PFAS in food has become one of the most closely watched food safety challenges in the United States.
As scientific understanding of these persistent “forever chemicals” has evolved, regulators have shifted from asking whether PFAS are present in the food supply to determining where they occur, how consumers are exposed and what actions are needed to reduce risks.
For the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), addressing PFAS in food has required a combination of scientific research, targeted surveillance, regulatory action and collaboration with federal agencies, state governments and industry.
Rather than relying on a single policy, the agency has developed an increasingly comprehensive strategy that combines improved laboratory testing, food monitoring, packaging reform and risk assessment.
Although the FDA maintains that the vast majority of foods sold in the US remain safe to eat, investigations over the past several years have demonstrated that PFAS contamination can occur in certain foods, particularly seafood and products produced in areas affected by environmental pollution.
These findings have transformed PFAS from an emerging contaminant into a major focus of food safety policy.
Why PFAS have become a food safety priority
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have been used commercially since the 1940s. Their exceptional resistance to heat, oil and water made them indispensable in products ranging from firefighting foams and industrial manufacturing to food packaging and consumer goods.
That same durability also makes them environmentally persistent.
Unlike many chemicals that naturally degrade over time, PFAS remain in soil, rivers, groundwater and marine ecosystems for decades. Once released, they can move through ecosystems before eventually entering agricultural land, livestock, fisheries and drinking water.
Food contamination generally occurs through several pathways:
- Irrigation using contaminated water
- Livestock consuming contaminated feed or drinking water
- Crops grown in polluted soil
- Contaminated seafood
- Migration from certain food-contact materials
- Processing using contaminated water
Because PFAS accumulate in living organisms over time, contamination can increase as it moves through food webs, making fish and shellfish among the foods receiving the greatest regulatory attention.
Growing evidence linking long-term exposure to some PFAS compounds with kidney cancer, immune suppression, thyroid disease, developmental effects and elevated cholesterol has intensified pressure on regulators worldwide.
Although drinking water has received much of the public attention, food represents another important route of human exposure.
From surveillance to science: How the FDA’s approach has evolved
Only a decade ago, relatively little was known about PFAS in the US food supply.
Testing methods lacked sufficient sensitivity, few foods had been analysed, and scientists had only limited understanding of dietary exposure.
The FDA’s modern PFAS programme effectively began in 2019 when the agency significantly expanded its surveillance efforts. Rather than reacting solely to contamination incidents, it adopted a broader strategy designed to understand PFAS across the national food supply.
Since then, FDA scientists have:
- Tested more than 1,900 food samples
- Developed validated laboratory methods capable of detecting 30 different PFAS compounds
- Expanded surveillance through the Total Diet Study
- Conducted targeted investigations into high-risk food categories
- Provided technical assistance to states experiencing contamination events
- Carried out health assessments where PFAS were detected in food.
This work has gradually shifted the agency from basic detection towards evidence-based risk management.
Rather than treating every detection as equally hazardous, the FDA evaluates both the concentration of individual PFAS compounds and the likelihood that consumption could present a health concern.
This scientific framework has become central to every major FDA decision regarding PFAS in food.
Inside the Total Diet Study: Tracking PFAS across the US food supply
Perhaps the most important element of the FDA’s strategy is surveillance.
Understanding PFAS contamination requires far more than isolated testing. It demands continuous monitoring across thousands of food products produced in different regions under varying environmental conditions.
The FDA has therefore integrated PFAS monitoring into its longstanding Total Diet Study (TDS), a nationwide programme originally designed to assess dietary exposure to nutrients and contaminants.
Foods purchased from grocery stores across the United States are analysed to estimate what the average American actually consumes. The study covers fresh produce, dairy products, grains, meats, seafood and processed foods.
The results have been reassuring in many respects.
More than 95% of fresh and processed foods tested through the TDS have shown no detectable PFAS above laboratory detection limits.
However, the surveillance has also highlighted important exceptions.
Seafood consistently stands out as the category where PFAS are detected most frequently, prompting the FDA to launch additional targeted sampling programmes focused specifically on commercially important fish and shellfish.
These findings illustrate why comprehensive surveillance matters.
Rather than assuming contamination is widespread, regulators can identify the foods that genuinely warrant closer investigation while avoiding unnecessary alarm about the broader food supply.
