Why suede specifically?
Suede has historically been treated with fluorochemical finishes — PFAS — to create water and stain resistance. It's not that suede needs PFAS to function as a material; it's that water repellency was considered a performance feature worth adding, and PFAS were the most effective way to achieve it cheaply at scale.
The problem is that PFAS don't break down. They persist in the environment, in wildlife, and in the human body — hence "forever chemicals." The scientific consensus on their toxicity has hardened over the past decade, and regulators in Europe, the US, and increasingly Asia are moving to restrict or eliminate them from consumer products.
For suede buyers, the relevant question isn't whether PFAS are bad (they are). It's whether the specific material you're sourcing has been independently tested, and whether the test actually covers the right compounds.
The EU regulation: where things actually stand
In February 2023, regulators from five EU countries submitted a universal PFAS restriction to ECHA — the European Chemicals Agency. Unlike previous regulations that banned specific PFAS one at a time (PFOS in 2008, PFOA in 2020), this proposal targets the entire class of over 10,000 PFAS compounds at once.
The process is still ongoing. A final decision is expected before 2026. For textile and leather goods, there's no automatic exemption — which means suede sold into the EU after the restriction is adopted will need to meet strict concentration limits for PFAS, or be demonstrably PFAS-free.
But here's the thing: brand compliance teams didn't wait for the regulation. Adidas, H&M Group, Patagonia, and most major European footwear and fashion brands already require PFAS-free documentation from their material suppliers. If your target customers are European brands, the regulatory deadline is almost beside the point — the market requirement is already there.
Which PFAS compounds to test for
Not all PFAS testing is equal. A lot of suppliers will say "PFAS tested" without specifying which compounds. The ones that matter most for suede:
| Compound | Status | Detection limit to ask for |
|---|---|---|
| PFOS | Banned under Stockholm Convention; restricted in EU since 2008 | <0.001 mg/kg |
| PFOA | Banned in EU since 2020; carcinogen | <0.001 mg/kg |
| PFHxS | Restricted under EU POPs Regulation 2022 | <0.001 mg/kg |
| C9–C14 PFCAs | Long-chain; bioaccumulative; increasingly restricted | <0.01 mg/kg |
| Total fluorine (TOF) | Screening test — flags any fluorinated compounds | Method-dependent |
A credible test report names each of these compounds individually with a specific result or ND (not detected). If a supplier shows you a report that says "PFAS: pass" without listing the individual compounds and detection limits, push back and ask for the full data.
What "not detected" actually means — and its limits
ND doesn't mean zero. It means the concentration was below the laboratory's detection limit for that test method. That detection limit matters a lot.
A report saying "PFOS: ND (<1 mg/kg)" is far weaker than one saying "PFOS: ND (<0.001 mg/kg)." In the first case, the test couldn't detect concentrations below 1 mg/kg — which is actually above some regulatory limits. In the second, the test is sensitive enough to give you real confidence.
When you're comparing suppliers, look at the detection limits, not just whether the result is ND or pass. This is one of the most commonly overlooked details in material compliance review.
Three levels of evidence — and which one is worth anything
Self-declaration: The supplier writes "PFAS-free" on their website or data sheet. No evidentiary value. Anyone can write this.
Third-party test report: SGS, Bureau Veritas, Intertek, or TÜV has tested the specific material against the relevant PFAS parameters and issued a report. This is the minimum acceptable standard. Check that the lab is ISO 17025 accredited and that the report covers the actual material you're buying, not a "similar" one.
Test report plus batch traceability: The report references a specific production lot that can be tied to your shipment. This is what serious brand compliance teams require, and what you should be asking for on significant volume orders.
Our PFAS position
Fly Suede has been tested by Bureau Veritas against a full PFAS panel: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and C9–C14 PFCAs. All not detected. Total fluorine content is also in scope. We share the full report — not a summary — with qualified buyers. Contact us with your company details and we'll send it the same day.
Frequently asked questions
Is PFAS testing the same as REACH testing?
Not exactly. REACH is a broad regulatory framework covering thousands of substances. A "REACH test" typically means a panel of substances restricted under REACH Annex XVII and XIV — PFAS are part of that, but the specific compounds covered vary by test programme. If PFAS compliance is important to you, ask specifically for a PFAS panel rather than assuming a general REACH test has covered it adequately.
Does this apply to US market sourcing too?
It's heading that way. California already restricts PFAS in several product categories. The EPA is actively regulating PFAS under federal law. And most major US brands — Nike, Timberland, REI — have already committed to PFAS-free materials independently of any regulation. Treating this as an EU-only issue is short-term thinking.
What if my supplier is PFAS-free but has no test report?
That's not PFAS-free. That's an unverified claim. The whole point of third-party testing is that it removes the supplier's self-interest from the equation. Commission your own test if the supplier won't provide one — it typically costs $300–600 and is worth it for any significant volume order.