The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rejection of a petition to set limits on toxic 'forever chemicals' in food is a disappointing setback for public health advocates. This decision highlights a critical oversight in our food safety regulations, as these chemicals are widely used throughout the food system and pose significant health risks. The petition, filed by the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force (TEJTF), called for the FDA to set advisory thresholds for two of the most common and dangerous 'forever chemicals', PFOA and PFOS, in seafood and milk. The agency's response, however, is a stark reminder of the challenges in regulating these pervasive pollutants.
The rejection is particularly concerning given the growing body of scientific evidence linking 'forever chemicals' to a range of serious health issues, including cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease, and more. These compounds are designed to be indestructible and can persist in the environment for thousands of years. The EPA has found that food is a significant source of exposure to these toxic substances, with some contaminated foods containing levels equivalent to drinking many glasses of contaminated water.
The FDA's decision to focus on less binding 'action levels' rather than setting strict 'tolerance levels' is a cause for concern. While 'action levels' do not require contaminated food to be removed from shelves, 'tolerance levels' would make it illegal to sell food contaminated beyond a set threshold. This distinction is crucial, as it allows for the continued presence of these harmful chemicals in our food supply, even at levels that pose a health risk.
The problem is compounded by the fact that 'forever chemicals' are used in a variety of ways throughout the food system. They are commonly found in pesticides, food packaging, sewage sludge used as fertilizer, non-stick cookware, and kitchen products. Contaminated water used in processing or growing can also lead to the presence of these chemicals in food. The technology used to test food for these pollutants is not as advanced as that used for water, and there is no robust government testing program, making it difficult to gauge the full extent of the problem.
Independent testing has revealed high levels of 'forever chemicals' in meat, crops, and water-rich produce, such as blueberries and kale. Some state agencies have taken action by ordering contaminated food and milk to be taken off the market. The Environmental Working Group's analysis of FDA and EPA fish testing data found that eating one serving of US freshwater fish contaminated with median 'forever chemical' levels could be equivalent to drinking highly contaminated water every day for a month.
The FDA's limited annual testing and methodology adjustments to catch only extremely high contamination levels are also problematic. In 2019, the agency initially found 182 food samples to be contaminated with 'forever chemicals', but after changing its methodology, that figure dropped to 78. This suggests a potential attempt to cover up contamination, drawing criticism from experts like Brian Ronholm, a former deputy under secretary of food safety at the US Department of Agriculture.
The FDA's decision to focus on 'forever chemicals' in water rather than food has left a critical gap in our regulatory framework. Regulating one route but not the other leaves people unprotected, as the body does not know how the chemicals entered the food in the first place. The agency's response to the petition is a missed opportunity to address a pervasive and dangerous issue, and it underscores the need for more comprehensive and proactive regulation of these toxic substances in our food supply.
