Why PFAS/BPA can-liner due diligence became a 2025–2026 audit requirement

If you manufacture or brand THC beverages in aluminum cans, you’re increasingly getting the same questions from retailers, distributors, insurers, and contract packers:

• “Is the liner BPA-NI (bisphenol A non-intent)?”
• “Can you show a PFAS-free attestation and supporting test data?”
• “What are you doing about wastewater and rinse-water PFAS risks?”

These requests accelerated in 2025 for three overlapping reasons:

1. PFAS rules tightened across water and products. The U.S. EPA’s PFAS drinking water rulemaking and parallel federal actions (TSCA and TRI) increased scrutiny on any facility that could plausibly introduce PFAS into water, wastewater, or residuals.
2. State food-packaging restrictions multiplied. Several states prohibit intentionally added PFAS in certain food packaging (often focused on paper/fiber), creating a patchwork that large retailers increasingly apply as a national vendor requirement.
3. BPA market expectations changed even where federal law hasn’t. The U.S. FDA has not broadly banned BPA in food packaging; however, many customers now require BPA-NI can-coating documentation as a procurement standard.

This article is informational only (not legal advice). It provides a practical, vendor-spec template and testing/QA plan for can liners used in THC drinks, grounded in 2024–2025 regulatory developments and common audit expectations.

The federal backdrop: PFAS attention moved from “environment” to “operations”

EPA drinking water standards are reshaping plant questions

In April 2024, EPA finalized a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for several PFAS compounds, setting extremely low maximum contaminant levels (including 4 ppt MCLs for PFOA and PFOS) and a hazard index approach for mixtures involving additional PFAS.

• Official rule text: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/26/2024-07773/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water-regulation
• EPA overview slides (implementation timeframes): https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas-npdwr-presentation_4.9.24_overview.pdf

Even though this rule applies to public water systems (not directly to beverage manufacturers), it has a strong “downstream” effect:

• Beverage plants are asked to prove they are not introducing PFAS into process water or rinse-water that could reach municipal systems.
• Contract manufacturers and co-packers increasingly incorporate PFAS questions into supplier approval and environmental questionnaires.

TSCA PFAS reporting: supply chain visibility pressure

EPA’s TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS rule (finalized October 2023) created a broad one-time reporting obligation for entities that manufactured or imported PFAS (including PFAS-containing articles) since 2011. EPA has continued to post implementation updates and, in late 2025, issued a proposed rule to narrow scope with certain exemptions.

• EPA TSCA PFAS reporting hub: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-section-8a7-reporting-and-recordkeeping
• 2025 proposed amendments in the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/13/2025-19882/perfluoroalkyl-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-data-reporting-and-recordkeeping-under-the-toxic

For beverage brands, TSCA reporting is often not a direct obligation, but it increases the likelihood that upstream suppliers (resin makers, coating formulators) will:

• request more detailed “known or reasonably ascertainable” use information from customers, and
• tighten their own documentation practices.

TRI PFAS: “chemicals of special concern” and supplier notifications

PFAS are subject to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) requirements via NDAA-driven additions and EPA implementation. EPA also has emphasized PFAS as chemicals of special concern, which affects how facilities track and report.

• EPA TRI PFAS implementation page: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/addition-certain-pfas-tri-national-defense-authorization-act

Again, a typical THC beverage facility may not be a TRI reporter, but TRI visibility heightens attention to releases—especially to wastewater.

The state patchwork: intentionally added PFAS in food packaging

Although your focus may be “Federal,” national brands cannot ignore state restrictions because:

• your product may be sold into those states, and
• major retailers often standardize vendor requirements across all stores.

A commonly cited example is New York’s prohibition on intentionally added PFAS in food packaging sold in the state.

• NYSDEC guidance: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/recycling-composting/businesses/pfas-in-food-packaging

California’s AB 1200 also restricts certain PFAS in plant-fiber food packaging and has been accompanied by enforcement messaging.

• Bill text (reference): https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1200/id/2435956

Colorado adopted restrictions that include food packaging with intentionally added PFAS.

• Colorado HB 22-1345 bill PDF: https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/101769/download

Minnesota and Maine have broader PFAS-in-products programs that affect reporting and/or product restrictions and are shaping national compliance expectations.

• Minnesota PFAS product reporting overview: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/reporting-pfas-in-products
• Maine DEP PFAS in products program updates: https://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/topics/pfas/PFAS-products/

Important nuance for can-liners: many state “food packaging PFAS” laws target plant fiber-based packaging (paper, molded fiber) more than metal can coatings. But brands still face two practical realities:

• Some customers interpret “PFAS-free packaging” broadly and ask for attestations for all packaging components, including can liners.
• Even if PFAS is not intentionally added, you still need a plan to detect and manage contamination or PFAS-like fluorinated chemistries.

