US Food and Drug Administration Rejects Petition To Set PFAS Limits In Food (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0184371154
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/09/0359202/us-food-and-drug-administration-rejects-petition-to-set-pfas-limits-in-food
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/08/us-food-and-drug-administration-rejects-petition-to-set-pfas-limits-in-food
> The US Food and Drug Administration has rejected a legal petition [1]demanding it set limits on toxic Pfas "forever chemicals" in food , marking another setback for public health advocates' push to limit exposures to the dangerous compounds. The agency is refusing to set limits despite a growing body of science and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding food is the biggest source of Pfas exposure. Testing has found the levels of Pfas in single servings of some contaminated foods to be equivalent to drinking many glasses of contaminated water.
>
> While regulators have focused on reining in Pfas in water, the chemicals are widely used throughout the food system, and there was hope that the agency under Robert F Kennedy Jr would take the threat more seriously. Kennedy leads the "make America healthy again" (Maha) movement, of which eliminating toxic chemicals from food is a cornerstone. [...] The November 2023 petition called on the FDA to check for up to 30 Pfas compounds in a range of produce, fish, eggs, milk and bread. The agency did not respond within the six-month timeframe required by law, but TEJTF scaled back its petition in 2025 to ask the agency to set advisory thresholds for PFOA and Pfos, two of the most common and dangerous Pfas compounds, in seafood and milk.
>
> Recent FDA testing found 70% of seafood samples contain the chemicals, while independent milk testing found it in 12% of 50 samples, including extremely high levels in Whole Foods and Kirkland Signature brands. The FDA rejected the revised petition, stating it plans to take action on setting standards for Pfas, and there is "insufficient evidence to support [TEJTF's] request." The agency said it plans to set less non-binding "action levels" that do not require contaminated food to be removed from shelves. "Tolerance levels," or limits, make it illegal to sell food contaminated beyond a set threshold.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/08/us-food-and-drug-administration-rejects-petition-to-set-pfas-limits-in-food
Justified true hope (Score:1, Flamebait)
> here was hope that the agency under Robert F Kennedy Jr would take the threat more seriously.
There is only one hope that is ever truly justified in Robert F Kennedy, and that is he will do something unexpected at a cocain/heroin party.
With a bit of PCP he's the perfect match for the Trump administration.
Land of the free ... (Score:5, Informative)
... free to poison people for profit, that is. Entirely what I expected in this question.
Re:Land of the free ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, Trump is wondering why the EU doesn't import safe and amazing, some say its the best, I don't say that, but it sounds good, grown man saying that can you imagine, American food. Clearly we need to slap tarifs on them for taking advantage of America.
likely the wrong path (Score:3)
It might be more productive to have third party labs document PFAS contamination of foods and then file a class action suit over the contamination.
Re:likely the wrong path (Score:4, Interesting)
> It might be more productive to have third party labs document PFAS contamination of foods and then file a class action suit over the contamination.
Sorry. When you signed up for that discount card a few years ago, you agreed to individual binding arbitration only.
Re: (Score:3)
Would it be? How well has that worked for Monsanto victims who actually have a terminal illness? The supreme court has ruled regulations trump lawsuits in that case, and the FDA specifically saying they won't impose limits sort of falls into that category right?
I've said it before (Score:1, Troll)
The only good Kennedy is a dead Kennedy.
Macho Hamacho - the Great President (Score:3, Informative)
Some of macho Hamacho s achievements so far, most of which are borderline legal at best. It is a big club, but you ain’t in it:
Jan. 20, 2025 – Withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement (again). Criticism: Undermines U.S. climate leadership and slows emissions reductions.
2025 – Large-scale federal workforce reductions and agency restructuring. Criticism: Reduced expertise and capacity in public health, science, and environmental enforcement.
July 2025 – Exempted more than 100 industrial facilities from certain pollution-control requirements. Criticism: Could increase exposure to carcinogens and toxic pollutants for nearby communities.
Feb. 5, 2026 – EPA enforcement against polluters fell to a record low. Criticism: Environmental groups argue it weakens accountability and encourages noncompliance.
Feb. 18, 2026 – Administration moved to revoke the legal basis for major U.S. climate regulations. Criticism: Seen as an attempt to dismantle decades of environmental protections.