From broad screening to targeted investigations
The FDA’s surveillance strategy follows a logical progression.
Initial nationwide testing identifies patterns.
Those patterns then determine where more detailed investigations should occur.
One example is seafood.
Results from the TDS showed that seafood contained detectable PFAS more frequently than other food groups. Rather than stopping there, the FDA conducted a dedicated seafood survey examining 81 samples across multiple species including salmon, shrimp, tuna, cod, crab, tilapia, pollock and clams.
Scientists also expanded the number of PFAS compounds measured, incorporating chemicals that recent research suggested were particularly relevant to marine environments.
This adaptive approach allows the agency to continually refine its monitoring programmes as scientific knowledge evolves. The FDA has also acknowledged that future cumulative risk assessments may eventually consider the combined effects of multiple PFAS occurring together in foods, an area where research is still developing.
Eliminating PFAS from food packaging
While contaminated soil and water are often the most visible sources of PFAS in food, the FDA has also focused on another important exposure pathway: food-contact materials.
For decades, certain grease-resistant papers and cardboard used for products such as microwave popcorn bags, fast-food wrappers, bakery packaging and takeaway containers were treated with specific PFAS compounds to prevent oil and moisture from soaking through.
Although these materials were designed to improve product performance, research showed that small amounts of PFAS could migrate into food under certain conditions.
Rather than imposing an immediate ban, the FDA worked with manufacturers through its food contact notification programme to phase out the use of these substances. Between 2020 and 2024, manufacturers voluntarily ceased sales of grease-proofing agents containing PFAS for food-contact applications in the US market, and the FDA confirmed that these uses had effectively ended.
The agency concluded that these chemicals are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the United States, significantly reducing one source of dietary exposure.
The transition demonstrates how regulatory oversight can combine scientific evidence with industry cooperation to remove potential risks before they become widespread public health issues. It also reflects a broader shift away from managing contamination after it occurs towards preventing exposure at source.
Case study: Seafood remains a key focus
Among all food categories examined by the FDA, seafood has consistently attracted the greatest attention.
Marine ecosystems can accumulate PFAS discharged from industrial facilities, wastewater treatment plants and military sites where firefighting foams containing PFAS were historically used. Once these chemicals enter rivers and coastal waters, they can be absorbed by aquatic organisms and move through the food chain.
Recognising this risk, the FDA carried out targeted sampling of commonly consumed seafood, including shrimp, salmon, cod, tuna, pollock, tilapia, crab and clams. The survey detected PFAS in some samples, although concentrations varied considerably between species and locations.
The agency emphasised that these findings should not discourage Americans from eating seafood, which remains an important source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids and essential nutrients. Instead, the results are being used to refine future monitoring programmes and improve understanding of where contamination is most likely to occur.
The seafood investigations also illustrate the FDA’s risk-based approach. Rather than assuming contamination is uniform across all fish products, regulators are identifying the specific species and environments that warrant additional surveillance.
Case study: Supporting states during contamination events
Some of the FDA’s most significant work has taken place away from supermarket shelves.
When PFAS contamination is discovered on farms, state authorities often request scientific assistance from the FDA to determine whether food products entering the supply chain pose a health concern.
One of the best-known examples occurred in Maine, where the historical application of sewage sludge as fertiliser contaminated agricultural land with elevated levels of PFAS. The chemicals entered soil, groundwater and, in some cases, agricultural products, prompting extensive investigations by state regulators.
The FDA provided technical expertise to help evaluate contamination levels, assess potential dietary exposure and determine whether affected foods should remain on the market.
Similar collaborations have taken place in New Mexico, Michigan and other states where PFAS contamination has affected dairy farms, livestock, produce or locally produced foods.
These investigations demonstrate that the FDA’s role extends well beyond laboratory testing. The agency also provides scientific advice during real-world contamination incidents, helping state officials make evidence-based decisions that protect consumers while minimising unnecessary disruption to food producers.
Detection vs danger: How the FDA evaluates true health risks
One of the greatest challenges in communicating about PFAS in food is explaining the difference between detecting a chemical and identifying a meaningful health risk.
Modern analytical techniques can identify PFAS at extremely low concentrations, often measured in parts per trillion. Detecting a compound, however, does not automatically mean that consuming the food presents a health hazard.
