Status: Industry-wide can-liner chemistry; BPA-free alternatives increasingly available. Bisphenol-A (BPA) has been the industry-standard chemical building block in epoxy resin can liners used in canned food packaging for decades, including the retort-canned wet pet food category. The epoxy liner prevents the can metal from corroding into the food contents and prevents metal-flavor leaching from the can; BPA-based epoxy provides excellent food-contact safety at typical canned food production conditions. A 2016 published study by Koestel et al. in The Science of the Total Environment measured BPA migration from commercial canned pet food into the food contents and found measurable BPA levels in canned dog food at concentrations associated with serum BPA increases in dogs consuming the food. The study contributed to consumer-facing awareness of BPA in pet food packaging. BPA-free can liner alternatives (vinyl-based, polyester-based, oleoresin-based) are increasingly available and used by some pet food manufacturers including select premium-positioned wet pet food brands. The FDA permits both BPA-based and BPA-free can liners; current safety assessments affirm BPA at typical food-contact exposure levels.

What was recalled

This page covers BPA can-liner chemistry rather than a specific recall event. BPA has been used in epoxy can liners since the 1960s; the chemical provides the cross-linking necessary for the epoxy resin to form a continuous protective film between the can metal and the food contents. BPA-based epoxy liners are widely used across canned food categories including canned human food and canned pet food. The 2016 Koestel et al. study in The Science of the Total Environment is among the most-cited published research on BPA migration in canned pet food. The study measured BPA concentrations in canned dog food and found detectable levels in the parts-per-billion range, with serum BPA in dogs consuming the canned food showing measurable elevation over baseline. The study’s findings established that BPA migration from can liners into canned pet food is detectable at the analytical-method level and produces measurable systemic exposure in consuming dogs.

BPA-free can liner technologies have been developed and increasingly deployed across the canned food industry in response to consumer-facing concerns. Alternative liner chemistries include vinyl-based liners (polyvinyl chloride, PVC; or polyvinyl alcohol, PVOH), polyester-based liners, and oleoresin-based liners (traditional pre-BPA technology). Each alternative has different food-contact safety properties and processing requirements. The transition from BPA-based to BPA-free liners requires per-product validation: liner chemistry, can metal substrate, food matrix interaction, retort sterilization temperature compatibility, and shelf-life stability all must be re-validated. The pet food industry transition has been gradual; some major manufacturers have transitioned select product lines while others continue using BPA-based liners.

Why it was recalled

The BPA-safety debate centers on whether typical food-contact exposure levels produce clinically meaningful health effects. BPA is a known endocrine-disrupting chemical at high exposure levels and produces reproductive, developmental, and metabolic effects in animal studies at supra-physiological doses. The FDA position based on multiple safety assessments is that BPA is safe at typical food-contact exposure levels; the FDA banned BPA use in infant feeding bottles and sippy cups in 2012 based on industry abandonment of those uses rather than on safety findings. Some state regulatory frameworks (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, others) have restricted BPA in specific food-contact applications beyond FDA federal-level restrictions.

For pet food specifically, the 2016 Koestel et al. study finding of measurable BPA in serum after canned pet food consumption establishes that canned pet food consumption produces meaningful BPA exposure. Whether this exposure produces clinically meaningful effects in dogs and cats remains scientifically uncertain. Dogs and cats may have different BPA metabolism than humans; pets fed exclusively or primarily canned wet food (cats more than dogs typically) may have higher cumulative BPA exposure than pets fed primarily dry kibble. The PubMed literature on BPA in companion animal health is limited compared to the human literature. The consumer-facing decision is whether to pay a premium for BPA-free canned pet food, where available, in the absence of definitive pet-health data either way.

Health risks for your pet

The direct health-risk profile of BPA exposure from canned pet food consumption in dogs and cats is uncertain. The 2016 Koestel et al. study established detectable serum BPA elevation in dogs consuming canned food but did not establish specific clinical-outcome correlations. Pet owners considering BPA exposure risk-management should weigh: (1) the modest BPA exposure level documented in pet food vs the larger ongoing BPA exposure baseline from human food packaging, household plastics, and environmental sources; (2) the alternative wet pet food formats (BPA-free canned, retort-pouch packaging, refrigerated fresh wet food) and their respective costs and quality positioning; (3) the cumulative exposure for cats fed primarily wet food vs dogs fed primarily dry kibble. For specific clinical situations (pregnant dogs and cats, breeding programs, pets with diagnosed reproductive concerns), the BPA-exposure question may be more clinically relevant. Consult your veterinarian for guidance specific to your pet’s situation.

What to do if you bought affected product

Pet owners concerned about BPA exposure in canned pet food can consider several options. BPA-free can liner brands include selected wet pet food product lines from Wellness, Castor & Pollux, Halo, Tiki Cat, Weruva, and others; check brand specifications and customer service confirmation for current liner chemistry. Retort-pouch packaging (flexible plastic + foil laminate pouches) avoids the can-liner question entirely; brands using retort pouches include selected product lines from Stella & Chewy’s, Open Farm, and others. Refrigerated fresh pet food avoids retort processing altogether; brands include The Farmer’s Dog, Ollie, Just Food For Dogs, Nom Nom, and others. Dry extruded kibble avoids canned-food packaging entirely. The trade-offs include cost (BPA-free and fresh formats are typically higher-priced), texture (cats often prefer wet food), and shelf-life (fresh formats require refrigeration). The 2016 Koestel et al. published study and the broader BPA-safety literature provide the substantive context for individual decision-making.

How this affects KibbleIQ’s grade

BPA can-liner chemistry is not yet a structural rubric input in KibbleIQ methodology v15 per our published methodology; the rubric evaluates ingredient lists rather than packaging-material chemistry. Methodology v2 design is evaluating BPA-free packaging as a minor positive scoring input in the wet pet food and treats categories. The packaging-material dimension is one of several brand-quality signals worth surfacing for pet owners with specific BPA-exposure concerns. Brands publishing can-liner chemistry transparency receive favorable treatment; brands not publishing chemistry information receive less favorable treatment in the packaging-quality sub-score. The scientific debate over BPA at typical food-contact exposure levels remains active; the rubric design accommodates current uncertainty by weighting BPA-free positioning as a positive rather than penalizing BPA-containing positioning as a negative.