Understanding your packaging down to a can’s liner is imperative when launching a cannabis beverage brand. I sat down with Scott Fore, co-founder of VulCan, a can manufacturer, to better understand the nuances of can materials and construction—and how they can significantly impact taste, consistency, cannabinoid efficacy, and shelf stability.

According to Fore, one of the most overlooked challenges in cannabis beverages is what happens inside the can after filling. Traditional spray-lined aluminum cans often rely on interior coatings that can create variability or porous pockets where cannabinoids may adhere over time, potentially reducing labeled potency and forcing brands to over formulate THC upfront to compensate. VulCan’s licensed aTULC (Aluminum Toyo Ultimate Can) technology uses a pre-laminated PET liner applied at the aluminum coil stage rather than being sprayed after manufacturing, creating a more uniform, inert barrier between the liquid and the metal. The result, says Fore, is zero metal contact, improved flavor preservation, reduced flavor shift, and a more stable environment for cannabinoid emulsions.

“It allows our products or beverages to have a longer shelf life, no flavor shift, and in the case of cannabis, because it’s a very stable, clean, and uniform liner, there are no porous pockets for the cannabinoids to attach to the side walls and lessen the efficacy,” says Fore.

PET Liner Technology and Cannabinoid Stability

Fore also points to PET’s compatibility with cannabis emulsions, as many brands are already formulating and delivering beverages in PET-based environments. This continuity can help brands better maintain compliance around stability, consistency, and THC label claims over time. However, he emphasizes that every formulation is different, and that brands must work closely with emulsion suppliers to conduct compatibility testing tailored to their specific ingredients, manufacturing environment, and shelf-life requirements. Additionally, cans should be run through the co-manufacturer’s system to ensure they are compatible with existing filling and packaging machinery.

Beyond product integrity, Fore argues the business case may be just as compelling. VulCan’s materials suggest brands could reduce or eliminate costly THC “overdosing,” extend validated shelf life, and potentially shift to fewer, larger production runs—an operational change that may lower inbound freight, receiving, and handling costs over time. Fore also points to possible co-packer efficiencies through reduced changeovers and improved line utilization, along with lower recall or product write-off risk tied to potency drift.

Formulating for “Hard-to-Hold” Beverage Categories

Fore says VulCan’s technology is built for “hard-to-hold” formulations like cannabis, including beverages with low or high pH, elevated chloride levels, hydration drinks, alkaline waters, and high-ABV alcohol products. These categories can add stress to traditional spray-lined cans due to acidity, alkalinity, salts, solvents, or other formulation variables that may affect flavor, shelf life, or packaging stability over time. VulCan positions its pre-laminated PET liner as a more uniform, inert barrier that minimizes direct liquid-to-metal contact and may offer greater consistency for beverages with chemically aggressive or formulation-sensitive profiles.

For cannabis beverages, that is especially relevant because cannabinoid emulsions can present additional stability challenges. In this case, the company argues that a more stable liner may help preserve not just flavor and shelf life, but also potency and label accuracy.

The Printing Choices

Fore notes that today’s beverage companies generally have four primary can decoration options, each with different cost structures, speed-to-market advantages, and operational trade-offs.

Conventional printing remains the dominant large-scale method, using traditional printing plates for high-volume runs. While efficient for established brands producing major quantities, it often requires more setup time and higher minimums.

Pressure-sensitive labels (PSL)—commonly seen with smaller breweries or pilot beverage brands. This method applies paper or adhesive labels to cans and offers flexibility for short runs, though it often results in a less-integrated premium finish.

Shrink sleeves wrap the can in a heat-applied plastic film, allowing for bold, full-can graphics and design versatility, though they may add material complexity and sustainability considerations.

Digital printing, one of the industry’s newer advances, is increasingly valued for agility. Rather than requiring physical ink plates, brands can upload a digital file and print directly inline, significantly reducing setup time and making smaller production runs more economically viable. This can be especially useful for emerging beverage brands, test markets, seasonal SKUs, or fast-moving cannabis and functional beverage categories where speed and flexibility matter. Fore notes that digital printing has become more commercially viable in recent years, particularly as capabilities have expanded to print on more areas of the can, such as the neck and bottom rim.

For newer cannabis and hemp beverage brands, choosing the right print method can be just as strategic as selecting the right liner technology.

Labeling Rules You Can’t Ignore

Another major packaging challenge for THC beverage brands is regulatory fragmentation. Fore notes that state-by-state labeling and compliance requirements can add a significant layer of operational complexity and cost, particularly for emerging brands trying to scale efficiently across multiple markets.

Because packaging rules, THC disclosures, warning language, serving sizes, and other compliance details may vary by state, brands often can’t rely on a single universal can design. Instead, they may need multiple packaging versions tailored to specific jurisdictions until clearer federal standards emerge. That can create added expenses in design, inventory management, and production planning—especially when brands must forecast which markets justify large-scale conventional runs versus smaller, state-specific batches.

Operators producing at scale may choose to standardize packaging for clusters of states with similar regulations while relying on more flexible solutions—such as digital printing, shrink sleeves, or pressure-sensitive labels—for lower-volume or highly customized markets. As Fore explains, these adaptable print methods can be especially valuable for newer brands still testing markets, allowing them to avoid committing to massive inventory levels before demand is proven.

While direct manufacturing requires minimums that can be substantial, Fore points out that startups and smaller operators can access VulCan cans through packaging distributors that offer lower minimums. This distributor model can give early-stage brands a more accessible entry point into premium can technology without immediately taking on full-scale pallet commitments, making it easier to test products, enter select markets, and scale strategically.

Until broader federal standardization arrives, Fore suggests cannabis beverage operators continue to treat their packaging and labeling strategy as a core part of market expansion planning.