1. Why coated cans?
Food and beverage cans preserve the taste and nutritional values of their filling for up to several years.[1] Such long storage times are only possible by coating the cans with an organic layer that protects the integrity of the can because metal can corrode when exposed to acids, salts, or moisture from some foods and drinks.
To fulfill the many technical and legal requirements of canned goods,[2][3] can coatings must withstand the production and sterilization processes (Figure 1.1, 1.3), be universally applicable for all food and beverage types (Fig. 1.2), prevent chemical migration into food in quantities that endanger human health (Fig. 1.4), adhere to the can even after accidental dents (Fig. 1.5), resist aggressive food types and protect the metal of the cans (Fig. 1.6), and preserve the food and maintain its color, smell, texture, and taste over several years (Fig. 1.7). After all that work extending shelf life and ensuring food and beverage safety, any coating must be able to be efficiently burned off the metal for the best recycling outcomes.[4][5]
Figure 1: Can coating considerations. Food (and beverage) can coatings should 1) withstand production, 2) be applicable for many food and beverage types, 3) withstand sterilization, 4) prevent chemical migration, 5) adhere to the metal surface even if it gets deformed, 6) resist corrosive foods and beverages, and 7) preserve the qualities of the contents for several years.
2. Can production and market data
The three different materials used to produce food and beverage cans are: aluminum, tin-coated steel (tinplate) and electrolytic chromium coated steel (ECCS). Can bodies are made of two or three pieces that are crimped together: 3-piece welded cans (e.g., standard food cans), 2-piece drawn and redrawn cans (e.g., tuna fish cans), or 2-piece drawn and ironed cans (e.g., beverage cans). Over 90% of food cans used globally in 2023 were three-piece cans, generally made of tinplate steel, while beverage cans are primarily 2-piece drawn and ironed aluminum.[6][7]
Independently of the material and the production process, most cans are coated internally and externally with films of 5 to 12 µm thickness [1]. Coatings are usually applied to both sides of planar metal sheets or coils by roller coating before the cans are formed. Alternatively, coatings are sprayed on preformed cans. Cans require an external coating to prevent outside corrosion and scuffing during processing, transport, and storage, while providing a smooth, printable surface for decoration and branding.[8]
Tin cans are used without internal coatings for light colored, acidic juices and fruits (e.g. pineapple, pears, peaches), because tin is more easily oxidized than the food, thus preventing darkening and flavor changes caused by oxidation of the fruits [1]. Food cans are usually pressure-sterilized after filling, with the exact conditions depending on the food type.[9] However, beverage cans may be pasteurized or sterilized in the sealed cans or filled under aseptic conditions.[10]
Reports vary, but according to International Aluminum, more than 420 billion beverage cans were produced in 2020, with beverage can sales predicted to reach about 630 billion by 2030.[11] Other estimates put the beverage can market at about 180 billion cans per year [6]. Nearly all beverage cans, around 90%, are made of aluminum, with the rest made of steel [7]. Around 40 billion food cans were sold in 2023 (including pet food) [6]. Annual sales in 2024 were approximately US $28.6 billion for beverage cans [7] and US $18.8 billion for food cans.[12] The can coating industry was worth roughly US $2.6 billion in 2024, projected to exceed US $3.6 billion within a decade.[13]
3. Types of coatings: composition, properties, application
Depending on the type of coating, different starting substances (monomers) are used. The properties of the can coatings can be modified by the addition of additives, such as agents to increase surface slipping as well as abrasion and scratch resistance of can coatings, lubricants, anti-foaming agents, adhesives, scavengers for hydrochloric acids, and pigments.[14] These wide range of possible combinations allows the production of many different coatings and chemical compositions.[1]
Epoxy-based coatings have the highest market share by volume, followed by polyester and acrylic.[15] It is difficult to find exact sales figures by volume, as most market reports refer to revenue. Acrylic is approximately twice as expensive as epoxy or polyester, so even with a smaller market volume, it makes up ~50% of the can coatings market by revenue.[16]
