{"id":8990,"date":"2019-08-01T12:42:09","date_gmt":"2019-08-01T17:42:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=8990"},"modified":"2019-08-05T12:02:34","modified_gmt":"2019-08-05T17:02:34","slug":"fda-pfas-food-conclusion-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2019\/08\/01\/fda-pfas-food-conclusion-safety\/","title":{"rendered":"FDA concluded PFAS in food are safe. Now it has to show how it reached that conclusion."},"content":{"rendered":"

Tom Neltner, J.D.<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D.,<\/em> Consultant<\/p>\n

In June, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posted a webpage<\/a> that serves as a helpful starting place to learn about the agency\u2019s efforts and plans regarding per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food. The webpage explains that FDA is \u201cassessing food for PFAS through sampling\u201d and is \u201creviewing the limited authorized uses of PFAS in food contact applications.\u201d In a statement<\/a> accompanying the webpage\u2019s release, FDA\u2019s acting and deputy commissioners assured the American people that the agency \u201cdoes not have any indication that these substances are a human health concern, in other words a food safety risk in human food, at the levels found in this limited sampling.\u201d<\/p>\n

We were surprised by FDA\u2019s statement that all is fine given the results the agency published<\/a> and the evidence about the array of health risks posed by PFAS<\/a> at extremely low levels. Although the information posted is useful, we found it confusing and vague in some important aspects. Therefore, we are taking the opportunity here to raise some issues concerning FDA\u2019s statements and planned next steps on PFAS. Additionally, in another blog,<\/a> we discuss the implications of FDA\u2019s statements on its review of 62 authorized PFAS uses in contact with food and make recommendations to the agency as it proceeds with this promising effort.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

FDA needs to show how it reached such a broad conclusion of safety<\/strong><\/p>\n

FDA refers to PFAS as a \u201cfamily of human-made chemicals\u201d and explains that \u201c[t]here are nearly 5,000 types of PFAS, some of which have been more widely used and studied than others.\u201d From this statement, it seems that FDA considers any substance with at least one fully fluorinated carbon to be a PFAS, in agreement with the international community<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Of this family, the agency tested a variety of foods for 16 PFAS with a number of fully-fluorinated carbons ranging from 3 to 16 split evenly between short-chain (less than 8 carbons in a chain) or long-chain (8 or more carbons). It is unclear why the agency selected those PFAS; what\u2019s clear is that none of the 16 were PFAS the agency allows to be intentionally added to food packaging.<\/p>\n

While FDA measured all 16 PFAS in the produce samples from farmer\u2019s markets in North Carolina<\/a> and 10 in milk samples from New Mexico<\/a>, it reported measuring only two, PFOS[1]<\/a> and PFPeA[2]<\/a>, in food samples bought from stores in the mid-Atlantic region<\/a> in October 2017. We described these results in a previous blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The agency provides little explanation for how it evaluated the data beyond two statements:<\/p>\n