The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined a legal petition requesting it establish limits on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food. These compounds, often referred to as 'forever chemicals' due to their extreme persistence, have been linked to a range of serious health issues, including various cancers, birth defects, and decreased immunity. This decision represents a setback for public health campaigners advocating for stricter controls on exposure to these pervasive substances.
Despite increasing scientific evidence, including findings from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which suggest food is the primary source of PFAS exposure, the FDA has opted not to impose legally binding limits. Independent testing has indicated that the PFAS levels in single servings of certain contaminated foods can be equivalent to consuming multiple glasses of contaminated water. While regulatory efforts have largely concentrated on reducing PFAS in water supplies, these chemicals are extensively used throughout the food production system, from pesticides and food packaging to sewage sludge used as fertiliser.
The petition, initially filed in November 2023 by the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force (TEJTF), called for the FDA to screen for up to 30 PFAS compounds in a variety of foods, including produce, fish, eggs, milk, and bread. After the FDA failed to respond within the statutory six-month period, TEJTF revised its petition in 2025, narrowing the request to advisory thresholds for PFOA and PFOS – two of the most common and hazardous PFAS compounds – specifically in seafood and milk. Recent FDA testing revealed that 70% of seafood samples contained these chemicals, while independent analysis found them in 12% of 50 milk samples, with particularly high levels in some well-known brands.
The FDA rejected the revised petition, stating that while it intends to address PFAS standards, there is "insufficient evidence to support [TEJTF's] request." Instead of setting 'tolerance levels', which would make it illegal to sell food contaminated beyond a specified threshold, the agency plans to establish less stringent, non-binding 'action levels'. These action levels would not necessitate the removal of contaminated food from sale. Sandra Daussin, an attorney for TEJTF, described the FDA's decision as "disappointing" and confirmed the group's intention to pursue legal action to compel the agency to set enforceable limits.
The challenge of accurately assessing the scale of PFAS contamination in food is compounded by technological limitations; current testing methods for food are less advanced than those for water, and a comprehensive government testing programme is lacking. However, a patchwork of independent studies suggests a widespread issue. High levels of PFAS have been detected in meat and crops from farms utilising sewage sludge, leading some state agencies to order the removal of contaminated food and milk from the market. Independent tests have also identified PFAS in water-rich produce like blueberries and kale, as well as in beer, and nearly all seafood samples tested by the EPA contained the chemicals.