Epoxy coatings
In the 1950s, epoxy resins were introduced as coatings for aluminum and steel cans. Their stability, protective function, and technical properties have made them the most used coating material. Originally, most epoxy coatings were synthesized from bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7) and epichlorohydrin forming bisphenol A-diglycidyl ether (BADGE, CAS 1675-54-3) epoxy resins. Over the decades, different blends of epoxy coatings have been developed with epoxy-phenolic coatings being the most important subgroup. Other blended resins include epoxy amines, acrylates, and anhydrides.[17][18][13]
By 2024, about 95% of food cans sold in the U.S. were manufactured with BPA‑non‑intent (BPA‑NI) linings, according to the Can Manufacturers Institute.[19] BPA-NI linings are made without intentionally adding BPA, BADGE, or BFDGE as an ingredient or precursor.[20] If any BPA is present, it is a non-intentionally added substance (NIAS) such as from raw-material impurities, recycled equipment, or cross-contamination. The BPA level is typically below limits set by buyers or US regulators. The American trade group says that can linings in the US are now typically made from non-BPA-containing acrylic or polyester epoxies, or olefin polymers.[19]
Oleoresins
The first can coatings were made of oleoresins, which are mixtures of oil and resin extracted from plants.[21] Oleoresins are rather flexible and easily applied, but do not adhere well to metal surfaces, have limited corrosion resistance, and need long curing times. Furthermore, they may change the organoleptic properties of food.[22]
When epoxy coatings became available, most companies switched to the new technology, but when toxicological concerns about BPA in epoxy coatings grew, some natural food companies in the US switched back to oleoresins for low-acid canned foods like beans.[23] However, oleoresins are more expensive due to the time it takes to set, and most companies have once again moved away from them now that BPA-NI epoxy coatings and other alternatives are available.[23][17]
Vinyl
Vinyl coatings are synthesized from vinyl chloride (CAS 75-01-4) and vinyl acetate (CAS 108-05-4). They are highly flexible and stable under acidic and alkaline conditions, but they do not adhere well to metal and do not withstand high temperatures [14][18]. Therefore, they need plasticizers and stabilizers and are often blended with other resins. Vinyl organosols are prepared from suspensions of resin in organic solvents. Organosols offer comparably higher chemical resistance, thermal stability, and adhesion properties than vinyl coatings.[14]
Phenolic
Phenolic resins are composed of phenols and aldehydes. They are highly corrosion-resistant and protect cans from sulfide staining. Phenolics have low flexibility, do not adhere well to metal, and may change the odor and flavor of foods. They are applied as coatings for drums and pails, but unblended phenolic resins are not used in food and beverage cans.[14] Phenolics are also common curing agents (or ‘crosslinkers’) in materials, including epoxide resins to increase the coatings’ resilience by more tightly binding polymer chains together.[1]
Acrylic
Acrylic resins are most commonly synthesized from ethylacrylate (CAS 140-88-5). They have a clean appearance and display corrosion and sulfide stain resistance, but they are brittle and may change the taste and odor of foods. Therefore, they are mostly used as an external can coating.[14][18].
Polyester
Isophthalic acid (IPA, CAS 121-91-5) and terephthalic acid (TPA, CAS 100-21-0) are the main carboxylic acids used to produce polyester coatings. Polyester resins are easy to handle during the production process and adhere well to the metal surface, but they are usually not stable under acidic conditions and have poor corrosion resistance.[14] Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) coatings are an alternative to laminate beverage cans, but adhesives are needed to bind the PET onto the metal.[14]
Polyolefins
Coatings that are based on dispersions of polyolefins entered the market around 2016.[24] According to a manufacturer, the final polyolefin coating exhibits corrosion protection, adhesion, and flexibility without impacting the flavor of the food but independent tests of polyofins are limited.[25]
4. Regulation
United States
Polymeric and resinous coatings are covered under 21 CFR 175.300. This code lists permitted starting substances and specifies test conditions and migration limits. Can coatings meeting these specifications are compliant with the law.
