3 ms·
Ok, I'll amend by changing to "majority". :D I'm curious what the implication in not having a lining is. If it isn't needed, why have it on the other cans? I
by taeric 3y ago
Ok, I'll amend by changing to "majority". :D
I'm curious what the implication in not having a lining is. If it isn't needed, why have it on the other cans? I'm assuming it has a decreased shelf life?
Edit: I'm a little confused on the reading real quick. I am seeing that most cans are now BPA free, but it seems they are still lined with a plastic?
- forward1 3y ago"BPA free" = we changed ~one chemical to avoid the disclosure requirement != it's totally safe.
- skywhopper 3y agoThe metal in cans would react with certain foods or chemicals in food in often far worse ways than anything the plastic will do. There's likely no packaging material that wouldn't make any impact on its contents.
- taeric 3y agoRight. This was my understanding going into this. I was surprised to hear that there were unlined cans. I'm less surprised to hear we have BPA free packaging.
- ricardobeat 3y ago> no packaging material that wouldn't make any impact on its contents. We solved this many decades ago with a cheap, safe, abundant, recyclable material: glass. Centralized factories and the associated transport and breakage costs ruined it.
- taeric 3y agoI feel unreasonable about it, but this is exactly why I only buy glassed drinks when I can. Luckily, I should drink less anyway.