news.volyx.in

FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food (theguardian.com)

217 points by randycupertino · 51 days ago · 148 comments on HN

Article summary

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected a petition to set limits on toxic PFAS 'forever chemicals' in food, despite growing evidence of their health risks. PFAS have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other serious health problems, and are commonly used in pesticides, food packaging, and sewage sludge used as fertilizer. The FDA plans to set non-binding 'action levels' instead of enforceable limits, which has been met with criticism from public health advocates. The decision has sparked concerns about the safety of the food supply and the effectiveness of regulatory agencies in protecting public health.

Main themes

  • PFAS chemicals
  • Food safety
  • Regulatory agencies
  • Public health
  • Environmental pollution
  • Chemical contamination

What commenters say

  • The FDA's decision not to set limits on PFAS in food is a failure to protect public health and is likely driven by political and economic interests.
  • The use of non-binding 'action levels' instead of enforceable limits is insufficient to address the risks posed by PFAS in food.
  • Some commenters argue that the risks associated with PFAS are not fully understood and that more research is needed before setting limits.
  • Others believe that the FDA's decision is a reasonable approach given the complexity of the issue and the need for more data.
  • There is a concern that the FDA's testing methods are not adequate to detect PFAS contamination in food, and that the agency is not taking sufficient action to address the problem.
  • Some commenters suggest that individuals can reduce their exposure to PFAS by making informed choices about the food they eat and the products they use.
  • The discussion also touches on the issue of blood donation, with some arguing that certain groups, such as men who have sex with men, should be excluded from donating blood due to the risk of HIV transmission.
  • Others argue that such exclusions are discriminatory and that more nuanced approaches, such as individual risk assessments, should be used instead.