As of July 2025, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has included BPA, bisphenol S (BPS, CAS 80-09-1, and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA, CAS 79-94-7) to the list of chemicals known to cause reproductive harm or cancer under Proposition 65. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of products containing these chemicals must inform consumers with a clear and reasonable warning regarding the chemical hazards (FPF reported also here). At least 12 other US states have restricted the use of BPA in some way, mostly in food contact materials for young children [26] (FPF reported, also here), but some have also prohibited BPA in all reusable food contact articles.[27]
Europe
The EU has no legislation specific to can coatings, but national measures are in place in the Netherlands, Belgium (FPF reported), Czechia, France, Greece, Italy, Slovakia, and Spain. Inorganic tin was part of a harmonized European regulation (Commission Regulation EC 242/2004), but it is no longer in force as of 2007.[28] Other EU- wide regulations cover individual chemicals that may be used in can coatings (e.g., Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, Commission Regulation 10/2011).
Regulation (EC) No 1895/2005 restricts the use of certain epoxy derivatives in materials and articles intended to come into contact with food in the EU. This includes a complete ban on BFDGE (CAS 2095-03-6) and NOGE (CAS 158163-01-0) and restricts BADGE and BADGE derivatives, with specific migration limits.
In 2024, the European Commission adopted a ban on BPA in food contact materials, Commission Regulation 2024/3190 (FPF reported). The ban affects BPA in can coatings, as well as reusable plastic bottles and kitchenware. Other bisphenols with harmonized classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) classifications as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic (CMR) 1a or 1b, or endocrine disrupting 1 are included in the ban except in specific applications (e.g., large industrial containers). This includes BPS and bisphenol AF (BPAF, CAS 1478-61-1).
Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 requires that no residual BPA remain where other bisphenol-based precursors (e.g., BADGE) are used; specific migration limits for BADGE itself continues to be governed by Regulation (EC) 1895/2005.
In June 2025, the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) updated the Ordinance on Food Contact Materials and Articles, aligning Swiss law more closely with European Union standards (FPF reported). A key element of the revision is a ban on the use of BPA and other hazardous bisphenols and their derivatives in coatings and varnishes used on food contact materials, except for large industrial containers (over 1,000 liters).
China
China’s National Food Safety Standard for Food-Contact Paints and Coatings defines allowed monomers/additives, overall & specific migration limits (SMLs), test conditions, and labelling for coatings on cans, closures, and other food contact articles in the original GB 4806.10-2016 and its 2025 amendment.[29][30][31][32]
MERCOSUR
The South American trade bloc has GMC Resolution 55/99 Technical Regulation on Preparations for Film Coatings based on Polymers and/or Resins, intended for Food Contact (supported by GMC 39/19 positive list of additives). It includes composition limits, a positive list of additives, as well as global and specific migration limits for polymeric can coatings (FPF reported).[33][34]
South Korea
Can coatings are covered by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) Notification 2024-29 Standards & Specifications for Utensils, Containers and Packages. Section 3 lists substance restrictions and migration tests for synthetic resins. The regulation includes positive lists and SMLs for epoxy, polyester, acrylic, and other coatings, besides overall migration and declaration rules.[35]
Japan
Since 2020, Japan has had the Food Sanitation Act Positive-List system in force. It was revised in April 2024. The Act has a category of “polymers used for coatings” with specific authorized substances & limits. Manufacturers of coatings must use only the listed monomers/additives, follow any substance-specific restrictions, and comply with the de minimis migration limit of 0.01 mg/kg food (or 0.01 mg/L food simulant). A declaration of compliance is required.[36][37][38]
India
Food Safety & Standards (Packaging) Regulations 2018 mandates an overall migration ≤ 10 mg dm⁻² for all packaging materials of plastic origin, which includes coatings.