BPA in can liners: what the federal position is—and why customers still want BPA-NI

In the U.S., the FDA position remains that the available information supports the safety of BPA for currently approved uses in food containers and packaging.

• FDA consumer information page: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-packaging-other-substances-come-contact-food-information-consumers/bisphenol-bpa-use-food-contact-application

But procurement expectations are changing. Many retailers, private-label programs, and “better-for-you” beverage channels now require:

• BPA-NI declarations (non-intent),
• documentation of coating chemistry families (e.g., polyester, acrylic, oleoresinous), and
• controls to avoid “regrettable substitutions” (BPS, BPF, BADGE derivatives, etc.).

You should treat BPA-NI as a commercial compliance requirement even if it is not a uniform U.S. legal requirement.

The real risk profile for THC beverages: inbound liner + outbound water

Inbound risk: liner chemistry, contaminants, and NIAS

A can liner is not just one ingredient; it’s a formulation with:

• base resin(s)
• crosslinkers/curatives
• catalysts
• pigments
• additives (flow, slip, defoamers)
• potential NIAS (non-intentionally added substances) such as reaction byproducts, impurities, and degradation products.

“NIAS” is a core concept in food-contact safety programs globally and is increasingly referenced in audits because it is how you explain unknowns.

Outbound risk: PFAS scrutiny of rinse water and wastewater

Even if PFAS is not used in your beverage or packaging, a plant can be asked to demonstrate it is not a contributor through:

• processing aids or maintenance products (some contain fluorinated surfactants)
• certain gaskets, membranes, or coatings in equipment
• incoming water contamination (municipal or well)
• cleaning and sanitation programs

In 2025–2026, insurers and large customers commonly ask whether facilities:

• monitor incoming water,
• have a wastewater sampling plan,
• understand pretreatment obligations,
• have a plan if PFAS is detected.

A 2025 vendor specification template for can liners (BPA + PFAS)

Use the following sections as a starting point for a liner/coating vendor specification. The goal is to create a document you can attach to supplier qualification, change control, and customer audits.

1) Scope and product definition

Define:

• can format(s) (sleek, standard, stubby)
• internal coating type(s) (body, end)
• coating family and trade name(s)
• plant(s) and line(s) where used
• beverage types (still, carbonated, acidic, high-terpene flavor systems)

Include a statement that the liner is intended for beverage contact and must support your product’s shelf life and thermal processes (pasteurization, hot fill, tunnel warming, etc.).

2) Regulatory compliance statements (U.S.)

Require the supplier to provide:

• Food contact compliance basis (e.g., applicable FDA food-contact regulations, effective FCNs, or other applicable clearances)
• documentation supporting compliance for the specific conditions of use
• a statement on heavy metals and other restricted substances as applicable

Also include language that you may sell into multiple states with PFAS-in-packaging restrictions and need materials that support national distribution.

3) Prohibited chemicals list (PCL)

Create a PCL that is short enough to be enforceable but broad enough to satisfy customers.

At minimum, include:

• Intentionally added PFAS (use a structural definition reference and/or list-based definition aligned with your internal policy)
• BPA intentionally added
• bisphenol analogs (BPS, BPF) intentionally added (optional but increasingly requested)
• orthophthalates intentionally added above a defined threshold (if relevant to your customer base)

Important: define “intentionally added” in the spec. Many state laws use that term precisely.

4) BPA-NI attestation requirements

Request a signed letter on supplier letterhead stating:

• BPA is not intentionally added to the coating formulation
• BPA is not used as a raw material, monomer, or intermediate
• the supplier has controls to prevent cross-contamination

Add an acknowledgment clause that trace presence could occur due to contaminants, recycled content, or shared equipment—and specify your acceptable approach (e.g., “must be non-detect at method LOQ” or “must be below X ppb in migration under defined conditions”).

5) PFAS attestation requirements

Request:

• confirmation that PFAS are not intentionally added
• whether any fluorinated processing aids, surfactants, or polymeric fluorinated additives are used
• whether any raw materials are sourced from suppliers with known PFAS use

Because “PFAS” can mean thousands of chemicals, avoid vague one-line statements. Require the supplier to answer a questionnaire that distinguishes:

• intentionally added PFAS
• known PFAS impurities
• unknown fluorine content

6) NIAS disclosure and analytical support

Require the supplier to:

• describe known/likely NIAS categories and controls
• provide any available non-target screening summaries (when feasible)
• notify you if formulation changes could materially change NIAS profile

From an audit standpoint, what matters is that you have a documented NIAS approach, even if you cannot identify every compound.

7) Change notification and quality clauses

Add a clause requiring written pre-notification (commonly 90–180 days) for:

• resin substitutions
• additive package changes
• catalyst/curing changes
• manufacturing site changes
• major raw material source changes

Include a right to request:

• updated attestations
• updated migration testing
• updated PFAS/BPA screening

Also specify that no change is allowed until you approve it for your beverage matrix and processing conditions.

