Beer cans now contain new can liner material (non-BPA)

I have seen differences in the amount of head, retention and lacing in can vs. bottle side-by-side comparisons, specifically ones posted by @zid. I am wondering how much, if any, effect the BPA liners have to do with this.

 

I'm sure John Kimmich will find some benefit(s) to the new can liners that make it even better to drink Heady from a can.

 

I understand that BPA-free can linings are make of polyester, acrylic, and/or vinyl compounds . If those linings are "degrading" or are "not stable", then what does that mean, chemically, about what is getting into the beer?

BPA frying pan, meet polyester, acrylic, and/or vinyl fire?

Buy bottled beer.

 

I have no idea how credible this source is:

The scary truth about BPA-free cans revealed

 

Pretty much any headlines containing the words “scary” or “truth” with “revealed” is simply click bait.
Not stating that they might be wrong, just that it’s not a source I would rely on.
Cheers!

 

I agree, hence the disclaimer. They do list credible sources, though (MotherEarthNews.com, TheGuardian.com... )

 

My daughter's good friend's father (I know, I know, but I have met the guy and he is legit) works for Coors. He is a chemist. He has a lab at the Coors Brewery in Golden. He gave us a tour of his lab about 5 years or so ago. According to my daughter (who is also a chemist) some of the equipment he has in his lab cost in the millions. So, Coors is definitely stepping up in that area. His primary area of research is working on eliminating free radicals in beer. Whatever free radicals are exactly, way above this old beer drinker's IQ. Anyway, I guess Coors is good for something, right?

 

…The more you know!

Dang radicals- get out of my beer!

 

I *did* read the article just because you posted it so I figured there was something there worth reading, and they did list sources, but they never really revealed anything.
Mox nix, I’m being pedantic ( I think that’s the word)
As BPA has been in cans since the 60s, many of us have had decades of exposure to the stuff. Hopefully we have built up some resistance to it.

 

Proposition 65 was a pain in the ass when I worked. I didn't like having to change labeling on a product because of one state's regs. We used to joke that it was a good thing that we don't live in California because substance X is known to cause cancer in the state of California. I just purchased a new grill that had a Prop 65 warning because grilled foods cause cancer in California. The breweries would probably be fine just using a new label.

 

I will very rarely consume beer from a can. Usually only the occasional German session lager.
Artificial can liners are yuck!

I will not buy a quality Belgian, German, English or American etc... In a can for the same reason I would never buy an Amarone, Brunello, Sagrantino or Chateauneuf de Pape in a box if it were offered.

Plus cans make beer look like shit. It's a turn off when I think I'm in the soda aisle. Let's be honest. I remember when presentation was everything in craft beer. Now we have many breweries making seltzers and light lagers. Talk about selling out!

 

i like this guy

 

Coors has historically had a technical side. In the 70s and 80s I worked in a lab that used specialized high-alumina crucibles for heat treatments to 2000F. One of the major suppliers was a Coors subsidy. That subsidy had produced a variety of ceramic and porcelain products for most of the 20th century, and was instrumental in developing the aluminum can for beer. The ceramics business has since been spun off as CoorsTek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoorsTek
My opinion of can beer technology today is that, at its best, it protects beer extremely well for the intermediate term (6 mo. or a year). Long term (years) the linings may partially degrade, with some of flakes falling into the liquid, and exposing the beer to bare metal (this suggested from a youtube evaluation of years-old canned beer). Glass is essentially inert to beer, and itself will not cause beer to degrade. Canning beer is a highly technological process (illustrated by the description of the Coors lab). I think small runs and crowler packaging would be less reliable, and the beer should probably be drunk soon after packaging. I am not too worried about the health risks myself, but I'm not drinking much of anything from a can.

 

Jack, this is interesting considering the source. I was baffled by an issue with a New Realm beer last year. I have had their Munich Dunkel multiple times on draft at the brewery and at a restaurant. It's quite good, detected no issues. Last fall I grabbed a six pack from a store for the first time. Every can had a strange off flavor that was not in any draft version. I know he mentioned problems seemed to pop up in highly acidic beers but now I wonder if there was an issue with the can liner for that batch of Dunkel.

 

You and I are on the same page regarding the use of cans. Wine people would never accept cans as packaging for their fine wine. Unfortunately, the small local brewers in my area are using cans as their packaging. I suppose canning equipment is less expensive than bottling equipment.

If I purchase canned beer, I try to consume the beer quickly. Placing an acidic liquid into a metal container lined with plastic does not appear to be suitable for long term storage.

Regarding appearance, there are so many cool appearing bottle styles. I know I am an odd ball here, but I miss the 22 ounce bombers and the 750 ml corked and caged bottles. When Anchor started shipping their magnum OSA bottles to SW PA after our case law was eased, I always made sure I purchased a magnum each Christmas.

 

Canned wine is one the rise. Not taking on the top end of the wine market from what I've seen (although, price wise the same is true of beer) but there's canned wine that is priced at the equivalent of $30-40 bottles.