Canada
Health Canada issues “no objection letters” specifically for can coating formulations under the Food & Drugs Regulations, Division 23 – general prohibition on packaging that may transfer harmful substances. The country does not have a positive list, but every commercial can coating sold in Canada is reviewed and must meet Health Canada migration limits.[39][40]
5. Migration, exposure & biomonitoring
Most studies investigating chemical migration from food cans focused on BPA, BADGE, and their derivatives, according to the Database on Migrating and Extractable Food Contact Chemicals (FCCmigex). The amount of data available on BPA can provide a good basis for exposure estimates. However, besides BPA also oligomers, catalysts, reaction accelerators, epoxidized edible oils, amino resins, acrylic resins, various esters, waxes, lubricants, and metals may migrate from can coatings. As of March 2025, 343 chemicals have been associated with metal coatings (FCCmigex v3).
Furthermore, non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) such as impurities, reaction by-products, and degradation products generally constitute a part of the migrate. Exposure estimates for these complex mixtures are much more difficult or even impossible to assess, because many NIAS are unknown or unidentified substances.
As an example for chemicals migrating from can coatings, in 2023, Spanish researchers investigated an array of canned foods. They found that BPA, BADGE.2H2O (CAS 5581-32-8), BADGE·H2O.HCl (CAS 227947-06-0), and cyclodiBADGE migrated from epoxy resins into food. In addition, three monomers used in can coatings, terephthalic acid (TPA, CAS 100-21-0), phthalic acid (PA, CAS 88-99-3), isophthalic acid (IPA, CAS 121-91-5), and four tentatively identified oligomers from polyester resins were found in the cans and foodstuffs.[41]
In some samples, BPA was present in levels exceeding its EU migration limit and cyclodiBADGE exceeded migration limits established by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in most samples. The authors followed up with dietary exposure estimates which showed exposure levels through foodstuffs to all investigated chemicals was likely low but nevertheless “of particular concern since some of them [the cyclic oligomers] belong to Cramer class III” which means they have structural features for high toxicity.
According to another report several polyester oligomers were tentatively identified in migration tests for which no toxicological data are available. Accordingly, migration limits have not yet been established.[42]
In the early 2000s a correlation was shown between the consumption of canned foods and human exposure to BPA. Americans who ate one or two-plus canned food item(s) the day before had 24% and 54% higher urinary BPA concentrations, respectively, than those who ate none.[43]
In 2012, a study detected BADGE and BADGE derivatives in 100% (127) of urine test samples from the U.S. and China with urinary BADGE-related concentrations exceeding those of BPA in U.S samples by 3- to 4-fold.[44] However, a small Japanese study in 2024 found that while babies had BADGE·2H2O in their blood, there was no difference in “BADGE·2H2O concentrations at 7 months of age between the group that ate commercial baby food at least ≥ 1 time per week and the group that did not” which makes the case for the majority of BADGE exposure from other sources than FCMs, at least for babies.[45]
According to the Can Manufacturer’s Institute website (accessed August 2025), in the US, “[t]he industry does not intentionally add BPF, BPB and BPS [as a substitute] in can linings, new linings are typically made from acrylic, polyester, non-BPA epoxies or olefin polymers, and new linings are developed to avoid endocrine activity.”
6. Health effects
Can coatings release complex chemical mixtures into the food, and not all the migrating chemicals have been thoroughly tested. Extensive toxicity data exists for BPA, covering many different endpoints such as reproductive and developmental effects as well as neurological, immune-modulatory, cardiovascular, metabolic effects.
