that sucks man, it does. my uncle died a horrible, painful death from pancreatic cancer a few years ago. I found out today my son may have a form of cancer and we are now scheduling appointments with a number of -ist's, to start figuring things out. optometrist, geneticists, neurologists, brain mapping MRI's, other -ists, too.

That being said, I simply do not believe that BPA in something is more dangerous than what we are getting from something. Meaning, we ingest more BPA from tap water than in the plastic cup you put it in. Meaning I would be more concerned about mercury or radiation in fish than the chemicals in a can of soup or the chlorine wash left on the peeled baby carrots I buy. I ate an apple the other day without washing it or rubbing it clean on my shirt. Do you know how many people could have touched that thing in the store before I did and the germs they had on their hands? That concerns me more than BPA. Someone sneezing into their hand and then trying to shake mine, concerns me more than BPA in food.

I am being contrarian. But I am being a realist. I personally don't want to pay more money just to read a label. Where does it stop where with the bleeding of money for the greater good. The manufactures should choose or be told to do so on their end. Will that get past down, probably but to stick a label on it as BPA-free just to raise the price and feel better about yourself (globally, not you specifically Spud) is as self serving as those that put BPA free on bottles that never had it to begin with. Or when companies put 'trans fat free' on products that never had trans fat to begin with.