why do some cans have a plastic lining

There are many reasons to be concerned about the chemical or BPA. The Food and Drug Administration says BPA is safe low levels, but other countries take a more cautious approach: Austria, Denmark, Belgium, France and China limit the chemical's contact with food. The FDA continues to study the issue. Studies have shown that BPA, a plastic-stiffening chemical and synthetic female hormone, can be a contributing factor to,
and other health issues. The material is so widely used in in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins that it's difficult to avoid. The resin is commonly used as a lining in many canned foods, even though BPA can seep out if it comes in contact with heat or acid.

In response, several companies have removed BPA from their cans, and others have moved away from using it in the cans of specific foods. Here's a list of national brands that produce canned foods that do no have BPA in the lining: AmyБs : According to a 2012 blog post on, AmyБs confirmed that it had transitioned out of BPA-lined cans. The company website doesnБt have any information about BPA. : This company produces mostly bottled foods, but it does have a few varieties of canned tomatoes. None of its tomatoes are in BPA-lined cans. : A list of the canned tunas, salmons, sardines and more that are available in BPA-free cans from Crown Prince is on the companyБs website. : The company's canned beans, rice beans, refried bean, and chili all come in BPA-free cans, but the company doesn't feel there is a suitable can for high acidic foods like tomatoes.

It has moved one-third of its tomato products to amber glass, but the rest of the tomatoes continue to be in BPA-lined cans. : Organic canned pumpkin, sweet potatoes and butternut squash are this companyБs specialties. б The company's cans have been BPA-free since 2011. : Trader JoeБs has finally put its BPA information on its website. HereБs what the website says: CityLab and Quartz write about the increase in sales of canned beer in.

They describe how cans came to be acceptable for beer. Concerns about canned beer bearing a metallic taste, which once was a factor that made bottles more appealing, should be long gone now. Decades ago, when the cans were made of tin and lined with lead, that was a valid worry. Todayвs cans are made from aluminum and have a water-based polymer lining, though, so the beer doesnвt even touch the metal. US Beer Institute It's funny; I know people who would go thirsty rather than drink from a polycarbonate bottle because of the danger of Bisphenol A or BPA, which has been variously blamed for contributing to, even and.

It is a synthetic hormone that's now banned in baby bottles and run off the market in the water bottle world. Yet that polymer lining in every beer can is made with BPA. Quartz credits Oskar Blues Brewing with starting this return to canned craft beer, and yes, they have BPA in their cans. According to Oskar Blues Brewing Company, who exclusively can their beer, point to the lack of substantial evidence deeming BPA toxic and re-direct inquiries about its safety to the fact that much research is going in to development of BPA-free cans. won't touch the stuff according to On principle, we never let beer touch plastic in our process and upon researching cans we decided that it was very similar to bottling in a plastic bottle due to the lining.

The BPA issue strongly affected this decision. We decided that we didnвt consider any type of plastic available truly food-safe by our standards. In our mission to make wholesome beer as beer was made for 5,000 years, plastic simply does not work with that philosophy. An alternative to BPA lining doesn't exist yet. Until it does, why does anyone take the risk of drinking canned beer? Why would people who threw away their Nalgene bottles because of BPA willingly get the same stuff from their beer? I will never understand this. More on the same subject in an earlier post: