February 20, 2026
A key compliance blind spot for THC/CBD beverage brands isn’t always the active ingredient—it’s everything that touches the liquid on its way to the consumer: can liners, closure liners, gaskets, adhesives, inks, and recycled-content components that can introduce migrating substances.
That’s why a federal oversight development that appears “non‑cannabis” at first glance deserves real attention. In its report on FDA oversight of substances used in manufacturing, processing, and packaging food, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) urged FDA to strengthen elements of its Food Contact Substances (FCS) program, pointing to oversight and data gaps that can limit FDA’s visibility into the market and its ability to act quickly when new hazards emerge.
Even without naming hemp-derived beverages, the GAO’s critique is a signal: expect buyer audits and retailer standards to tighten around packaging chemical safety, documentation, and change control—especially for products with complex formulations (low pH, emulsifiers, surfactants, terpenes, or alcohol) that can accelerate migration.
This post is informational only and not legal advice.
GAO’s food-contact work has repeatedly highlighted a structural problem: the U.S. system for bringing food-contact materials to market includes pathways that may not generate robust public transparency, and FDA’s post‑market tools can be constrained when the agency lacks key information or clear authority to compel it.
In its report Food Safety: FDA Oversight of Substances Used in Manufacturing, Processing, and Packaging Food (GAO‑23‑104434), GAO describes FDA’s premarket pathways (including the Food Contact Notification process) and the limitations FDA faces after substances are in commerce. GAO recommended FDA seek additional authority from Congress to compel companies to provide information needed for FDA’s oversight.
While your prompt references “a 2025 GAO report,” many of the most-cited GAO findings on the FCS program were published in this GAO work and continue to be referenced in 2024–2026 policy discussions about FDA’s food chemical safety pillar. The practical takeaway for beverage businesses is the same: future policy and buyer requirements may push more responsibility onto brands to prove packaging chemical safety and manage supply chain changes.
Primary source:
FDA regulates many packaging chemicals as indirect food additives. They may be cleared under:
For compliance teams, what matters is not the label claim “food grade,” but whether the substance is cleared for the intended conditions of use (food type, temperature, time, and contact conditions).
Helpful federal references:
Beverages can be uniquely aggressive toward packaging systems because of:
These factors can increase the chance that a can coating, closure liner, adhesive, or gasket component migrates into the beverage.
One compliance nuance that is easy to miss: FDA clearances can be condition-specific. For example, certain elastomer provisions and extraction limits in 21 CFR can be tied to temperature, repeated use, and even alcohol thresholds. If your product line includes higher alcohol content or unusual solvent systems, your packaging assumptions may be wrong.
PFAS restrictions illustrate how fast the compliance ground can shift.
FDA announced that PFAS-containing grease-proofing substances were no longer being sold for use in paper food packaging in the U.S. market, and FDA has published updates on authorized uses and the status of relevant FCNs.
At the same time, multiple states prohibit intentionally added PFAS in certain food packaging (commonly paper- and plant-fiber based items; some states interpret scope broadly). Even when your primary package is aluminum, you may still use secondary or tertiary packaging (trays, wraps, cartons, liners) that triggers a state restriction.
A few authoritative starting points for state PFAS packaging rules:
Operational takeaway: if a retailer asks for “PFAS-free packaging,” they may mean more than your primary container.
California’s Proposition 65 has been a persistent driver of packaging reformulation and warning litigation. BPA in can linings has been a recurring theme in enforcement and in public-facing warning language.
If you distribute beverages into California (direct-to-consumer or through retailers), you should evaluate packaging chemistry through a Prop 65 lens, even if your product otherwise complies with FDA food-contact rules.
Key point: replacing BPA-based epoxy systems with “BPA-free” alternatives can create regrettable substitution risk if substitute chemistries (e.g., certain bisphenol analogs) raise similar toxicological questions. Your compliance file should be able to answer: what changed, why, and what data supports the new system.
GAO’s critique doesn’t instantly rewrite FDA regulations, but it often accelerates a familiar market response: private governance through procurement.
In 2026 buying cycles, beverage brands are increasingly encountering:
If you’re in a regulated THC beverage state program, add an extra layer: state product safety regulators may treat packaging contamination as an actionable defect even if it originated with a supplier.
If your focus keyword is “GAO 2025 food contact substances THC beverages packaging”, your best operational response is to build a “packaging compliance file” that stands up to: (1) retailer audits, (2) state regulator questions, and (3) recall fact‑finding.
Create a controlled record (versioned, dated) listing every component that can contact the beverage or influence migration:
For each component, collect:
At minimum, target:
Be realistic: some suppliers will resist full disclosure due to confidentiality. Your job is to define the minimum that still allows you to manage risk and make defensible decisions.
Generic packaging compliance statements are often built around common food simulants. For cannabinoid beverages, your real product matrix can behave differently.
Design testing around your highest-risk SKUs:
Testing approaches vary by jurisdiction and objective (overall migration vs targeted analytes vs NIAS screening). But the strategic message for audits is consistent: you tested your packaging with your beverage under your process conditions.
Retailers and investigators don’t care that a change was “minor” if it correlates with a complaint spike.
Write down triggers that require review/approval before implementation, such as:
Then implement:
Even though your region focus here is Federal, beverage brands operate in a patchwork. Build a crosswalk that flags where your products ship and what extra packaging restrictions may apply.
At a minimum, evaluate:
The goal isn’t to turn your team into toxicologists; it’s to avoid being surprised mid‑rollout when a retailer asks for attestations you can’t support.
A packaging chemical incident is a classic “three-party problem”: brand, co‑packer, packaging supplier.
Your co‑packer agreement should spell out, in plain language:
A useful non-governmental overview of co-packer agreement provisions (informational):
Even if your agreement is already signed, you can often add a quality or packaging addendum to clarify responsibilities.
For THC/CBD beverages, packaging migration issues can become amplified because:
The compliance posture you want is not “we think the can is standard,” but “we can demonstrate packaging safety and control changes.” That’s the direction GAO’s critique nudges the market.
If you’re expanding distribution or preparing for retailer onboarding, use CannabisRegulations.ai to centralize your cannabis compliance documentation workflows—licensing, labeling, testing, and now packaging chemical compliance—so your team can answer audits faster and manage change without surprises.
Visit https://cannabisregulations.ai/ to streamline compliance and stay current on evolving regulations.
