Most guidance about chemical exposure and pregnancy focuses on the nine months after conception. A separate and growing body of research looks specifically at the preconception window, the months before, and finds it matters in its own right. Here's what that research actually shows, and what it doesn't yet prove.
Why does the time before conception matter specifically?
Because egg quality, ovarian function, and sperm health all develop over a timeline measured in months, not days, research increasingly treats preconception as a distinct window rather than an early extension of pregnancy. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals, compounds that interfere with hormone signaling, are the focus of most of this research, and studies specifically measuring preconception exposure in both parents, not just exposure during pregnancy, have found associations with outcomes like birth size and gestational timing.
What does the research actually show?
The chemicals most studied are BPA and phthalates, both common in plastics and plastic packaging. Research has found associations between higher BPA exposure and lower egg quality or disrupted ovarian development in women, and separately, reduced sperm quality in men. Phthalate exposure has been associated with menstrual irregularities and, in some studies, with a higher likelihood of conditions like endometriosis. More than 1,400 chemicals in commercial use have been identified as endocrine disruptors out of roughly 85,000 registered for use overall, and one frequently cited review found that nearly every pregnant woman tested in the US carried dozens of detectable environmental chemicals in her bloodstream.
Research on endocrine disruptors and fertility increasingly focuses on the preconception window specifically, not just pregnancy. BPA and phthalates are the most studied chemicals, and are associated with markers like egg quality and sperm quality in observational research. This isn't proof of direct cause and effect in any individual case, but it's consistent enough that reducing exposure before conception is now common clinical advice.
Is this proven, or still uncertain?
It's genuinely somewhere in between, and worth being precise about that. Almost all of the human evidence is observational, meaning researchers measure exposure levels and outcomes in real populations rather than deliberately exposing people in a controlled trial, which would be unethical. That design can show a consistent association without proving that the chemical caused the outcome in any specific case. What tips this from theoretical to actionable in clinical settings is the precautionary principle: the associations are consistent across enough independent studies, and the biological mechanism is understood well enough, that reducing exposure is treated as a reasonable, low-cost precaution rather than something to wait on more definitive proof for.
Does this only affect women, or men too?
Both. Preconception research and clinical guidance increasingly treat this as a couple's issue rather than something that falls on one partner. Male reproductive health appears at least as sensitive to these chemicals as female reproductive health in the research so far, with studies associating BPA and phthalate exposure with measures of sperm quality. Some research has looked at exposure in both partners simultaneously and found associations tied to each parent's individual exposure level, not just one. If reducing exposure is worth doing, it's worth both partners doing.
Where does clothing fit into this?
As one small, controllable piece of a much larger exposure picture. The major sources of BPA and phthalate exposure are food packaging, personal care products, and household dust, not clothing. Synthetic activewear is a minor contributor by comparison, but it's one of the few sources you can change with a single purchasing decision, worn for hours at a time, against skin that's more permeable when you're sweating. We go into the broader microplastics research in more depth in our piece on synthetic clothing and hormones, this one is specifically about the preconception timeline.
What can you actually do about it?
The same practical, low-cost steps that come up throughout this research: reduce plastic food containers and packaging where reasonable, especially for hot food and drinks, and choose natural fibre for the clothing that sits against your skin for the longest stretches, activewear and sleepwear in particular. None of this is a guarantee of anything, and it isn't a substitute for a conversation with your doctor or a fertility specialist if you're actively trying to conceive. It's a reasonable, evidence-informed adjustment, not a treatment for anything.
Strand fabric contains no polyester, nylon, or elastane, just organic cotton, hemp, and Tencel™ lyocell. See the full fabric breakdown, or shop the current collection.