70/ 100
C
OverallF52/100
Diamond Pet Foods Pacific Stream Puppy Food

Taste of the Wild · Pet Food Bags

Diamond Pet Foods Pacific Stream Puppy Food

C · Moderate

Lower concern for the kibble itself, but bag lining history is not transparent.

Verdict: BuyPet food bag hazards are minimal; polyethylene lining is food-contact safe. PFAS transparency gap and bag lining history warrant monitoring but not avoidance.

Diamond Pet Foods (Taste of the Wild) does not disclose PFAS in its packaging materials. The product is dry pet food in a standard kibble bag; the kibble itself is unlikely to contain intentional PFAS, but pet food bag linings have historically used Teflon-family coating in some brands for grease-resistance.

Shop Taste of the Wild on Amazon →

Material

Paper/cardboard kibble bag with standard polyethylene lining

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Category baseline

food packaging is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Diamond Pet Foods Pacific Stream bags use standard paper/cardboard exterior with polyethylene (PE) film lining, a conventional food-packaging construction. The PE liner serves as a moisture barrier and oxygen barrier to preserve kibble freshness and prevent rancidity of the fish-oil content in this formula. PE is considered food-contact safe by FDA when virgin resin is used, though older recycled PE stock can pose contamination risk. The kibble itself contains no known problematic additives based on ingredient disclosure, though specific sourcing and manufacturing controls are not independently verified.

The brand's record and disclosure

Taste of the Wild (Diamond Pet Foods Inc., owned by Schell & Kampeter) does not publish detailed third-party testing results or formal PFAS statements for bag materials. The brand has not faced major FDA recalls or safety violations on record in recent years, but transparency on film supplier certification and PFAS testing is absent. No independent certifications (e.g., NSF, SQF) specific to bag materials are publicly documented. This silence on bag chemistry is typical for pet food manufacturers but leaves consumers without verification that PE liners meet non-PFAS sourcing standards.

How it compares in its category

Pet food bags with PE lining are industry standard; alternatives (paper-only, compostable film, glass) exist but are rare and more expensive. Taste of the Wild occupies the premium-pet-food segment, marketed as grain-free and high-protein, but does not differentiate on packaging material safety compared to mainstream brands (Purina, Royal Canin) or smaller competitors (Primal, Stella & Chewy's). Compared to budget kibble bags, this product uses thicker-gauge lining, which may reduce migration risk, but no published comparative testing supports this claim.

If you buy it

Store unopened bags in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight and heat (above 75°F can accelerate PE degradation and odor leaching). Once opened, transfer kibble to an airtight glass or food-grade plastic container to prevent oxidation and minimize any residual bag-lining off-gassing in the bowl. Inspect bags for punctures, discoloration, or unusual odor before purchase; if present, request exchange. Replace bags every 6-8 weeks even if partially full to avoid rancid fat exposure, especially important for sensitive puppies.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Polyethylene (PE) lining migration and off-gassing

PE itself is not acutely toxic, but additives (slip agents, antioxidants, heat stabilizers) used in film production can migrate into kibble if lining is damaged or degraded. No recall or test report specific to Taste of the Wild bags exists, but industry-wide PE migration is a known phenomenon at high storage temperatures. Risk is low at normal storage but increases if bag is stored near heat sour

None known

Ink and print contamination on bag exterior

Taste of the Wild bags use standard flexographic inks; exterior print should not contact kibble if the PE liner is intact. No recalls or public complaints linking bag print to contamination are on record. Risk is negligible if bag is handled normally and not stored with exterior print pressed against kibble.

None known

Mold and bacterial growth in unopened bag

PE lining is designed to prevent moisture ingress and microbial colonization. No endemic batch contamination issues are documented for this brand. Risk is minimal if bags are stored in dry conditions below 60% humidity; high moisture or temperature fluctuations during shipping or storage can create conditions for mold, but this is a handling issue, not a product defect.

Reported

Grain-free diet toxicity (unrelated to packaging)

This is a grain-free formula; the FDA has investigated links between grain-free pet foods and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs, though causation remains unclear and no definitive recall has been issued. Taste of the Wild is among brands mentioned in adverse event reports. This is a kibble formulation concern, not a bag safety issue, but relevant to overall product safety assessment.

Possible

PFAS in polyethylene film lining (materials sourcing)

PE film suppliers sometimes use aqueous-film-forming foams (AFFF) or PFAS-based additives in manufacturing; without supplier certification or testing transparency, presence cannot be ruled out. Taste of the Wild provides no public statement on PFAS-free sourcing. Risk to the kibble itself is low (food contact time is brief), but incineration of bags post-use can release PFAS if present.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

More pet food bags grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.