FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Perceived Health Risks of PFAS

  • PFAS are described as “forever chemicals” linked in the thread to cancer, birth defects, immune issues, high cholesterol, kidney disease, etc.
  • One commenter claims this mainly applies to PFOS/PFOA, not all PFAS, and notes PFOS in consumer products was largely phased out by 2015.
  • Others strongly dispute that distinction, calling it disinformation and asserting PFAS as a class are bioaccumulative and harmful, with safe level argued by some to be effectively zero.
  • There is debate on whether the article adequately explains dose, exposure levels, and risk; some think the harm is “well established” and needs no recap, others criticize the piece as alarmist and under-informative.

FDA Decision, “Action Levels” vs Tolerances

  • The FDA rejected binding PFAS limits in food, opting instead for non-binding “action levels.”
  • Some posters say action levels are essentially suggestions that do not compel product removal; surpassing them does not require enforcement.
  • A conflicting view cites older FDA language implying that exceeding action levels can trigger legal action, but others note that document is outdated.

Politics and Regulatory Capture

  • Many interpret the rejection as politically driven, prioritizing industry and campaign donations over public health.
  • Some argue this fits a broader pattern of weakening regulation and deference to corporate interests, regardless of party.
  • Others push back on “everything is a conspiracy,” framing it instead as systemic incentives, bureaucracy, and tradeoffs between environmental protection and economic costs.

Exposure Pathways, Mitigation, and Personal Actions

  • Suggested exposure sources: nonstick cookware, PFAS-treated packaging and clothing, bottled/packaged drinks, conventional agriculture (pesticides, sludge), dental floss.
  • Proposed mitigations: avoiding PFAS-coated items, using certified water filters (including RO systems), preferring organic foods, sweating/exercise, and especially frequent blood donation.

Blood Donation, Screening, and Ethics

  • A cited study suggests whole-blood donation can significantly reduce PFAS levels, prompting discussion of “therapeutic phlebotomy.”
  • Thread dives deep into blood donor deferral rules (travel to Mexico, MSM, tattoos, drug use), framed as risk-based heuristics plus imperfect testing.
  • Some see these rules as discriminatory; others defend them as statistically justified given testing windows and false negatives.
  • Questions arise about passing PFAS to recipients via transfusion; consensus is that PFAS cannot currently be filtered from blood, but the immediate life-saving benefit is seen as outweighing long-term PFAS risk.

Agricultural Contamination and Biosolids

  • Posters highlight PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge (“biosolids”) spread on fields, leading to farm shutdowns in several states.
  • Some view converting contaminated farmland to solar installations as a pragmatic reuse; another worries this may create perverse incentives but offers no concrete evidence of fraud.