March 2026 – Executive actions and policy shifts favoring continued glyphosate use and limiting some pesticide liability. Criticism: Public-health advocates argue they prioritize chemical manufacturers over health concerns.
May 19, 2026 – EPA proposed rolling back drinking-water limits for several PFAS ("forever chemicals"). Criticism: Critics say it exposes millions to higher levels of persistent toxic chemicals.
May 2026 – IRS settlement reportedly shielding many of Trump's, his family's, and affiliated businesses' pre-settlement tax returns from future audits. Criticism: Tax experts called it unprecedented and argued it creates unequal treatment under tax law. (Reuters/AP reporting.)
June 2026 – Continued approvals and support for certain PFAS-related pesticide uses. Criticism: Environmental groups argue this increases long-term contamination risks despite health concerns.
July 8, 2026 – FDA rejected a petition to set enforceable PFAS limits in food. Criticism: Public-health advocates argue the decision leaves consumers inadequately protected from "forever chemicals."
This list says plenty alone.
Of course, Trump and his people are imbeciles (Score:2, Informative)
Trump seemed to have helped 1 million Americans dies from COVID. Why wouldn't he want more to die from cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say. When comparing the deaths from covid in the US and Norway per capita, there are approximately [1]890 k extra deaths in the US [share.gemini.google]. That's obviously not all Trump, though. Norway has a much better health care system, and a much smaller percentage of idiots. And while the latter obviously caused Trump, it's not set in stone that the latter caused the increased mortality in the former by making them refuse vaccines, ignore mask mandates etc. There's more correlation than causation here.
Also, here's a rar
[1] https://share.gemini.google/9LwMx0blfGLP
Toxic? (Score:1)
Are these substances really that bad?
What I read seems to be very vague as to what levels of exposure cause what problems (if any). [1]https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas/ [epa.gov]
My jurisdiction seems fine with putting treated wastewater right back into the drinking water supply. That is a bigger concern to me than Roundup, microplastics, talcum powder, Radon, second hand smoke, Freon, acid rain, or whatever the latest parts per billion threat to my health
[1] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas/
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect to your concerns, the dosage in recycled wastewater is significantly lower (by orders of magnitude) than that found in, for example, bottles for baby food or soft drinks.
Re: (Score:3)
Purified wastewater is very carefully monitored (some of it real-time) for a large range of things, because it has to be. It is much safer than regular drinking water.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah they probably aren't bad, PFAS is only a bioaccumulating substance linked to elevated cholesterol, weakened immune response to vaccines, liver and thyroid diseases, pregnancy complications (like preeclampsia), and increased risks of kidney and testicular cancers. But you don't need your balls anyway.
But this is America, allowing shit in food that most of the rest of the west has banned is sort of par for the course right? And then Trump wonders why Europe (which has actual food regulations) doesn't imp
Re: (Score:2)
The parts per million, accumulate in the body as "forever" chemicals and are associated with elevated risk of cancer, in your balls particularly. If that doesn't worry a man, they get passed to children through breast milk too.
There is reasonable chance, as is the case for many US institutions, that your EPA is corrupt, being paid off or threatened to play down risks. This happens when a culture celebrates greed more than the well being of its people.
We live in a soup of industrial chemicals with no real i
It's healthy for Americans (Score:3)
It's healthy for Americans, while for the rest of the world (with less stable intestines) it's toxic. FDA and JFKjr want your best, proven by the Orange Seal.
Re: (Score:2)
That must be it. Us weak-ass Europeans just cannot deal with PFAS chemicals. We also cannot manage dying earlier (https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/), which creates a host of problems, same as our overpowered and far too affordable health-care systems.
Re: (Score:3)
In studies on mammals, effects on the liver, immune system and reproduction are common.
They are long-lived and therefore remain in the environment for a long time and are therefore spread far, via air and water.
This makes them a global problem, including Antarctica.
import bans... (Score:2)
then those idiots will cry about the EU banning US produced shit "food"
EU (Score:1)
EU started limiting this stuff 4 years ago. Why so much reluctance in the US to introduce something which is clearly in the population's interest ? [1]https://www.food-safety.com/ar... [food-safety.com]
[1] https://www.food-safety.com/articles/8222-eu-sets-limits-for-pfas-in-certain-foods
Re: CostCo crap for a few pennies (Score:2)
From what I heard, it depends on the packaging. Maybe pfas coated cardboard is a bit more expensive?