[flagged]
I don't see any forward looking timelines on the page, is this the right link?
FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
31–40 of 175 posts
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#32The 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?
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#33EPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.
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?
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#34[flagged]
> The Guardian, which is already at the limits of reliability Based on what, exactly? Disagreeing with a publication does not make them unreliable. The Guardian's journalism is consistently award-winning and rates highly on credibility. The Guardian's opinion section is openly centre-left, though I suppose Americans would consider this to be some sort of comically ultra-left-wing communist point-of-view given the sta…
+1 couldn't agree more. It's concerning this account is on the top.
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#35EPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.
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...
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#36[flagged]
>The Guardian, which is already at the limits of reliability
Not enough right wing denial of reality for your tastes?
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#37From 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 jour…
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.
This is correct. So much misinformation being spouted here on the spurious grounds that The Guardian is an inaccurate news source.
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#38From 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 jour…
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.
Here is the FDA document I got the quote from
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I genuinely do not understand what this person believes is happening here. The Guardian is part of some mass-conspiracy to attack the FDA in order to...achieve what? Prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful chemicals from being introduced into the food supply? What sort of mindset must you have to believe this is a bad thing?
No one benefits from PFAS being unregulated in food, other than stockholders, C-suites and the politicians who accept money from lobbyists that represent them.
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#40[flagged]
[flagged]