• On June 22, 2026, FDA posted a Response Letter denying a citizen petition brought by the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force and two other individuals requesting that FDA set New Temporary Tolerances at the method detection limit (MDL) for various per-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The petition specifically requested limits be established for 30 different PFAS substances that may be inadvertently transferred to foods including lettuce, blueberries, ready-to-eat bread, milk, eggs, salmon, clams, corn silage, and corn snaplage. The requested tolerances were generally based on an MDL of 0.05 micrograms/kg (0.05 ppb) for the relevant PFAS analytes in these food matrices.
  • Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), food may be deemed adulterated if it contains a poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health. For unavoidable environmental contaminants, FDA may establish action levels, tolerances, or other regulatory limits. FDA has not established broad regulatory limits for PFAS in food as FDA only establishes tolerances when they believe these will not need significant adjustments in the future.
  • As we have previously blogged, the parties filed the petition on November 1, 2023. Following a court order requiring FDA to issue a final response, FDA released the response letter, dated June 17, 2026.
  • In its response letter, FDA explained that the science surrounding PFAS detection, exposure, and potential human health effects continues to evolve rapidly, making it difficult to establish such limits at this time. FDA does intend to continue evaluating PFAS contamination in the food supply and to establish action levels for PFAS in some products, where appropriate. Here, FDA found that the petitioners lacked sufficient evidence to obligate FDA to set temporary tolerances for PFAS.
  • The petitioners attempted to invoke the Delaney Clause which prohibits FDA from approving “food additives” if those additives have “been shown ‘to induce cancer in man or animal.’” Because the PFAS in question are food contaminants, rather than food additives, the Agency rejected this argument.
  • Keller & Heckman will continue to monitor PFAS food law developments.