A study published in September 2020 that evaluated 20 years’ worth of BPA research, including results from the US FDA’s CLARITY-BPA study, argues that there is “overwhelming evidence of harm” to human health from exposure to BPA (FPF reported).[46] BPA has been detected in humans in large biomonitoring studies, for example, in the European Union, United States, California, Canada, and Korea (FCChumon). Bisphenols other than BPA have similar effects on the human body and the environment including deteriorating semen quality (FPF reported) and increasing the chance of developing cancer (FPF reported), including breast cancer (FPF reported).[47]
In 2020, the German Environment Agency (UBA) tested 44 potential BPA replacements and found that 33 may have endocrine disrupting properties (FPF reported). In 2025, researchers from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research investigated the safety of BPA and 26 alternatives using in vitro bioassays, such as single cell based test systems used for testing the toxicity of chemicals and found that many BPA replacements are regrettable substitutions (FPF reported). Structurally very similar BPA alternatives, such as bisphenol AF (BPAF, CAS 1478-61-1) and bisphenol Z (BPZ, CAS 843-55-0) were comparably potent in activating the estrogen receptor α (ERα)–one of the pathways that is known to be connected to BPA’s adverse outcomes. In contrast, more bulky bisphenols showed no estrogenic activity but many of these compounds were found to activate a different hormone receptor (PPARγ), which is not activated by BPA. Additionally, the researchers detected mitochondrial dysfunction and neurotoxicity in response to some BPA alternatives.[48]
Cyclo-di-BADGE (CdB) is a NIAS formed as a by-product during the manufacture of epoxy resin (FPF reported). According to in vitro tests, CdB is cytotoxic and therefore absorption by mammalian cells is considered likely. In addition, in silico calculations indicate that CdB can bind to the estrogen receptor (ERβ) and to the progesterone receptor (PR). These concerns mean CdB falls into Cramer Class III for which the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is 90 µg/person/day. German authorities detected up to 2 mg CdB per kg food in canned oily fish. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment concluded in 2016 that this TTC is not exceeded at an average consumption of canned oily fish. However, at above average consumption, the TTC can be exceeded, which may result in adverse effects for human health.[49]
Due to the ubiquity of bisphenol-based epoxy coatings for many years and the public concern that developed, much of the can coatings research comes from this particular subset of coatings and chemicals. Many migrating substances are completely unknown, but they may strongly contribute to the toxicity of the migrate. A study of polyester can coatings published in 2022 reported that polyester oligomers migrated from the coatings. According to the authors, “[f]or these chemical migrants there are no toxicological data available, nor migration limits established to date. Consequently, a risk assessment is necessary for these compounds, which should not be underestimated.” [42]
In 2006, cytotoxic effects of whole migrates from epoxy- and polyester-based coatings were tested using a series of assays. The results of one of these assays showed that only about 0.5% of the cytotoxic effects measured in the migrate from epoxy coatings could be traced back to the amount of BPA, BADGE and BADGE·H2O.[50] This example illustrates the importance of testing the chemical mixtures migrating from the final product instead of single substances when assessing the risk of food contact articles.
A 2022 review article on all types of food and beverage can coatings reports that most of the included studies analyzed the migration of starting substances, such as monomers, while oligomers and NIAS have been largely neglected. The authors emphasized that in addition to investigating individual chemicals, human exposure to chemical mixtures needs to receive more attention in future studies (FPF reported).[51]
One of the main purposes of can coatings is to extend shelf lives and enable safe food storage for years. However, studies of epoxy and acrylic-phenolic coatings (FPF reported), polyester coatings (FPF reported), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC, FPF reported) coatings suggest that chemical migration under long-term storage conditions should be reassessed.[52][53][54][55] Current migration tests often only last up to 10 days, which can underestimate the migration that occurs after long term storage.
7. Conclusion
Recent regulatory shifts and public scrutiny have accelerated the move away from legacy BPA-based epoxies, but they also raise the bar for all alternatives. Going forward, clear positive lists, harmonized test conditions, and transparent supply-chain data will matter as much as the resin choice itself to ensure coatings that are both functional and demonstrably safe.
8. References
[1] Oldring, P.K.T.; and Nehring U. (2007). “Packaging materials – 7. Metal packaging for foodstuffs.” ILSI Europe Report Series.1-44. (pdf).
[2] European Parliament and Council. (2004). “Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC.” EUR-Lex.
[3] Bomgardner, M.M. (2013). “No clear winner in race to find non-BPA can linings.” C&EN. 91:24-5.
[4] Can Manufacturers Institute. (2023). “Aluminum beverage can: Recycling primer and roadmap.” (pdf).
