, when the Tennant family reported cows mysteriously wasting away and lawyer Robert Bilott filed suit on their behalf, that the contamination and DuPont’s role began to come to light. It was only thanks to the long legal battle fought by Bilott that led to the company being held accountable for the harm they caused not just to the environment but the citizens of Parkersberg many of whom suffered lifelong cancerous or severe medical issues as a result of the contaminated drinking water (Sisk). As such, we must remember that companies do not always have our best interests in mind, but rather lining their own pockets. Perhaps Lulu Lemon and Alo do not know about the harm from the chemical-leadden polyester, but with dozens of studies it seems more likely that these brands often marketed as “sustainable” simply do not care about their impact on our bodies or the environment(lululemon).

 It seems absurd to believe that companies are poisoning us, but it’s far from the pale, particularly in industries like the beauty and clothing industry. Is there a solution? After all, in the process of writing this article, I bought a Lulu Lemon skirt, with a sigh. While perhaps the short-term solution is to wear athleisure that contains polyester for short periods of time when you will not be excessively sweating, or primarily switching to wear naturally based fibers such as cotton, wool, or linen, the solution lies far beyond the clothes we wear. It’s time to legally hold companies accountable for selling us clothes that contain harmful chemicals, and advocate for better fabrics, and better clothes, and more importantly better laws to ensure the things we put on our bodies aren’t slowly poisoning us. One way to fight back is to advocate for mandatory safety testing of fabrics that come into direct contact with our skin, especially as part of textile and consumer safety regulations. Consumers deserve transparency, regulators must demand accountability, and companies must innovate responsibly because safe clothing is a basic right.

Work Cited

Alahmari, Layla A. “Dietary fiber influence on overall health, with an emphasis on CVD, diabetes, obesity, colon cancer, and inflammation.” Frontiers in nutrition vol. 11 1510564. 13 Dec. 2024, doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1510564

CELYS Biodegradable Polyester. “The Impact of Synthetic Fabrics on Women’s Health.” Celys.com.au, 2024, www.celys.com.au/blog/the-impact-of-synthetic-fabrics-on-womens-health? Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.

Dairkee, Shanaz H et al. “Reduction of daily-use parabens and phthalates reverses accumulation of cancer-associated phenotypes within disease-free breast tissue of study subjects.” Chemosphere vol. 322 (2023): 138014. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138014

Drescher, Michael. “Is Polyester Bad for Your Health? 10 Hidden Risks You Need to Know.” Vibrant Body Company, 13 May 2025, vibrantbodycompany.com/blogs/education/is-polyester-bad-for-your-health?srsltid=AfmBOorNsybwIjTrXbf7cc0gR9c2NbW8gulP3aaYz8k4R2MVB3ScyxUL. Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.

Ladha, Priyanka. “The Polyester Purgatory: Exiling Fertility One Stitch at a Time.” Deccan Chronicle, 15 Apr. 2024, www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/nation/the-polyester-purgatory-exiling-fertility-one-stitch-at-a-time-889650. Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.

Lilley, Matt. “Reducing Breast Cancer Risk by Reducing Chemical Exposures.” Collaborative for Health & Environment, 22 July 2023, www.healthandenvironment.org/latest-research/blog/reducing-breast-cancer-risk-by-reducing-chemical-exposures.

Lululemon. “Lululemon Launches FY23 Impact Report.” Lululemon.com, 18 Sept. 2024, corporate.lululemon.com/media/our-stories/2024/lululemon-launches-fourth-impact-report.

Michael Franklin. “Product Liability Court Cases: Understanding the Legal Landscape – Values Law.” Values Law, 22 Oct. 2024, www.valueslaw.com/product-liability-court-cases-understanding-the-legal-landscape/. Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.

Mitchell, Rebecca. “Shein & Temu Clothing Found to Contain Dangerous Levels of Toxic Chemicals.” ELLE, 14 Feb. 2025, www.elle.com.au/fashion/fashion-news/shein-temu-contain-toxic-chemicals-study/.

Osimitz, Thomas G et al. “Polyester monomers lack ability to bind and activate both androgenic and estrogenic receptors as determined by in vitro and in silico methods.” Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association vol. 75 (2015): 128-38. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2014.10.015

Sisk, Taylor. “A Lasting Legacy: DuPont, C8 Contamination and the Community of Parkersburg Left to Grapple with the Consequences.” Good River: Stories of the Ohio, 7 Jan. 2020, www.ohiowatershed.org/dupont-c8-contamination-and-the-community-of-parkersburg.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

Shafik, A. “An Experimental Study on The Effect of Different Types of Textiles On Conception.” Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology vol. 28,2 (2008): 213-6. doi:10.1080/01443610801912535

Shafik, A. “Contraceptive Efficacy of Polyester-induced Azoospermia in Normal Men.” Contraception vol. 45,5 (1992): 439-51. doi:10.1016/0010-7824(92)90157-o

Song, Myunghwan, et al. “Full Textile-Based Body-Coupled Electrical Stimulation for Wireless, Battery-Free, and Wearable Bioelectronics.” Npj Flexible Electronics, vol. 8, no. 1, 14 Nov. 2024, www.nature.com/articles/s41528-024-00364-6, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41528-024-00364-6. Accessed 25 Apr. 2025.

“The Unseen Risks of Polyester: How Synthetic Fabrics May Impact Fertility.” TFTC, Truth for the Commoner, 4 Jan. 2024, www.tftc.io/the-unseen-risks-of-polyester-how-synthetic-fabrics-may-impact-fertility/.

Ullah, Sana et al. “A Review of The Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Micro and Nano Plastic and Their Associated Chemicals in Mammals.” Frontiers in endocrinology vol. 13 1084236. 16 Jan. 2023, doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.1084236