The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected a legal petition demanding it set limits on toxic PFAS "forever chemicals" in food, delivering a setback to public health advocates seeking to reduce exposure to these harmful compounds. This decision comes despite a growing body of scientific evidence and findings from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that food is the biggest source of PFAS exposure in the United States.

Testing has revealed that the levels of PFAS in single servings of some contaminated foods can be equivalent to drinking many glasses of contaminated water. For example, consuming 10 blueberries grown near a PFAS plant in North Carolina was found to expose individuals to levels of the PFAS compound GenX comparable to drinking a liter of water with chemical concentrations above federal limits.

While regulatory efforts have primarily targeted PFAS contamination in water, these chemicals are widely present throughout the food system. There was hope that under FDA leadership by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who heads the "Make America Healthy Again" (Maha) movement emphasizing the elimination of toxic chemicals from food, the agency would take stronger action.

Sandra Daussin, an attorney for the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force (TEJTF), which filed the petition in November 2023, described the FDA's decision as "disappointing."

The FDA stated it plans to establish non-binding "action levels" for PFAS in food, which do not require removal of contaminated products from shelves. In contrast, "tolerance levels" or limits would make it illegal to sell food contaminated beyond a set threshold.

Concerns have also been raised about the FDA's methodology in assessing PFAS contamination. In 2019, the FDA initially found 182 food samples contaminated with PFAS, but after changing its methodology mid-study, the number dropped to 78, leading to accusations of intentionally downplaying contamination. Brian Ronholm, a former deputy under secretary of food safety at the US Department of Agriculture, criticized the FDA's approach in Consumer Reports, likening it to "using a radar gun to detect speeding in cars, but then manipulating the radar so that it only detects speeding in cars going over 100 mph."

Sources