[5] Vallejo-Olivares, A.; et al. (2024). “Effects of Compaction and Thermal Pre-treatments on Generation of Dross and Off-Gases in Aluminium Recycling.” Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy. DOI: 10.1007/s40831-023-00773-3
[6] Market Reports World. (August 4, 2025). “Food & Beverage Metal Cans Market Size, Share, Growth, and Industry Analysis, By Type (Three-Piece Cans,Two-piece Cans), By Application (Food Industry,Beverage Industry,Convenience Food,Pet Food), Regional Insights and Forecast to 2033.”
[7] Global Market Insights. (January 2025). “Beverage Cans Market Size – By Material, By Product Type, By Capacity, By Application, Analysis, Share, Growth Forecast, 2025 – 2034.”
[8] Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (2017). “Chapter 129: Surface coating facilities.” (pdf). [Accessed August 27, 2025].
[9] Sumpot. (March 19, 2024). “Canned food sterilization retort machine technology.”
[10] Site Editor. (July 17, 2025). “What Is Aseptic Processing for Juice Can Filling Machines?” Advanced Liquid Packaging Solution.
[11] International Aluminum. (2024). “It’s Time to Drive Aluminium Beverage Cans Towards Full Circularity.”
[12] Precedence Research. (August 1, 2025). “Food Cans Market Embraces Sustainable Innovation and Shifting Consumer Trends.”
[13] Fact MR. (May 2024). “Can Coating Market Study by Epoxy, Polyester, and Acrylic for Beverage Cans, Food Cans, Aerosol Cans, and General Line Cans from 2024 to 2034.”
[14] LaKind JS. (2013). “Can coatings for foods and beverages: Issues and options.” Int J Technol Policy Manag. 13:80-95.
[15] Fortune Business Insights. (August 4, 2025). “Can Coatings Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Epoxy, Acrylic, and Others), By Application (Food Cans, Beverage Cans, Aerosol Cans, and Others) and Regional Forecast, 2024-2032.”
[16] Grand View Research. (2025). (“Can Coatings Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Resin (Epoxy, Polyester, Acrylic, Polyolefins), By End-use (Food, Beverage), By Region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific), And Segment Forecasts, 2025 – 2030.”
[17] Aaron L. Brody. (November 2011). “Taking a Closer Look at BPA and Its Alternatives.” Institute of Food Technologists. (pdf).
[18] Robertson, G.L. (2005). “Food Packaging: Principles and practice, Second edition.” Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.1201/9781420056150
[19] Can Manufacturers Institute. “Innovations in food cans.” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[20] Henkel. (2018). “Next generation BPA-NI coatings.” (pdf). [Accessed August 27, 2025].
[21] Merriam-Webster. “Oleoresin.” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[22] Chem-pedia. “Oleoresinous coatings.” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[23] Eden Foods. “Eden Pioneered Bisphenol-A (BPA) Avoidance in April 1999.” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[24] Catherine Diamon. (January 14, 2016). “Dow Coating Materials Introduces Polyolefin Dispersion Technology for Packaging Coatings.” Coatings World
[25] Dow. “Metal Packaging.” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[26] De Meyer, M; et al. (July 22, 2022). “Navigating regulatory uncertainty in packaging: A new wave of chemical-substance regulations.” McKinsey
[27] Consumer Reports (August 14, 2012). “State laws on BPA.”
[28] European Commission. (2004). “Commission Regulation (EC) No 242/2004 of 12 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 as regards inorganic tin in foods (Text with EEA relevance).” EUR-Lex.
[29] Keller & Heckman. (November 18, 2016). “All Wrapped Up: China Finalizes Long-Awaited Standards for Food Packaging.”
[30] Chem Radar. “China-National Food Safety Standard for Food-Contact Coatings and Coatings (GB 4806.10-2016).” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[31] Keller & Heckman. (January 18, 2024). “China Solicits Comments on Food-Contact Coatings Standard.”