The FDA therefore conducts detailed exposure assessments whenever PFAS are found. Scientists consider several factors, including:
- The concentration of individual PFAS compounds
- How frequently people typically consume the food
- The toxicity of each chemical
- Existing exposure from drinking water and other sources
- Vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women
This risk-based framework enables the agency to prioritise interventions where they will have the greatest public health impact, rather than responding to every laboratory detection in the same way.
As toxicological research evolves, the FDA continues to update its assessments using the latest scientific evidence.
Collaboration across government
The FDA does not regulate PFAS in isolation.
Addressing contamination requires coordination across multiple federal agencies, each responsible for different parts of the exposure pathway.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads efforts to regulate PFAS in drinking water, industrial discharges and environmental clean-up. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports farmers affected by contamination and funds research into agricultural mitigation strategies.
The FDA contributes expertise on food safety, dietary exposure and analytical testing.
This coordinated approach is increasingly important because contamination often originates long before food reaches consumers. Pollution released into waterways, soil or groundwater may eventually affect crops, livestock or fisheries years later.
By sharing scientific data and laboratory methods, agencies can respond more quickly to emerging contamination events while improving national surveillance.
The science of safety: How advanced testing is catching PFAS earlier
The FDA has invested heavily in laboratory capability over the past several years.
Its scientists have developed highly sensitive analytical methods capable of measuring dozens of PFAS compounds simultaneously across a wide range of food types. These methods continue to evolve as researchers identify additional PFAS chemicals requiring surveillance.
The agency also collaborates with academic researchers and international partners to improve analytical standards and validate testing techniques.
Better detection serves two important purposes.
First, it enables regulators to identify contamination earlier than was previously possible.
Second, it generates more reliable exposure data that informs future regulatory decisions.
As laboratory technology improves, surveillance programmes are likely to become even more targeted, allowing regulators to focus resources where risks are highest.
Industry adapts to changing expectations
Food manufacturers and agricultural producers are increasingly recognising that PFAS management forms part of broader environmental, social and governance (ESG) responsibilities.
Many packaging companies have already reformulated products to eliminate intentionally added PFAS, while food producers operating in contaminated regions have introduced additional environmental monitoring programmes.
Some manufacturers are also reviewing supply chains more closely, particularly where raw ingredients originate from areas with known industrial contamination.
For businesses, reducing PFAS exposure is no longer simply about regulatory compliance. It is increasingly tied to consumer confidence, retailer requirements and long-term brand reputation.
The road ahead: Persistent challenges in PFAS regulation
Despite significant progress, important questions remain.
Thousands of PFAS compounds exist, yet toxicological data are available for only a relatively small number. Scientists are still working to understand how mixtures of different PFAS behave when consumed together over many years.
Another challenge is environmental persistence. Even where current industrial uses have ceased, historical contamination may continue affecting agricultural land and aquatic ecosystems for decades.
Monitoring such a diverse and long-lasting class of chemicals requires sustained investment in laboratory capacity, environmental surveillance and scientific research.
Balancing consumer reassurance with transparency also remains difficult. While the FDA consistently reports that most foods tested contain no detectable PFAS or levels that do not raise health concerns, public confidence can be affected whenever contamination incidents receive national attention.
Next steps in the fight against forever chemicals
The FDA’s strategy for tackling PFAS in food continues to evolve alongside emerging science.
Future priorities are expected to include expanded surveillance of higher-risk foods, refinement of cumulative exposure assessments, stronger collaboration with federal and state partners and continued improvements in laboratory testing.
The agency is also likely to play a growing role in developing internationally harmonised approaches to PFAS monitoring as governments around the world strengthen regulations for food safety and environmental protection.
Although eliminating PFAS from the environment will take decades, the FDA’s combination of surveillance, scientific assessment, regulatory oversight and preventative action has already reduced important sources of dietary exposure.
The phase-out of PFAS-containing food packaging, expanded testing through the TDS, and rapid response to contamination events demonstrate a strategy that increasingly focuses on preventing contamination rather than simply reacting to it.
As research advances and regulatory frameworks mature, the FDA’s work will remain central to ensuring that the US food supply continues to adapt to one of the most complex food safety challenges of the 21st century.
