The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rejection of a petition to set limits on 'forever chemicals' in food is a disappointing setback for public health advocates. These persistent organic pollutants (POPs), known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), have been linked to a range of serious health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and immune system damage. The petition, filed by the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force (TEJTF), called for the FDA to set advisory thresholds for two of the most common and dangerous PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, in seafood and milk. While the FDA has acknowledged the presence of PFAS in food, its decision not to set limits is concerning, given the growing body of evidence linking these chemicals to adverse health effects.
PFAS are used in a wide range of products, from non-stick cookware to food packaging, and they can persist in the environment for thousands of years. The chemicals are particularly insidious because they are designed to be indestructible, and they can accumulate in the body over time. The FDA's decision to focus on less binding 'action levels' rather than setting legal limits is a missed opportunity to protect public health. Action levels do not require contaminated food to be removed from shelves, whereas tolerance levels, or limits, would make it illegal to sell food contaminated beyond a set threshold.
The FDA's limited annual testing and methodology changes that prioritize high contamination levels over moderate ones are also problematic. In 2019, the FDA initially found 182 food samples to be contaminated with PFAS, but after changing its methodology, that figure dropped to 78. This suggests that the FDA is not adequately addressing the problem, and it raises questions about the agency's commitment to protecting public health. The fact that the FDA has not responded within the required six-month timeframe to the petition is also concerning.
The petition's request to test for up to 30 PFAS compounds in a range of produce, fish, eggs, milk, and bread highlights the need for more comprehensive testing and regulation. The presence of PFAS in 70% of seafood samples and 12% of milk samples, including extremely high levels in Whole Foods and Kirkland Signature brands, underscores the urgency of the situation. The fact that PFAS can be found in non-stick cookware, pesticides, and sewage sludge used as fertilizer further emphasizes the need for a more holistic approach to regulating these chemicals.
The FDA's decision not to set limits on PFAS in food is a missed opportunity to protect public health. The agency's limited testing and methodology changes that prioritize high contamination levels over moderate ones are also problematic. The petition's request to test for up to 30 PFAS compounds in a range of food products highlights the need for more comprehensive testing and regulation. The presence of PFAS in food and the potential for these chemicals to accumulate in the body over time underscores the importance of taking action to protect public health. Personally, I think that the FDA should set legal limits on PFAS in food, and I hope that the agency will re-evaluate its position and take more aggressive action to protect public health.
