"... sell its coating in the United States, branded as valPure V70. It has been used in 22 billion cans since 2017. That’s a modest fraction of the estimated 350 billion aluminum beverage cans and 100 billion steel food cans produced each year worldwide."
I'd prefer to use these cans over the BPA alternative.
I have a friend who used to work in the coatings lab for PPG circa 2007. He had a handful of chemicals to choose from that he would blend and test until the outcome fit the manufacturing requirements. It was not tested for toxicity before it was sent on to manufacturers and into your soda/veggie can.
The article implies a bit more of a mixed bag than that. Some were promising and some were troubling. I'm not a chemist but I think the most generous stance to give would be "cautiously optimistic" and I still think that's overselling it based on what I just read.
"Outside researchers didn’t deliver uniformly good news, however. Valspar approached scientists at Baylor Medical School, who found that TMBPF blunted estrogen’s effect on test cells and that a polymer made from the molecule had a similar effect on testosterone, according to a 2017 paper in PLOS ONE. Adam Szafran, a molecular biologist who helped lead the research, says the findings weren’t conclusive and could be specific to the prostate cells they tested.
"Mallen acknowledges that those results raise questions about the compound. But he says company-sponsored research showed that changes in test cells don’t translate into effects on an entire organism. That study, published online in Food and Chemical Toxicology in October 2019, showed no endocrine-related effects on rats fed TMBPF for 3 months."
The chance that this is a fairly safe chemical (or at the very least, a safer substitute for BPA) seems pretty promising so far. Of course, more studies should be and are planned to be done.
Call me skeptical.
That's not true. Soto, Maier, Maffini and Zoeller, all outside researchers, had findings in favor of TMBPF. I suppose it's fine to be skeptical though.
It isn't unfathomable for a single study, pro or negative, to uncover a previously unconsidered test variable or other complication and it is entirely indicative that a followup study which has a larger sample size and better controls needs to be conducted to obtain more solid evidence.
Edit: I see it could be implied in my original comment that there was never any testing whatsoever. I apologize.