PFAS 'Forever Chemicals' To Officially Be Removed from Food Packaging, FDA Says (livescience.com) 39
An anonymous Slashdot reader shared this article from Live Science:
Manufacturers will no longer use harmful "forever chemicals" in food packaging products in the U.S., according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In a statement released February 28, the agency declared that grease-proofing materials that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will not be used in new food packaging sold in the U.S. These include PFAS used in fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, takeout boxes and pet food bags. The FDA's announcement marks the completion of a voluntary phase-out of the materials by U.S. food packaging manufacturers.
This action will eliminate the "major source of dietary exposure to PFAS," Jim Jones, deputy commissioner for human foods at the FDA, said in an associated statement. Companies told the FDA that it could take up to 18 months to completely exhaust the market supply of these products following their final date of sale. However, most of the affected manufacturers phased out the products faster than they initially predicted, the agency noted...
The FDA's new announcement marks a "huge win for the public," Graham Peaslee, a professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame who studies PFAS, told The Washington Post.
In a statement released February 28, the agency declared that grease-proofing materials that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will not be used in new food packaging sold in the U.S. These include PFAS used in fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, takeout boxes and pet food bags. The FDA's announcement marks the completion of a voluntary phase-out of the materials by U.S. food packaging manufacturers.
This action will eliminate the "major source of dietary exposure to PFAS," Jim Jones, deputy commissioner for human foods at the FDA, said in an associated statement. Companies told the FDA that it could take up to 18 months to completely exhaust the market supply of these products following their final date of sale. However, most of the affected manufacturers phased out the products faster than they initially predicted, the agency noted...
The FDA's new announcement marks a "huge win for the public," Graham Peaslee, a professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame who studies PFAS, told The Washington Post.
Bad headline (Score:4)
"To Officially Be Removed from Food Packaging, FDA Says" could mean that PFAS will no longer appear on the packaging labeling even if they are in the food.
Re: (Score:2)
How easily-testable is that? Could someone like Consumer Reports have a look? How about smaller entities?
Re: Bad headline (Score:4, Interesting)
The testing requirements for PFAS are crazy. It's several hundred $ and the procedures to submit a sample are intense. (My GF's ongoing mast6ers thesis is my source for this)
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly complicates things. At least with contaminants like lead, it's not hard to detect them assuming you bother to look.
Re: (Score:2)
About as easily as anything else. Most tests for most things can't be done yourself, but labs exist for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a metric fuckload of information when condensed down to smaller amounts of information could mean something else if you were obstinate about misinterpreting it. Give yourself a pat on the back for bringing this all to our attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Jim Jones? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/... [fda.gov]
Not much resemblance, but hey maybe!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to ask the Jonestown residents and get some perspective. They aren't a talkative lot, though.
And phthalates? (Score:2)
Phthalates are probably the biggest known risk right now. Them and other hormone disruptors. We already have the data and the charts show it won't be long until most males are sterile. Then what?
Re: And phthalates? (Score:1)
Nah, just himself.
Re:And phthalates? (Score:5, Interesting)
Phthalates are probably the biggest known risk right now. Them and other hormone disruptors. We already have the data and the charts show it won't be long until most males are sterile. Then what?
For the record, you are correct. Endocrine disruptors are a big problem for males. Pthalates, Bisphenol A and an over load of phytoestrogens are bad news for guys. Fertility, and birth defects among male babies. Some are really bad. Bisphenol-A use was shut down hard. However, we're doing a whole new experiment with it's replacement.
However, it is not good for women either, and their natural estrogen levels tend to shut down.
Some of the birth defects https://birthdefects.org/endoc... [birthdefects.org]
Re:And phthalates? (Score:4, Funny)
it won't be long until most males are sterile. Then what?
I grow most of my own food and avoid plastic packaging.
So if the women of the world want healthy sperm, I'm available.
Re: (Score:1)
They all took a vote and decided "No Thanks!"
FDA is the epitome (Score:2)
Re: FDA is the epitome (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly this, PFAs are a known âproblemâ aka they are not at all an issue, they have no measurable effect on humans at least not according to the CDC in the dosages we may be exposed to. Low doses of PFAs only start getting in your food when you eg microwave a plastic container. The alternative to PFAs are much worse, and its octane-based cousins were measurable in the blood stream and have been known about since the 40s and have significantly declined (>99%) due to the introduction of PFA. The
Re: FDA is the epitome (Score:3)
Uh no. If you can't be bothered to post more than a misinformed opinion, why should I do the research that you won't read anyways for you.
[citation needed]
Re: FDA is the epitome (Score:1)
Lmgtfy - cdc pfa, nih pfa : synopsis: more research is needed, animal models testing high levels of exposure show moderate impacts to liver function and birth weights. Alternative such as PFOS do bioaccumulate but since the introduction of other PFAS those measures have been reduced significantly since the 1940s. Silicones however, new, untested even in animal models.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FDA is the epitome (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of Regulatory Capture. Big Food will do the same here as they did with trans fats and interesterified oils. This ban wonâ(TM)t be out a week and they will have a replacement for PFAS that is every bit as awful for us.
OK, I'll bite. What exactly did the eeeevil food industry replace trans fats with, that's "every bit as awful for us"?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesterified "oils" and tropical oils/fats, most notably palm oil.
And more sugars and salt.
And coming soon: a return to animal fats from factory-farmed animals who spend their whole lives stressed and sick.
Even in allegedly "plant-based" products (some of which aren't any more healthy than their animal-based counterparts to begin with).
Ultraprocessed food is really, really bad news. Much more so than most folks realize. So are factory-farmed animals.
They'll probably lose in court (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This was a voluntary agreement between the FDA and the packaging industry.
No courts are involved.
Re: They'll probably lose in court (Score:2)
It's the children. Won't SOMBODY think of the CHILDREN??!?!
Somehow the lunatic right (Score:1)
will frame this as an attack on them.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: Somehow the lunatic right (Score:1)
Nah, y'all do well enough on your own. Us talking about how y'all say the quiet part out loud isn't an Us thing. Maybe just don't vote for people who get paid to give speeches at white power events. Is that too much to ask for?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't Put Food in Poison? WTF? (Score:2)
Wax On (Score:2)
I never understood why we have to invent these high-tech materials. Grease-proof fast food packaging with PFAS? Wtf? What's wrong with simple waxed paper?
Re: (Score:2)
When packagers make billions of units even fractions of a cent add up to real money so the incentives to minimize costs are intense. Even if wax was superior and cheaper it might be heavier, and that alone could make alternatives a cheaper solution.
It's a complicated issue and regulation is a good approach. We should test