The rise of fabric-conscious shoppers
Over the past few years, a heightened awareness of fabric content has spread among shoppers. Searches related to natural fibers began to spike on Google in 2024 and have risen since. Elena Karpova, a professor of consumer apparel-retail studies at the University of North Carolina Greensboro, noted that in a recent unpublished study, fabric content was a major factor influencing Gen Z shoppers. Brands have responded: mainstream stores like Gap and J Crew now let online shoppers filter by material.
For many, this concern is aesthetic. As fast fashion has proliferated and retailers cut costs, clothing quality has deteriorated. Consumers seek a way around it. Opting for natural fibers is one solution, though it's not a cure-all. Clothing quality depends on many factors, including construction, but construction is complicated to evaluate. Hanna Lee, an assistant professor at the Wilson College of Textiles at North Carolina State University, explained that part of the appeal of “natural fibers only” is its simplicity: anyone can check, and brands can easily advertise it.
Health-focused motivations and the wellness movement
Lane Koch, a longtime Republican political strategist and former senior staffer on Robert F Kennedy Jr’s presidential campaign, decided to purge her family’s closets of all plastic-based fabrics after watching the Netflix documentary The Plastic Detox. The film follows six couples experiencing infertility who reduce plastic in their lives; by the end, three couples have a baby. Koch thought: “If plastic exposure has that big of an effect on people’s fertility, then certainly it must be affecting our health as well in different areas.” She cleared 90% of her closet and replaced bedding with 100% cotton sheets.
Wellness-obsessed men are switching from polyester to cotton underwear, and the conservative women’s magazine Evie recommended readers dress in “natural fiber staples” rather than synthetics, which it claimed “mess with your hormones”. The sentiment aligns with the rise of MAHA (Make America Healthy Again); a recent MAHA report on children’s health mentioned dangers of microplastics in clothing. These fears have spread on social media, where half of adults under 50 get health information. Countless TikTokers assert that clothes make us sick, a type of sensational content that algorithms thrive on.
What scientists say about real health impacts
Worries about plastic-based clothing have some basis. Phil Landrigan, a biology and public health professor at Boston College who co-authored an international report on plastic production, said the harm is primarily from workplace accidents and emissions, not wearing clothes. The potential dangers of wearing synthetics are less immediate and harder to quantify. Scientists are more concerned about chemicals used to treat fabrics—phthalates, bisphenols, PFAS, and brominated flame retardants—which are toxic and linked to cancer, heart attacks, infertility, and immune suppression.
But a link isn’t causation. For these chemicals to harm, skin must absorb them. That’s possible, but generally less risky than other exposure routes. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital, said she is more worried about plastic in food and cookware, and personal care products. Audrey Gaskins, a professor at Emory University studying environmental effects on fertility, said dermal absorption is probably not the average person’s primary exposure. Mohamed Abdallah, an environmental chemistry professor at the University of Birmingham, noted that sweating increases risk, but quantifying overall danger is impossible due to many factors: the chemical, amount added to fabric, wear duration, and type of exercise.
No acute toxicity, but cumulative concerns
No scientist interviewed avoided synthetics entirely, but many limited them. Landrigan wore mostly natural fibers but also a fleece vest; Abdallah embraced cotton at the gym; Sathyanarayana switched workout gear and underwear. All agreed wearing natural fibers is probably the lowest-risk route, but no one seemed overly concerned about synthetics remaining in their closets. Sathyanarayana stated: “There is no evidence to support that our clothes are making us sick right now. There is evidence that these chemicals are harmful, but we are likely getting most of them from other sources.”
Cultural drivers: distrust of the unnatural
Colleen Derkatch, a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and author of Why Wellness Sells, said her work shows people are worried everyday life is steeped in hazardous chemicals. The advice to buy natural acknowledges that fear and offers an answer. Alan Levinovitz, a professor at James Madison University and author of Natural, explained that buying natural fibers may seem harmless, but the underlying motivation—believing clothes make you sick—may signal a larger belief that protective systems have failed, opening vulnerabilities to public figures claiming trickery.
Alli Walker, a singer-songwriter in Nashville, struggled with irritable bowel syndrome, mast cell activation syndrome, and polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome. After a functional medicine doctor recommended investigating toxins, she purged synthetics (except costumes) and bought natural fiber basics. She said: “Once you get into one side of this ‘non-toxic life’, there is no turning back. It’s almost like a hobby for me to get healthier and healthier.” For Koch, optimizing health is ongoing; she plans to get a snake plant for air purification. She knows she can’t control pesticides or water pollution, but “I can control the things I put on my body.” Even if the impact isn’t life or death, she said, if it offers a slim chance at greater health, it’s “worth it.”
