PFAS 'forever chemicals' to officially be removed from food packaging, FDA says

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?