Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are your fish cans lined with? (about PET and BPA)
We share the concerns of scientists and consumers about plastic food packaging.
However, the makers of food packaging and food cans are not legally required to disclose the exact contents of that packaging.
Accordingly, we are unable to provide guarantees about any particular chemical in our plastic pouches and bags, or our can linings.
Here's what we know about the three plastics typically used the types of bags, pouches, and cans in which our foods are packaged: PET, polycarbonate, and BPA.
What is PET?
Polyethylene terephthalate or PET, or is the chemical name for polyester.
When PET is used for fiber or fabric applications, it is usually referred to as "polyester." When used for container and packaging applications, it is typically called "PET" or "PET resin."
The plastic pouches in which our vacuum-sealed frozen fish are packaged are generally made from PET, but may be made from other FDA-approve plastics and may contain other FDA-approved food-packaging chemicals.
(Note: Despite their similar names, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is not a phthalate compound ... see "PET and phthalates are not the same", below.)
PET is used in everything from surgical implants and soft drink or water bottles to peanut butter jars.
Special grades of PET are used for carry-home prepared food containers that can be warmed in the oven or microwave.
PET has been deemed safe by the U.S. FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for use in many food packaging applications.
PET does not usually contain BPA, but may contain BPA (see "What is BPA?", below).
There is little scientific data to suggest that PET causes disease or produces estrogen or endocrine modulating activity.
What are polycarbonate and BPA?
Polycarbonate is is a lightweight plastic used in a wide variety of common products including reusable bottles and food storage containers.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a key building block of polycarbonate and the polycarbonate-based resins used to line food cans.
Polycarbonate resins are used to keep the can material from corroding or reacting with the food and thereby acquiring a metallic taste.
The only alternative can linings are enamel linings made from plant-derived oils and resins. However, virtually no can makers use oleoresin linings, which dissolve in the presence of high-acid foods such as tomatoes and canned crab or mollusks.
BPA is a known endocrine-disruptor, which means that it can bind to estrogen receptors and produce hormonal effects.
Minuscule traces of BPA have appeared in tests of (non-Vital Choice) foods packaged without BPA ... findings that show the ubiquity of BPA in the environment.
BPA is used in countless other manufactured goods, including cash register receipt paper and other items that people handle routinely.
We recommend this Washington Post article on the subject: Alternatives to BPA containers not easy for U.S. foodmakers to find.
Because the makers of food cans and can linings are not legally required to disclose the exact contents of either, we cannot provide any guarantees.
With that important caveat, here's what we know about the BPA status of each of our canned products:
Product cans that may contain BPA or other bisphenol compounds
Product cans that probably do contain BPA or other bisphenol compounds
*You may be interested in these past newsletter articles on the subject:
PET and phthalates are not the same
Phthalates (more accurately, orthophthalates) are a family of plastic compounds used to make other plastics flexible, and have been shown to possess endocrine-disrupting properties.
Although "polyethylene terephthalate” (the plastic) and "phthalate” (the additive) may sound alike, they are chemically dissimilar.
PET is not an orthophthalate, nor does PET contain orthophthalates.
Our cans do NOT contain phthalates, and, unlike phthalates, PET is not yet (as of 2015) proven to possess endocrine-disrupting properties.
Recent test results suggesting that PET may possess endocrine-disrupting properties are questionable, given the high risk of "false-negative" results when testing bottled water or packaged foods for endocrine-disrupting properties.
For example, a 2011 university study funded by the German government (whose authors declared no conflicts of interest) found that deep-spring water packaged in glass showed traces of endocrine-disrupting properties.
Their results suggest that spring water (or raw foods) can be contaminated with endocrine-disrupting chemicals (Wagner M, Oehlmann J 2011; section 4.3. Sources of estrogenic contamination).