PFAS 'forever chemicals' to officially be removed from food packaging, FDA says
The FDA’s move to eliminate PFAS “forever chemicals” from U.S. food packaging is widely welcomed but raises questions about what replacement materials will be used and how rigorously they’ll be tested. Commenters highlight everyday sources of exposure like microwave popcorn bags and dental products, and note the long delay between PFAS adoption and recognition of their health risks. The conversation broadens into concerns over chemical regulation in the U.S., including whether agencies like the FDA have sufficient authority and funding to act quickly, and how looming Supreme Court decisions could weaken their ability to protect public health.
Popcorn and Packaging Alternatives
- Many comments pivot to microwave popcorn bags as a prominent PFAS use case.
- Several users say they’ve switched to bulk kernels, using:
- Covered microwave-safe bowls, brown paper lunch bags with oil/salt, or stovetop pots with various oils and seasonings.
- Air poppers are praised, though some worry about plastic and Teflon/PTFE contact at high temperatures; others argue thermostats keep temps safe in such appliances.
- Some insist stovetop popcorn is easy and better-tasting; others find packaged bags more convenient or better seasoned.
- Camping and making popcorn with kids are cited as fun, low-tech alternatives.
“Forever Chemicals” vs. Replacements
- Strong approval that PFAS are being removed, but concern that they’ll be swapped for less-tested but potentially harmful substitutes (compared to BPA → BPS, trans fats history).
- Debate over regulatory approaches:
- U.S. characterized as “blacklist” (allow until proven harmful).
- EU described as more “whitelist” for some food and chemical uses, though PFAS still entered EU markets when considered inert.
- Some note existing large-scale use of wax/parchment-type coatings; others point out these are still “chemicals.”
Regulation, FDA, and Supreme Court Debate
- Some worry that efforts to curb agency power (e.g., limiting Chevron deference, viewing agencies as a “fourth branch”) will hinder actions like PFAS bans.
- Others argue unelected agencies should not effectively make laws; Congress should.
- Counterarguments stress:
- Congress lacks time/expertise to regulate every chemical.
- Agencies are enabled by Congressional statutes and are necessary for a functioning modern state.
- Attempts to dismantle or weaken agencies are seen as industry-driven and likely to reduce public safety.
Other Exposure Sources and Health Concerns
- PFAS or similar issues are mentioned in dental floss, cookware coatings, possibly manufacturing lubricants.
- Thermal receipts are noted as mainly bisphenols, not PFAS, but still harmful endocrine disruptors.
- EPA material is cited listing multiple serious health effects from PFAS exposure.
- A study is shared suggesting regular blood donation may reduce PFAS levels; lifestyle measures (diet, exercise) are suggested to support resilience.
Broader Frustrations and Open Questions
- Users ask how PFAS entered so many products and why regulation took decades.
- There’s skepticism that FDA action is sufficient, with calls to address other problematic chemicals (e.g., phthalates).
- Two major unresolved worries:
- What untested chemicals will replace PFAS?
- How to deal with legacy PFAS already accumulated in people and the environment?