A practical testing plan: migration + screening + verification

Your testing program should be risk-based: start with foundational documentation, then add targeted tests that match the questions you are receiving.

Step 1: Documentation package (every liner SKU)

Collect and control:

• specification sheet and SDS
• food-contact compliance statement
• BPA-NI letter
• PFAS not intentionally added letter
• manufacturing location(s)
• lot traceability scheme

Store these in a controlled system (e.g., QMS document control) and tie them to receiving lots.

Step 2: Baseline third-party screening (initial qualification)

For a 2025–2026 program, many brands do:

• Total organic fluorine (TOF) or extractable organic fluorine (EOF) screening on coating samples as a broad PFAS indicator (often via combustion ion chromatography)
• targeted PFAS panel by LC-MS/MS (limited list) if TOF/EOF suggests fluorinated content
• targeted BPA (and optionally BPS/BPF) screening in the liner or in migration extracts

Why TOF/EOF? Targeted PFAS panels can miss unknown fluorinated compounds. TOF/EOF offers a broader “is there fluorine that shouldn’t be here?” check.

When you choose a lab method, document:

• sample prep (e.g., solvent extraction)
• reporting limits
• QA/QC (blanks, spikes)
• decision criteria (pass/fail trigger)

Step 3: Migration testing under realistic use conditions

For beverage cans, migration risk depends on:

• ethanol content (even small amounts can matter)
• fat-like flavor carriers
• acidity (citric, malic)
• carbonation
• heat exposure during storage/shipping

Your plan should define:

• simulant(s) or actual beverage matrix
• time/temperature conditions (accelerated and real time)
• analytes of concern (BPA, bisphenol analogs, targeted PFAS if warranted)

If you distribute nationally, consider using a conservative migration condition that you can defend during audits.

Step 4: Ongoing verification (routine monitoring)

A common, audit-friendly cadence:

• Annually: renew supplier attestations; confirm no formulation/site change
• Every 1–2 years: repeat TOF/EOF screening on a representative set of liners (or by supplier/site)
• When triggered: re-test after any change notification, consumer complaint trend, or raw material disruption

Document how you select samples (risk-based): high-acid SKUs, longest shelf life, hottest distribution lanes, etc.

Wastewater and rinse water: a lightweight PFAS control program for beverage plants

Even without a federal PFAS effluent limit specific to beverage manufacturing, you can reduce risk by implementing a documented program.

1) Map potential PFAS sources in the plant

Include:

• cleaning and sanitation chemicals
• lubricants and maintenance chemicals
• membranes/filters and replacement parts
• coatings and sealants used in the facility
• incoming water

2) Confirm incoming water quality and treatment alignment

Because EPA’s NPDWR is driving PFAS monitoring in public systems, request:

• latest municipal water quality reports
• any PFAS sampling data if available

If you run your own treatment (carbon, RO), document media change-outs and disposal.

3) Pretreatment and discharge readiness

If you discharge to a POTW, keep:

• your industrial user permit (if applicable)
• any discharge limits and sampling obligations
• a plan for responding to PFAS detections (who you notify, how you investigate)

4) Periodic PFAS checks (risk-based)

Many facilities start with:

• one baseline influent/effluent sampling event
• then repeat if triggers occur (supplier change, new cleaning chemistry, customer request)

The key is not to overpromise; it’s to show you have governance and a response plan.

How to answer customer audits in late 2025 (and insurer questionnaires)

Build an “audit packet” you can provide within 24–48 hours:

• your can-liner vendor spec and PCL
• latest BPA-NI and PFAS-NI attestations
• summary of third-party testing (TOF/EOF + targeted confirmations)
• your change-control SOP
• wastewater/PFAS risk memo (sources mapped, baseline checks performed or scheduled)

Use consistent wording. Avoid absolute statements like “PFAS-free forever” unless you can legally and analytically defend it under your defined scope.

Key takeaways for THC beverage brands

• Treat PFAS BPA can liners THC beverages as a cross-functional compliance topic spanning packaging, quality, and environmental programs.
• A strong program is mostly documentation + change control, supported by periodic third-party verification.
• Use TOF/EOF screening strategically to answer “unknown PFAS” questions, then confirm with targeted analysis if needed.
• Don’t ignore wastewater: EPA drinking-water standards are driving scrutiny of industrial contributors—even when the regulation applies to public water systems.

Disclaimer

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Regulations and enforcement priorities change, and obligations may vary by product, facility, state distribution footprint, and contractual requirements.

Next step: operationalize your packaging and water compliance program

If you’re building (or refreshing) a can-liner qualification program for 2025–2026—attestations, prohibited-chemicals lists, NIAS documentation, migration testing plans, and change control—use https://cannabisregulations.ai/ to track regulatory updates and organize your cannabis compliance documentation for audits, licensing reviews, and supplier management.