FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
The FDA’s decision to reject a petition for enforceable limits on PFAS “forever chemicals” in food has prompted sharp criticism of U.S. regulatory priorities and political influence. Commenters debate the health risks and exposure pathways of PFAS, the difference between binding limits and non-binding “action levels,” and practical steps individuals can take to reduce their intake, such as filtration, avoiding certain packaging and cookware, and even donating blood. Broader themes include distrust of industry-friendly regulation, trade-offs between economic interests and public health, and the challenges of addressing contaminants that are already pervasive in the environment.
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older FDA language implying that exceeding action levels can trigger legal action, but others note that document is outdated.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.