Protecting families from contaminated food and water
All fields are required
Protecting families from contaminated food and water
Posted in Food Safety,Our Blog on June 23, 2026
Does “farmed catfish” or “wild caught catfish” have more PFAS? The answer might surprise you!
A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) study tested a variety of meat products for the presence of the “forever chemicals.” They took samples of meat (beef, pork, etc), chicken, and Siluriformes fish (catfish).
What were the results of this testing? Did farmed catfish or wild caught catfish fare better? What are PFAS anyway, and why should we be worried about them?
Follow along to find out!
In a recent study, using the USDA sampling program, the agency tested a variety of meat products for 16 different PFAS.
Fortunately, PFAS compounds are rarely discovered in most meats. This included beef, pork,, poultry, and farm-raised catfish. The agency used a detection level of 0.5 parts-per-billion (ppb) as the measuring point. A theoretical line in the sand saying there are detectable levels of PFAS.
Less than 0.2 percent of beef, chicken, and farmed catfish contained detectable levels of PFAS. Less than 0.3 percent of pork samples contained detectable levels of PFAS.
In all, less than half of one percent isn’t terrible.
Things changed when the data came to wild-caught domestic catfish. Nearly half (48%) of wild-caught domestic catfish contained at least one PFAS compound. For perspective, 228 samples were obtained. At least 110 of those samples contained PFAS.
Nearly half of all wild-caught domestic catfish contains detectable levels of at least one PFAS compound!
This is significant!
Other freshwater fish fared a bit better.
But not too much better
In fact, another study found that one serving of freshwater fish was the equivalent of “drinking PFAS-contaminated water for a month.” So, I suppose all things are relative.
A 2023 study led by Duke University and the Environmental Working Group found that a single serving of fresh water fish was akin to drinking PFAS-contaminated water for a whole month.
Yum…
In this study, researchers analyzed data from over 500 composite samples of fish fillets that were collected across the United States between 2013 and 2015 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) many monitoring programs. This included the National Rivers and Streams Assessment and the Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study.
The median level of PFAS found in fish fillets from rivers and streams was 9,500 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg). In the Great Lakes, the median level was a bit higher, at 11,800 ng/kg. All of the 349 samples collected in the National Rives and Streams Assessment contained at least one detectable PFAS.
The worst offender was Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), present in 74% of samples.
When comparing commercially obtained (retail) fish and freshwater fish, freshwater fish contained 278 times higher levels.
Scientists compared the translated blood levels of PFAS in human blood serum after the equivalent of drinking water contaminated with 48 parts per trillion. It comes out to a single serving of freshwater fish a year produces the same impact as a month of consuming PFAS contaminated water.
PFAS get into fish in much the same way they get into humans. Exposure. Both through food and the environment.
PFAS are in smaller fish that fish eat. Those smaller fish consume even smaller fish that already have PFAS in them. And on and on it goes. PFAS can even get into the cellular structure of plants. “Breathed” in through the water.
Essentially, if the water is contaminated, everything within the water is contaminated.
Once consumed, the teeny tiny microplastics, the forever chemicals can make their way into the body. Even at the cellular level.
Multiple studies have shown that farmed catfish contain fewer PFAS contaminants than freshwater fish?
But why?
Scientists have some theories.
One involves the environment commercially farmed catfish (and fish in general) are raised. The aquaculture environments are often more controlled environments or far offshore where pollution is more diluted.
The other involves industrial use of PFAS. While commercial use of PFAS is being phased out, contamination due to industry still persists in freshwater areas.
With all of this talk about PFAS, what exactly are they, and should we be worried?
PFAS, often called “forever chemicals.” This is because they, well, last practically forever. When they say matter cannot be created or destroyed, PFAS said “hold my drink.”
I’m making light of the subject, but it really is quite a serious problem.
You see, these PFAS, known as polyfluoroalkyl substances can build up on our bodies. Just like we talked about these microscopic (sometimes nanoscopic) particles ending up in the cells of fish. They can also accumulate and cause disruption in the human body.
According to the EPA, current peer reviewed studies have found that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to:
Scientists have only begun to unravel the mystery of PFAS and methods to reduce our exposure. As for future ideas for FSIS sampling assignments, researchers suggested that testing should include more PFAS. Scientists also recommended FSIS to lower minimum limit of applicability.
More research is necessary to help clean up existing PFAS in the environment and come up with industry practices that reduce the generation of these harmful materials.
If you’d like to know more about food safety topics in the news, like “Which Has More PFAS? Farmed Catfish or Wild Caught? The Results Will Likely Surprise You!,” check out the Make Food Safe Blog. We regularly update trending topics, foodborne infections in the news, recalls, and more! Stay tuned for quality information to help keep your family safe, while The Lange Law Firm, PLLC strives to Make Food Safe!
By: Heather Van Tassell (contributing writer, non-lawyer)