FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• From the article:

  >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.

  From the FDA

  >Action levels and tolerances represent limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market.

  Typical junk tier rage bait journalism you can expect from the guardian.

  by WarmWash
• I can not find it in the FDA list. Is there a newer source?
  by notrealyme123
• You can read the FDA letter itself: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-4826-0015

  Your comment does not give a correct impression of FDA's position here.

  Action levels are correctly described by the article and not by whatever FDA quote you provided, which seems to imply the FDA is required to take action to remove products. Surpassing action levels do not require FDA to remove products from the market.

  by estearum
• Whenever I see something like this, I'm always curious how the libertarians rationalize their world view. Because this is what they want: no regulations where companies can do whatever they want. And they will.

  We're witnessing the looting of America. Every level of government seems increasingly dedicated to transferring wealth from the taxpayer to the wealthy. But even that's not sufficient. Apparently the wealthy also need to poison the land and people too for an uptick in profits. Why should they care? Capital is mobile. They'll simply leave whenever society collapses.

  by jmyeet
• As a not libertarian, it's pretty simple. Look at Patagonia[1] for how the free market addresses this issue. If people care, markets will cater to them.

  [1]https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html

  by parineum
• I mean what did we expect? This admin’s entire MO has been dismantle or de-fang what little regulatory framework we have left.

  Did they really think RFK Jr. was ushering in a healthier, “more natural” America?

  by Forgeties79
• Turns out it's easier to make conspiracies than effective policy. Who knew?
  by deepsquirrelnet
• Yes. But of course "healthier" is describing the health of brain worms. On the bright side, this probably indicates that the reactionaries' pushes to lower the intelligence of the population are reaching a point of diminishing returns, as they've now had to turn to parasites to continue the trend.
  by mindslight
• No Tylenol for y'all, but I'll shout the whole bar another round of PFAS!

  > They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they can persist for thousands of years in the environment, and are designed to be indestructible.

  But _not_ autism! Autism is the great evil we have chosen as our individual health enemy. I don't see autism listed, you may pass.

  by BLKNSLVR
• I think you mean PFOS and not PFAS, the relationship of cancers and health risks is linked to PFOS, but not PFAS in general at this time. PFOS in consumer-facing products were also majority phased out back in 2015.
  by logancbrown
• Would dousing someones food with PFAS be in any way illegal if FDA deems PFAS safe ?
  by rasz
• if a request doesn't come with a minimum $2 Million check attached or crypto transfer, nothing will get done this decade

  it's going to be a health and science dark ages for US

  by ck2
• I wonder how much teflon wears off the die into the spaghetti on pasta extrusion machines.
  by mech998877
• Short of frequent blood donation, is there any reasonably adoptable life change a person can make to meaningfully reduce expected PFAS intake, or is it best to try not to think about it?
  by bijection
• Yes, there are a few things you can do. In rough priority / proven benefit order:

  1. Eliminate as many items as possible from your diet that make use of PFAS based components, such as plastic linings. This means don't buy groceries packaged in lined packaging, this means don't cook with Teflon pans, and it means don't drink water from plastic bottles or bottles lines with plastic.

  2. Get a whole-home water filtration system that is certified (NSF 53 or similar standard) to reduce/remove PFAS and if possible, on top of this do under-sink RO for drinking/cooking which is certified (NSF 58 or similar) to remove PFAS and use glass or stainless steel reusable water bottles to take water outside your home.

  3. Exercise regularly so that you sweat and drink lots of appropriately filtered water, donate blood and/or plasma regularly.

  4. Eliminate clothing or other items in your wardrobe that are coated with DWR or similar coatings. Don't make use of any PFAS-derived treatments/plastics in your clothing. This is especially important during the process of washing your clothes, as this generates microplastics which are PFAS contaminated and you can ingest them via breathing.

  Everything else is basically guesswork, these are the only things known to have any benefit. We mostly ingest PFAS due to contamination in the food and water supply. This contamination is unavoidable, but we can greatly reduce exposure by making smarter choices about packaging materials and cooking methods, and a big one is simply not drinking anything that you can't confirm has been properly filtered and packaged.

  I'm a bit extreme, I even brew and bottle my own beer and other beverages like soda and water kefir/kombucha to avoid exposure to externally packaged products that may be contaminated with PFAS.

  by tristor
• Not surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.
  by cmdrmac
• The decision has got to be 100% political. The level and damage could be 1000x and they still won't act if it makes them money in the form of corporate campaign donations.
  by OutOfHere
• What happened to MAHA?
  by HumblyTossed
• The article fails to mention risk and the amounts that create those. In typical journalist fashion it just emphasizes the word “chemical” and other scary framings.
  by groundzeros2015
• Well it is scary and harmful. Since it accumulates in the body, the safe level is zero. Do you work for the chemical industry?
  by OutOfHere
• True. The risk is heavily downplayed, since the health effects manifest in decades and can be blamed on lifestyle factors, while the amounts causing health issues are in the order of parts per trillion.
  by cluckindan
• EPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.
  by feverzsj
• Another issue is that sewage sludge and "biosolids", unknowingly containing PFAS, is/was being used as farm fertilizer, causing some farms to have to be written off for food production. I would expect many more farms in the future to be found with PFAS soil levels exceeding what is safe to produce food with. The only way to find out is to test.

  Maine listened to farmers and confronted the PFAS crisis - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47509448 - February 2026 (0 comments)

  Maine Is a Warning for America's PFAS Future - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40007582 - April 2024 (0 comments)

  Toxic Chemical Contaminant PFAS Found on Maine Farms - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20142212 - June 2019 (1 comment)

  > The practice of spreading sludge as a soil amendment has been a common practice in Maine and across the nation for decades. Land application of sludge material occurred long before there was knowledge that it may contain PFAS or the health implications of PFAS.

  EPA Fact Sheet: Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS: Information for Farmers - https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/fact-shee... - January 2025

  EPA Basic Information about Biosolids: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-inform...

  by toomuchtodo
• In drinking water, yes. And the EPA coordinated a "voluntary" phase-out of PFAS in packaging, but it is not enforced.

  Is there a limit in food, which is what this petition was about?

  by fcarraldo
• The EPA first issued health advisories around PFASs in 2009. Why didn’t these folks file this petition sometime during the 12 years since then where it likely would’ve gotten a more favorable reception?
  by rayiner
• > Why didn’t these folks file this petition sometime during the 12 years since then where it likely would’ve gotten a more favorable reception?

  Because then The Uniparty would look bad.

  Instead, we can prop up the illusion of democracy and point fingers at "the other side" of good cop / bad cop while elites poison everybody more. We wouldn't want people living too far beyond their working years, after all.

  by swed420
• 2009 is a generation ago. Asking why a new generation why they might not have petitioned 17 years ago seems like asking where a 21 year old was on 9/11.

  As for a better reception, the assumption was RFK Jr. would take it more seriously.

  by jasonlotito
• Because the majority of Americans are too stupid and too lazy; they won't bother until the threat is literally killing them.
  by 1970-01-01
• whataboutism is a tiresome argument.

  Lets agree that these folks are wrong and ideally they should have petitioned 12 years ago. The question to ask is - for an admin which loudly claims to make America healthy again and talk about making everything chemical free etc - why can't they pass this? Is it because they can't score brownie points with base or they are overtly corrupt and do the same thing they accuse others of doing? Or that they know their supporters will not look at the validity of the claim and instead discredit people by asking whataboutism and party line questions?

  by thisisit
• I feel like most people hadn’t heard about them until a couple of years ago.
  by abracadaniel