4 ms·

As a consumer, how can I even tell if a can is using a coating and/or this coating? I had no idea the INSIDE wasn't aluminum with the 'usual' hydrogen ion laye

As a consumer, how can I even tell if a can is using a coating and/or this coating? I had no idea the INSIDE wasn't aluminum with the 'usual' hydrogen ion layer. "... sell its coating in the United States, branded as valPure V70. It has been used in 22 billion cans since 2017. That’s a modest fraction of the estimated 350 billion aluminum beverage cans and 100 billion steel food cans produced each year worldwide." I'd prefer to use these cans over the BPA alternative.

post_below 7y ago
Almost all aluminum cans for food products are coated. You can safely assume there's a coating of some kind. Some brands print "BPA free" on their cans. At this point that's the only information available to consumers.
zweep 7y ago
All aluminum cans are coated or you'd get aluminum oxides into your food.
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  Here's a video of removing the aluminium from the insert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHFQoFoxvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHFQoFoxvQ [video]
  - kazinator 7y ago
    Kudos to the coating for resisting drain cleaner. The method in that video could be a standard test for newly developed coatings.
stevenwoo 7y ago
If you are in the USA, Libby https://www.senecafoods.com/valpure https://www.senecafoods.com/valpure also this might be acceptable (they name acrylic as the liner and Valpure is acrylic but they never say what is the liner) https://www.amys.com/faqs/is-your-can-lining-non-bpa https://www.amys.com/faqs/is-your-can-lining-non-bpa
ghastmaster 7y ago
I cannot find my source, but even BPA free means they just coat it with BPS which is structurally and functionally similar. I suspect the toxicity studies just have not been done yet. I have a friend who used to work in the coatings lab for PPG circa 2007. He had a handful of chemicals to choose from that he would blend and test until the outcome fit the manufacturing requirements. It was not tested for toxicity before it was sent on to manufacturers and into your soda/veggie can.
- James_Henry 7y ago
  This article is about TMBPF, a BPF, not a BPS. It is also structurally similar to BPA and the article is all about the struggle to effectively determine whether it is safe (and how this struggle has been very open which according to the article is not common for chemical companies). Many toxicity studies have been done and seem promising.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > Many toxicity studies have been done and seem promising. The article implies a bit more of a mixed bag than that. Some were promising and some were troubling. I'm not a chemist but I think the most generous stance to give would be "cautiously optimistic" and I still think that's overselling it based on what I just read.
    - James_Henry 7y ago
      The only negative findings I recall were here: "Outside researchers didn’t deliver uniformly good news, however. Valspar approached scientists at Baylor Medical School, who found that TMBPF blunted estrogen’s effect on test cells and that a polymer made from the molecule had a similar effect on testosterone, according to a 2017 paper in PLOS ONE. Adam Szafran, a molecular biologist who helped lead the research, says the findings weren’t conclusive and could be specific to the prostate cells they tested. "Mallen acknowledges that those results raise questions about the compound. But he says company-sponsored research showed that changes in test cells don’t translate into effects on an entire organism. That study, published online in Food and Chemical Toxicology in October 2019, showed no endocrine-related effects on rats fed TMBPF for 3 months." The chance that this is a fairly safe chemical (or at the very least, a safer substitute for BPA) seems pretty promising so far. Of course, more studies should be and are planned to be done.
grabbalacious 7y ago
It's simple. You contact the company that manufactures the product and ask they use BPA. If they reply 'no' then fine. If they don't reply then, yes, they use BPA.

post_below 7y ago

Almost all aluminum cans for food products are coated. You can safely assume there's a coating of some kind. Some brands print "BPA free" on their cans. At this point that's the only information available to consumers.

zweep 7y ago

All aluminum cans are coated or you'd get aluminum oxides into your food.

chadcmulligan 7y ago
Here's a video of removing the aluminium from the insert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHFQoFoxvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHFQoFoxvQ [video]
- kazinator 7y ago
  Kudos to the coating for resisting drain cleaner. The method in that video could be a standard test for newly developed coatings.

stevenwoo 7y ago

If you are in the USA, Libby https://www.senecafoods.com/valpure https://www.senecafoods.com/valpure also this might be acceptable (they name acrylic as the liner and Valpure is acrylic but they never say what is the liner) https://www.amys.com/faqs/is-your-can-lining-non-bpa https://www.amys.com/faqs/is-your-can-lining-non-bpa

ghastmaster 7y ago

I cannot find my source, but even BPA free means they just coat it with BPS which is structurally and functionally similar. I suspect the toxicity studies just have not been done yet. I have a friend who used to work in the coatings lab for PPG circa 2007. He had a handful of chemicals to choose from that he would blend and test until the outcome fit the manufacturing requirements. It was not tested for toxicity before it was sent on to manufacturers and into your soda/veggie can.

James_Henry 7y ago
This article is about TMBPF, a BPF, not a BPS. It is also structurally similar to BPA and the article is all about the struggle to effectively determine whether it is safe (and how this struggle has been very open which according to the article is not common for chemical companies). Many toxicity studies have been done and seem promising.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > Many toxicity studies have been done and seem promising. The article implies a bit more of a mixed bag than that. Some were promising and some were troubling. I'm not a chemist but I think the most generous stance to give would be "cautiously optimistic" and I still think that's overselling it based on what I just read.
  - James_Henry 7y ago
    The only negative findings I recall were here: "Outside researchers didn’t deliver uniformly good news, however. Valspar approached scientists at Baylor Medical School, who found that TMBPF blunted estrogen’s effect on test cells and that a polymer made from the molecule had a similar effect on testosterone, according to a 2017 paper in PLOS ONE. Adam Szafran, a molecular biologist who helped lead the research, says the findings weren’t conclusive and could be specific to the prostate cells they tested. "Mallen acknowledges that those results raise questions about the compound. But he says company-sponsored research showed that changes in test cells don’t translate into effects on an entire organism. That study, published online in Food and Chemical Toxicology in October 2019, showed no endocrine-related effects on rats fed TMBPF for 3 months." The chance that this is a fairly safe chemical (or at the very least, a safer substitute for BPA) seems pretty promising so far. Of course, more studies should be and are planned to be done.

grabbalacious 7y ago

It's simple. You contact the company that manufactures the product and ask they use BPA. If they reply 'no' then fine. If they don't reply then, yes, they use BPA.