Does SIGG Owe Consumers New BPA-Free Water Bottles?
August 21, 2009 by Jennifer
In a previous review here at Tree Hugging Family, Peggy, former Tree Hugging Family writer advocated for the use of SIGG bottles over plastic water bottles and gave a nice (and favorable) review of SIGG’s bottle. I liked her review as did other readers. While there were some arguments in the comments, overall I think most people agree that SIGG is a responsible choice over plastic disposable water bottles.
Peggy’s SIGG Bottle Above – not so BPA free
That said there have been some developments over the past couple of days regarding SIGG and the safety of their bottles. Since we did post a review here, I felt like we should update you all on the situation. SIGG’s CEO Steve Wasik just announced that “SIGG bottles manufactured prior to August 2008 have the former water-based epoxy liner which contains trace amounts of BPA.” He goes on to say, “These bottles have been thoroughly tested and showed 0% leaching of BPA.”
But the leeching really isn’t the point is it? If you think you’re getting a BPA free product, you should, in fact get a BPA free product – no? Our old pal Peggy already posted her thoughts about this at her green blog Light Green Stairs and she points out some important things about why it matters that he’s even noting that there is BPA in the old liners.
Peggy writes:
Today, I feel very betrayed. In my Tree Hugging Family post, I defended SIGG’s decision to not disclose the ingredients of their liner since it was a proprietary secret. I also linked to a letter that was posted on mysigg.com, written by the President on March 12, 2007 in which he said:
I can assure you that SIGG bottles are absolutely not made with a plastic liner and are in fact lined with a proprietary non-toxic, water-based resin which has been refined over decades of study and is extremely safe & stable.
And he continued to state:
As you may know, the BPA issues surrounding Lexan plastic bottles (polycarbonate #7) involve the migration of chemicals from the plastic into the contents of the bottles. On the other hand, SIGG bottles have been thoroughly tested in Europe to ensure 0% leaching of any substance – no trace of BPA, BPB or any phthalates.
These are direct quotes from Steve Wasik, President SIGG USA.
AND BACK TO ME:
I’m a little miffed with SIGG and here’s why. One, although in that letter Peggy points to (the one back from 2007) Steve says that there’s no BPA in their liners, he writes in this new letter (from August 2009) that one BPA is just not all that bad going so far as to cite sources that note the safety of BPA and then goes on to say…
Despite the fact that these bottles (their old SIGG bottles) were manufactured well within strict international regulations and posed no health risk, my team and I initiated a project in June 2006 to develop a new liner which would be both BPA free and produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. We recognized early that there were questions surrounding BPA and we wanted to be sure that we had a bottle liner that you, our customers, could have absolute confidence in.
SO here’s the deal. He claims that the old SIGG bottles are BPA free, yet I’m somehow doubting that this came as a big old surprise to the company. They note that since 2006 they’ve been working on a new liner that would be BPA free. Why work on finding a BPA free solution if you already have one? You wouldn’t right? This is misleading consumers in a big way.
Peggy also notes:
“SIGG will have to go a very long way to win back the support of the green community. As part of making this right, I believe that SIGG should offer all consumers who purchased a SIGG prior to August 2008 (within reason) a free replacement bottle – IF they even want it. Contact SIGG.”
I agree. I think SIGG who did lie, owes consumers new bottles. People buy SIGG in order to have a healthy water bottle and the fact that BPA was present at all (leeching or not) is just pure lameness in my opinion.
AND if that’s not lame enough on its own Peggy also points out a fact I was not aware of, that SIGG challenged groups (like Organic Consumers Association) who accused their bottles of containing BPA, and even accepted an apology. It’s bad enough that consumers have to work so hard just to decipher the real green good from the greenwashed goods. Now we have to second guess what even trusted green brands say? Not cool. Read more about what’s so wrong with BPA.
Read Peggy’s entire post on this subject: SIGG Bottles Had BPA Before August 2008.
What do you think? Do you have an older SIGG, do you care that the company lied to you? AND do you think they owe consumers new bottles?
Thanks Jennifer for following up here. The stuff about the Organic Consumers Association can be found in the SIGG letter from 2007. It’s linked to in the old review I did here. The claim of BPA originally came from the Environmental Working Group and was picked up by the Organic Consumers Association in their newsletter. Apparently, everyone backed down and removed BPA claims from their websites back then. They couldn’t prove it, I guess.
Instead of admitting the traces of BPA in 2007, SIGG got all defensive.
Interesting… why does a metal bottle need a liner anyways?
Laura, because it’s made of aluminum. That may be the biggest problem. You have the coating so your drink doesn’t come in contact with the aluminum.
Not surprised. That is why I use a generic 100% steel water bottle. I bet in another few years tehy will find another toxic chemical in sigg’s liners. I am surprised by the amount of coverage Sigg has gotten over all steel bottles.
We don’t have aluminum pans in our house (cast iron and SS), and we certainly don’t have aluminum bottles. I have a number of discussions with friends who use Sigg and other aluminum bottles in the past, and they basically felt (usually even after talking) that their bottles were the real deal . . . Sigg did their marketing job well. I will be forwarding all this on to quite a few friends.
You’re welcome Peggy
@Erebus – some people don’t like to drink off stainless steel only though. I don’t mind – I have a Klean Kanteen, and some other 100% SS bottles, but some people hate not having a liner.
I think it is disturbing that the company would lie to consumers. They clearly mislead consumers, whether or not the bottles where harmful. there should be some legal actions against the company. they are going in the right direction but lying to your customers is never ok.
@Genergize agreed. Safety is a moot point. What’s more annoying is that they’re so shifty with their words. It doesn’t make you have much faith in a company. Who knows if what they say down the road will be true.
i bought at least five “sigg” steel water bottles (one even has a stupid “heavy metal” logo on it, but hey it was on sale). i also have sevaral other steel water bottles. The problem is that ONLY my sigg bottles leave a strange unpleasant taste to the water. That is when i started to research if anyone else had this issue. HELLO there seems to be a problem, YES my sigg bottles leave my water tasting bad after the water sits for a couple of days the nasty taste starts. It is almost like cholorine taste, which is not my water; since i have an amazing water filter that removes cholorine. Since my other steel bottles do not get my water tasting badly, i am now going to asume that it is because the sigg bottles are toxic! The problem is that the u.s.a seems to not offer it’s citizens any kind of real consumer protection against this kind of theft. Does anyone have any suggestions? i went through the same crap over
“martha stewart” brand, her sheets and duvets from Pakistan were treated with some toxic (smelled like gasoline) stuff even after i washed them, my whole garage smelled like a gas station. All they offered me was my money back!
i never even recieved an apology from the company even after i wrote the store and the “martha stewart” company expressing my disapointment.
Sad to say as consumers in this country we are offered no compensation for time and money spent to repair the damage. You have to wonder how much poison we are consuming from so called “safe” products and how much it will effect us down the road.
Thank you for any wise comments. eileen