Itchmo Forums for Cats & Dogs Brought to you by Itchmo: Essential news, humor and info for cats, dogs and pet owners.
June 18, 2018, 09:08:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Go To Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Which Pet Foods have BPA free cans? Susan Thixton  (Read 13477 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
« on: January 18, 2010, 10:37:14 AM »

Which Pet Foods have BPA free cans?

[please read entire article]

"To summarize...Our inquiries found the following companies to provide a prompt first response in agreement with what is commonly believed with pet food…small aluminum cans can be BPA free, large steel cans are not BPA free…
Healthy Pet Net (only makes food in small cans)
Natural Balance
Del Monte brands
Nature's Logic
Pet Guard Organics
Nature's Variety
Drs. Foster & Smith (openly stated all cans have BPA lining)
Natura - Innova, Evo, California Naturals
Halo (openly stated all cans have safe levels of BPA)
Wellness/Eagle Pack

But…the following companies told us they Do Not use a BPA lined can – small or large…
Chicken Soup
Blue Buffalo
Mark T
Sr. Member
Posts: 365

« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2010, 06:16:26 PM »

Thanks for the link. I read the article and now I am a little confused.

""Nature’s Variety Pet Food
“We use BPA in our 13.2 oz cans and not our 5.5 oz cans.”  ""    Yet their small cans have the white, I presume epoxy, lining and the large cans don't.

At present the FDA does not regulate the quantity or presence of BPA in can linings so there is no penalty for companies misrepresenting their cans are BPA free. Maybe I'm cynical but I don't believe the PFCs when they say there is no BPA in the cans that are coated.

Interestingly on January 15th 2010 the FDA modified their position on the safety of BPA and now they express concern:

« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2010, 06:43:48 AM »

Peer-reviewed Study Looks at BPA in U.S. Food:

The study, published online in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, measured BPA levels in 105 fresh and canned foods, and foods sold in plastic packaging, as well as in cat and dog foods in cans and plastic packaging.  BPA was detected in 63 samples, all of which were collected from food found in Dallas, Texas grocery stores in March 2010.

If you have access to the article, an interesting read.  3 of 8 samples of pet food had detectable levels.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 06:48:20 AM by Spartycats » Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 10514

My RB Angels Elvis, 1991-2010, and Twit, 2001-2010

« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2010, 12:51:59 PM »

Unfortunately, this is one of my cats' main foods.   Since they only tested 8, who knows what levels are in the untested brands of foods.   Lips sealed

Eventually they will understand,
Replied the glorious cat
For I will whisper into their hearts
That I am always with them
I just am....forever and ever and ever.
Poem for Cats, author unknown

"A kitten in the animal kingdom is like a rosebud in a garden", author unknown
Hero Member
Posts: 5571

« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2010, 06:55:40 PM »

I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the toxicity of BPA, and, since the detected levels in all but 2 of the foods tested are of no concern, I'm not worried about it.  A comment on the article says that the LD50 of BPA is 6500 mg/kg.  If that is true, I have to wonder how much BPA they fed to those rodents in which they said there were bad effects.  One problem I have with animal studies is that they feed these mice or rats massive amounts of a substance, which is no doubt going to cause some kind of problem, and then try to convince us that it is harmful.  It may be, if we also consume massive amounts of the substance.  Usually that is impossible to do under ordinary circumstances.  The jury is still out on this issue, IMO.  Undecided   
Hero Member
Posts: 8531

« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2010, 07:21:15 PM »

MC wonder if amt. given in these studies would be a range that a human or animal might be exposed to over a period of time that then would be cumulative in the body? Maybe that is reason for massive amt. because if it was natural course of time studies would do no good as they would take years to complete and people are not looking for the results years from now, no?

May your troubles be less,
Your blessings be more,
And nothing but happiness
Come through your door
Mark T
Sr. Member
Posts: 365

« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2010, 08:32:03 PM »

LD50 is only useful if one wants to know the toxic effect of large doses. It only measures the amount to cause death but gives no indication of the health effects of chronic exposure. Chronic low level exposure is much harder to study and the mechanisms of toxicity can be very different to a one time large exposure.

"LD50" means Lethal Dose50per cent or: the dosage level at which is 50% of test subjects die.

For a rabbit the LD50 is 2230 mg/kg body weight. Or: 2.23 gms for a rabbit weighing 2.2 lbs - very toxic in my opinion.

The Material Safety Data Sheet:
Pages: [1]
Jump to:  

Copyright 2007 Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines | Sitemap