| You are making assumptions with no backup. Just because the can does
| not state anything about BPA you cannot say it has it.

I assume for my purposes that it has BPA because it
doesn't say otherwise. Why not? These are cans of
organic tomatoes. I'm paying extra for good quality.
If the WF version is not using BPA they'd be crazy not
to say that. If the other brand says non-BPA I'll buy that
instead. Many of the WF customers care. In fact, more
people probably care about BPA than about organic. It's
a less controversial issue.


If you really want to research it, here's a link I found in a
few seconds:

http://bpafreecannedfood.wordpress.c...d-food-brands/

It says that as of 2012 WF was using about 27%
non-BPA cans, claiming that they can't get more.
But it sounds like you don't really want to know. You're
one of those people who prefers not to know how the
sausage is made. And such people get annoyed when
someone tells them, because it complicates their life.

| Your assumption that they are not sending "the best
| ones" is wrong also. I've had involvement in the private
| label industry in the past. Most often, it is identical.

So you say. But you're the same person who doesn't
care about BPA in cans, aren't you?

There may be truth in what you're saying, but again
it makes sense for my purposes to assume lower quality.
The actual food producer does not have their name
on the product. It's a matter of simple common sense
and human nature that if they can fulfill their contract
with lesser quality stock -- saving the better stock for
their own label -- then they would do that. Wouldn't
you? You've grown 3 truckloads of tomatoes. Shaws
wants to buy one for their store brand. One truckload
is a bit funky, from a poorly producing field, but certainly
good enough for market, while the other two truckloads
are extremely good. Do you send one of the better
truckloads to Shaws? (There's no such thing as identical
when it comes to fresh food.)