[32] SGS Republic of Korea. (April 10, 2025). “China Announces New Mandatory Standards for Food Contact Materials.”
[33] MERCOSUR. (2019). “MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. No 39/19.” (pdf).
[34] MERCOSUR. (2011). “MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. N° 55/99.”
[35] Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. (June 27, 2025). “Standards and Specifications for Utensils, Containers and Packages(No. 2024-29).”
[36] TÜV Rheinland. (May 2020). “Japan added the positive list system for food contact materials.” (pdf).
[37] REACH24H. (April 10, 2025). “Japan’s Positive List for Food Contact Materials: Compliance Essentials.”
[38] Japan Consumer Affairs Agency. (February 6, 2025). “Questions and answers on the positive list system.” [Accessed August 27, 2025].
[39] Government of Canada. “Food and Drug Regulations (C.R.C., c. 870).” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[40] Health Canada. “Packaging Materials.” [Accessed August 24, 2025].
[41] Vázquez-Loureiro, P.; et al. (2023). “Investigation of migrants from can coatings: Occurrence in canned foodstuffs and exposure assessment.” Food Packaging and Shelf Life. DOI: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101183
[42] Lestido-Cardama, A.; et al. (2022). “Characterization of Polyester Coatings Intended for Food Contact by Different Analytical Techniques and Migration Testing by LC-MSn.” Polymers. DOI: 10.3390/polym14030487
[43] Hartle, J.C.; et al. (2016). “The consumption of canned food and beverages and urinary Bisphenol A concentrations in NHANES 2003–2008.” Environmental Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.008
[44] Wang L.; et al. (2012). „Widespread occurrence and distribution of bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE) and its derivatives in human urine from the United States and China.” Environmental Science & Technology. DOI: 10.1021/es304050f
[45] Kuwamura, M.; et al. (2024). “Measurement of Bisphenol A Diglycidyl Ether (BADGE), BADGE derivatives, and Bisphenol F Diglycidyl Ether (BFDGE) in Japanese infants with NICU hospitalization history .” BMC Pediatrics. DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04493-1
[46] Vom Saal, F.S.; and Vandenberg, L.N. (2021). “Update on the Health Effects of Bisphenol A: Overwhelming Evidence of Harm.” Endocrinology. DOI: 10.1210/endocr/bqaa171
[47] Parkinson, LV; Geueke, B; Muncke, J. (2024). “Potential mammary carcinogens used in food contact articles: Implications for policy, enforcement, and prevention.” Frontiers in Toxicology. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1440331
[48] Srebny, V. et al. (2025). “Beyond Estrogenicity: A Comparative Assessment of Bisphenol A and Its Alternatives in In Vitro Assays Questions Safety of Replacements.” Ecotoxicology and Public Health. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5c07018
[49] BfR (April 15, 2016). “Epoxidharz-Beschichtungen von Konservendosen: Stoffübergänge in ölhaltige Lebensmittel sind möglich.” (pdf; in German)
[50] Mittag N,; et al. (2006). “Bioassay guided analysis of migrants from can coatings.” J Verbrauch Lebensm. 1:345-53.
[51] Lestido-Cardama, A.; et al. (2022). “Food and beverage can coatings: A review on chemical analysis, migration, and risk assessment.” Comprehensive Review. DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12976
[52] Paseiro-Cerrato, R.; et al. (2017). “Evaluation of short-term and long-term migration testing from can coatings into food simulants: Epoxy and acrylic-phenolic coatings.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b00081
[53] Paseiro-Cerrato, R. et al. (2016). “Identification of unknown compounds from polyester can coatings that may potentially migrate into food or food simulants.” Journal of Chromatography A. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2016.03.038
[54] Paseiro-Cerrato, R. et al. (2016). “Evaluation of long-term migration testing from can coatings into food simulants: Polyester coatings.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05880
[55] Vaclavikova, M.; et al. (2016). “Target and non-target analysis of migrants from PVC-coated cans using UHPLC-Q-Orbitrap MS: evaluation of long-term migration testing.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2015.1128564
