FDA Knows PFAS Can Reach Food.
Where Is the Clear Standard?
Plaintiffs in federal litigation are seeking review of FDA’s denial of a Citizen Petition requesting limits for certain PFAS in foods including milk, seafood, produce, eggs, and other agricultural products.
The Issue in 20 Seconds
FDA acknowledges contamination pathways
FDA does not dispute that PFAS are persistent synthetic chemicals that contaminate food through polluted soil, water, biosolids, pesticides, and other environmental pathways.
FDA can test for PFAS
FDA says it has tested more than 1,900 food samples and its analytical method can test for 30 PFAS in a range of foods.
The requested limits were denied
On June 17, 2026, FDA denied the Citizen Petition requesting limits for certain PFAS in specified foods. Plaintiffs are seeking judicial review of that decision.
The government can test.
The public still needs a clear rule.
This case is not based on a claim that the FDA is unaware of PFAS in food.
FDA has publicly discussed how PFAS can reach parts of the food supply. The agency has developed testing methods, analyzed food samples, investigated certain contaminated products, and taken action in specific circumstances.
The unresolved question is more basic:
At what level does FDA consider a particular PFAS concentration in a particular food unsafe?
The petitioners requested clear limits for certain PFAS in specified foods. FDA denied that request.
Plaintiffs argue that consumers, farmers, producers, retailers, and regulators should not have to rely on a vague, case-by-case framework to understand when contamination crosses the line.
Why This Matters
For Consumers
Families should be able to understand how the agency responsible for food safety determines when PFAS contamination makes a food unsafe.
FDA currently regulates PFAS contamination on a case-by-case basis but has not adopted objective standards telling the public what levels of PFAS make food unsafe. This creates uncertainty about when contaminated food should be removed from the market.
For Farmers
Clear standards would help farmers understand the rules, prepare for agency decisions, and respond more consistently when contamination is discovered.
Without FDA-established limits, dairy farmers may have difficulty determining when products are contaminated and may be unable to obtain USDA assistance programs intended for farms affected by PFAS contamination.
The lack of U.S. standards also may create challenges for farmers wanting access to foreign markets with stricter PFAS regulations.
For the Food System
Food producers, regulators, retailers, and consumers benefit when they can work from the same transparent framework.
Without a clear national line, testing and enforcement decisions may be difficult for the public to understand and may differ across products or jurisdictions.
What the Filing Alleges
According to the supplemental complaint, plaintiffs allege that FDA’s denial of the Citizen Petition was unlawful, inadequately reasoned, or inconsistent with the federal laws governing agency decision-making and food safety.
The filing alleges that FDA:
- Did not adequately address evidence and arguments presented by the petitioners.
- Recognized PFAS contamination and testing issues without establishing the requested public standards.
- Failed to provide a legally sufficient explanation for denying the petition.
- Should be required to reconsider the petition under the applicable legal framework.
These are allegations made by the plaintiffs. The court has not ruled on the merits of those allegations.
What FDA Has Publicly Said
A credible explanation of this case must include FDA’s stated position.
FDA has said that:
- PFAS can enter food through environmental contamination.
- Its analytical capabilities have expanded as testing science has developed.
- It has tested food samples and investigated certain products, including seafood.
- It has used recalls, import tools, testing, and case-specific evaluations in some circumstances.
- Its understanding of PFAS occurrence, exposure, testing, and potential health effects continues to evolve.
FDA denied the petition requesting the specified enforceable food limits.
The legal question is whether that denial complied with the agency’s obligations and whether its explanation adequately addressed the petitioners’ record.
What Plaintiffs Are Asking the Court to Do
Plaintiffs are asking for a lawful agency response that directly addresses the petition, the supporting record, and the need for a transparent public framework.
Case Timeline
November 1, 2023
Petitioners submitted a Citizen Petition asking FDA to establish enforceable limits for certain PFAS in specified foods.
January 24, 2025
A federal action involving the petitioners and FDA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
July 1, 2026
The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for leave to challenge FDA’s denial by filing a Supplemental Complaint.
FDA has 45 days from July 31, 2026 to answer the Supplemental Complaint.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are PFAS?
PFAS are human-made chemicals used in products such as firefighting foam, non-stick cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, and waterproof materials. Because they do not readily break down, they accumulate in the environment, drinking water, animals, and people. Federal agencies, including FDA and EPA, have acknowledged that PFAS contamination is widespread and can enter food through contaminated soil, water, livestock feed, fertilizers, and crops.
The lawsuit highlights growing scientific evidence linking PFAS exposure to serious health effects, including certain cancers, immune system impacts, developmental effects, liver damage, kidney problems, reproductive issues, and elevated cholesterol.
EPA has classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most studied PFAS compounds, as likely carcinogenic to humans.
What did the Citizen Petition request?
The Citizen Petition requested the FDA to establish enforceable limits, or tolerances, for 30 PFAS in lettuce, blueberries, bread, milk, eggs, fish (salmon, clams) and animal feed items (corn silage, and corn snaplage). These foods and PFAS were selected based on FDA’s analytical method which was developed to detect priority PFAS in foods that FDA and global authorities had already identified as presenting the greatest concern for monitoring.
In the alternative, the Citizen Petition requested the enforceable tolerances only for PFOS and PFOA and only in milk and fish. Action levels, which are nonbinding and not directly enforceable, were requested for everything else.
The alternative request mirrors the current EPA’s focus only on PFOS and PFOA for enforceable limits in drinking water.
What is an “action level” compared to a “tolerance”?
An action level is a recommended contaminant threshold that signals when FDA may take enforcement action, but it is not legally binding.
A tolerance is a legally enforceable maximum amount of a substance allowed in or on food.
What did FDA decide?
FDA denied the Citizen Petition on June 17, 2026. The agency’s response describes its testing work, scientific considerations, regulatory approach, and reasons for declining the requested action.
Media and Interview Requests
Need the Filing, a Case Summary, or Attorney Comment?
AVA Law Group can provide members of the media with public court documents, a petition-and-litigation timeline, background materials, and approved attorney commentary.
AVA Law Group
Has PFAS Testing or Regulatory Uncertainty Affected You?
AVA is gathering information about how PFAS testing, contamination concerns, and unclear regulatory standards affect consumers, farmers, food producers, communities, and other stakeholders.
Submitting information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not provide confidential, privileged, medical, financial, or legally sensitive information unless an attorney specifically asks you to do so through an approved secure channel.
This page provides general information about a public legal matter. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice concerning a particular situation. The descriptions of the plaintiffs’ position are allegations unless otherwise stated. No outcome is promised or guaranteed. Viewing this page, subscribing for updates, contacting AVA Law Group, or submitting information does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.
Court filings, agency positions, scientific information, and procedural schedules may change. Review the linked source documents and the page’s “last updated” date for the most current published information.
We make walking through the legal process easy
Problem Solving is our promise
We provide a team of attorney, paralegals, and case managers to clients at no upfront cost.
AVA Law Group eliminates the confusion of filing a claim by working on your claim and, if necessary, connecting you with one our many partner firms that fits your needs and will get you the best results.
We’re available 24/7 to provide you with the information you need about case qualification.