The conversations around sustainability continue to shape the future of consumer products. But one critical question often goes unasked: what are these materials doing to our bodies? This Earth Day, we’re expanding the conversation beyond environmental impact to explore the intersection of fabric safety, chemical exposure, and long-term health—reframing what it means to design not just for the planet, but for the human body itself.

To guide this discussion, we spoke with Dr. Julia Saylors, a board-certified physician in internal medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Charleston Oncology. With specialized training completed at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and clinical experience treating complex conditions such as breast cancer and hematologic malignancies, Dr. Saylors brings a deeply informed perspective on how environmental exposures can intersect with human health—not just in isolated cases, but over time.

In this interview, Dr. Saylors helps unpack the growing concerns around PFAS, BPA, and other chemical treatments in everyday fabrics—challenging the assumption that “sustainable” always means “safe.” As innovation in materials continues to accelerate, this conversation asks a bigger question: are we designing products that are truly aligned with the biology of the people using them? From the materials we wear during our most active moments to those closest to our skin, this discussion reframes clothing not just as something we wear, but as something that interacts with us—daily, and over a lifetime.

Doctor-led Q&A With Dr. Julia Saylors

People often assume ‘sustainable’ means ‘safe’ — is that always true?

Not necessarily, and that distinction matters. A fabric can be made from recycled materials or marketed as eco-friendly while still being treated with chemical finishes that we have real reason to think twice about. PFAS, for example, are used in water-resistant and sweat-wicking fabrics. They're persistent in the environment, and they don't break down easily in the body either. "Sustainable" and "body-safe" are both important, but they're measuring different things. It's worth asking about both.

As innovation in fabrics evolves, what should women prioritize when choosing products that align with their long-term health?

I'd start with proximity to skin. The closer something is worn, think leggings, bras, base layers, the more it matters what it's made of and how it's treated. Skin is absorptive, and we wear these garments during activities when our pores are open and circulation is elevated. For everyday pieces, I'd look for brands that are transparent about their materials and chemical treatments, particularly around PFAS and synthetic dye processes. Natural fibers have a lower chemical burden in many cases, but the conversation is nuanced because construction and finishes matter as much as the base material.

From an oncology perspective, how do you think about long-term, low-level exposure to chemicals like PFAS or BPA?

This is where I spend a lot of time clinically, and it's genuinely complex. Single exposures to these compounds at the levels found in everyday products are unlikely to be acutely harmful for most people. The concern is cumulative exposure over years and decades, what we call the body burden. PFAS are endocrine disruptors, meaning they can interfere with hormonal signaling, and the evidence linking them to certain cancers is growing. BPA and its substitutes raise similar questions. We don't always have definitive proof of harm from any one source, but that's partly because this kind of research takes a long time and is methodologically difficult. What I tell patients is: where you can reduce exposure without significant trade-off, it's reasonable to do so.

What does ‘risk reduction’ realistically look like for the average person?

I try not to frame this as all or nothing, because that's where people get overwhelmed and disengage. Risk reduction is about patterns, not perfection. It might mean prioritizing cleaner materials for the items you wear most often or longest, the leggings you sleep in, the sports bra you wear eight hours a day. It means looking for third-party certifications like OEKO-TEX or bluesign, which test for a range of harmful substances. It means washing new synthetic garments before wearing them, since chemical finishes are often most concentrated on unwashed fabric. Small, consistent shifts spread across the areas of your life where you have the most contact are where the meaningful reductions tend to happen.

What would a truly health-conscious future of apparel look like to you?

Transparency, first. I'd want to know what's in the fabric, what's been used to treat it, and what the evidence says about long-term safety. Right now, that information is hard to come by. It requires digging through third-party certifications and company sustainability reports, and even then it's incomplete. I'd also want to see the performance conversation expand. Right now "high performance" mostly means sweat-wicking, compression, and durability. I'd love for it to also mean: this material works with your biology rather than against it. We're starting to see brands move in that direction, and there's real appetite for it.

If you could leave readers with one takeaway this Earth Day, what would it be?

That "good for the planet" and "good for your body" should be the same standard, not competing ones. We've made a lot of progress asking what our choices mean for the environment. I think we're ready to start asking what they mean for the people inside the clothes. You don't have to be an expert to start paying attention. You just have to start asking the question.

As we rethink sustainability this Earth Day, it’s clear that the future of materials must extend beyond environmental impact alone. What we wear is not separate from us—it interacts with our bodies daily, shaping a more complex relationship between design, exposure, and long-term health.

The next generation of innovation won’t just ask whether something is sustainable, but whether it is truly aligned with human biology. And as that shift unfolds, informed consumers—and forward-thinking brands are beginning to reimagine what this looks like in practice—designing products, from everyday essentials to performance pieces like Oya’s tummy control leggings, with both the body and the planet in mind.

Building on our last conversation with Dr. Julia Saylors, we’re continuing to explore what women’s health looks like in practice—not just in theory. One area that continues to be overlooked? Pelvic health and the role everyday movement plays in supporting it.

In our next issue, we’re sitting down with Dr. Sarah M. St. Louis to go deeper into how small, consistent habits—like walking—impact the body over time, and what women should actually be paying attention to when it comes to prevention and long-term health.

So let us know—what do you want to understand better about your body? What still feels unclear?

Send In Your Questions Here