Search
2 results for bpa in Brands.
Brands (2)
- PackItPackIt makes the freezable lunch bag with the gel built into its walls, and it is specific about chemistry: its safety page says the products are made from "food-safe, nontoxic poly canvas and EVA" and are "free of harmful PVC, BPA, phthalates, formaldehyde and lead," and that they are tested by independent accredited laboratories against Proposition 65 and CPSIA limits. Those are the company's statements. It names no laboratory and publishes no report, and there is no certifier's register on which to check them, which is why the grade is acceptable rather than recommended. Two gaps are worth knowing before you buy: the product page says the lining is antimicrobial without naming the agent, and the company does not say what the freezable gel is made of. We found no recall in CPSC's database or openFDA, no California Proposition 65 notice and no product-safety or consumer-protection case in federal court under PackIt or PackIt, LLC as of 2026-10-12. It is majority-owned by Tenth Avenue Holdings, a holding company based in New York; whether the founder retains a stake is not stated. Brand
- Wild PlanetWild Planet is on our BPA pages for its written can-lining position, which we re-read on 2026-10-25 and which still says what our pages quote: "All of Wild Planet's current products are packed in cans that do not have the intentional addition of BPA in the can lining formulation." That is the company's own statement, not a certification. Its December 2019 statement on BPA explains why it does not say "BPA-free": it says third-party tests of its newly formulated cans found trace amounts of BPA, and that it later dropped even "No BPA used in can lining" from its labels to avoid giving customers a false assurance. The same is true of its mercury figures, which are averages from the company's own annual testing: 0.067 ppm for skipjack against an FDA action limit of 1.0 ppm. The Non-GMO Project's product register lists 37 Wild Planet products, including products named like all three we pick (checked 2026-10-25); Non-GMO Project Verified covers GMO avoidance only, not what is in the can, so it does not raise our grade. We found no certification that does (the company says it "has elected to not use the Marine Stewardship Council"), which is why the grade is acceptable and not higher: the safety claims here are the company's own. We found no FDA enforcement record under any Wild Planet or Bolton name in openFDA (data through 2026-10-14). One older USDA matter exists: in October 2016 a co-packer recalled canned Wild Planet Organic Roasted Chicken Breast over possible foreign matter; it closed in 2017 and is a product we do not list. What a reader should know sits on the legal side, and most of it concerns sardines rather than the skipjack tuna and sockeye salmon we list. California's Proposition 65 register holds thirty-one notices since 2020 naming Wild Planet or its Sustainable Seas label: twenty-four concern sardines, five concern tuna products and two concern anchovies (one of them amends the other). A Proposition 65 notice alleges a missing warning label, not that the fish was found unsafe. Two of the sardine matters became California court cases, with no outcome recorded. Separately, a federal class action filed in August 2026 alleges undisclosed arsenic in one Wild Planet sardine product, a second federal case filed in September 2026 is open and unread, and an older pair of class actions alleging underfilled 5-ounce tuna cans settled in 2017 for a reported $1.7 million with no admission of liability. Each is an allegation no court has ruled on, or a fill-weight claim, not a safety finding. Brand