FDA Rejects Petition to Set PFAS Limits in Food Despite Health Risks
US Food and Drug Administration rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
The US Food and Drug Administration has refused a legal petition demanding limits on toxic PFAS forever chemicals in food, despite evidence that food is a major exposure source. Advocates plan to sue after the agency claimed insufficient evidence, opting instead for non-binding action levels. Critics argue that regulating water but not food leaves consumers unprotected from serious health risks like cancer and kidney disease found in seafood, milk, and produce.
Your body doesn't know how the PFAS got in there.
- seethishat
Doing whole blood donations seems to significantly reduce PFAS in the blood. Here's one paper:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Edit: This also helps others who are in accidents, car wrecks, have Cancer, etc. Yes, we pass on the PFAS to others, but the immediate need for blood is more urgent than the potential long term impacts of PFAS.
- feverzsj
EPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.
- ck2
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
- rayiner
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?
- HumblyTossed
What happened to MAHA?
- cmdrmac
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.
- bijection
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?
- groundzeros2015
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.