SIGG - Still Not Green and Here's Why

Perfectly clear morning, more color popping up.


It is time to update some facts and commentary with regard to the previous SIGG vs Klean Kanteen blog. There are 3 areas of "greenness" that I would like to update and clarify.

At the top of the list is the amount of energy required to make the product, its carbon footprint and pollution, typically the first and most important eco criteria of any "environmental" product.

First stainless steel. There is no doubt that producing stainless steel is energy intensive and grossly polluting, pumping out 2-8 tons of CO2 per ton of steel. Using recycled steel greatly reduces CO2 by as much as 60-75%. Luckily this has been common practice for so long that 66% of the steel is from recycled steel. A Klean Kanteen spokes person verified that their steel is 50% recycled content prior to the introduction of the alloys. In addition, there is no lead in either aluminum or stainless steel, the seams in the KK bottles are welded (melted) not soldered.

The manufacturing of virgin aluminum is more polluting than steel, releasing 18 tons of CO2 per ton of aluminum. One source says that manufacturing aluminum releases 10 times the CO2 vs steel, per ton. The manufacturing of aluminum is responsible for 1% of the CO2 released world wide with most of the energy needed in the initial smelting phase. Using recycled aluminum saves 95% of the energy, CO2 and pollution. Recycled aluminum offers the greatest opportunity of reducing CO2 compared to any other recyclable product while at the same time not losing any of its integrity.

In the perfect world we would have a water bottle made out of impervious non-breakable 100% recycled content glass. But our world isn't perfect and so we pick and choose what's next in line. With Carbon Footprint in mind, using part recycled stainless steel over virgin aluminum wins hands down. If all the soda cans can have a high recycled content, so can SIGG. I will maintain my position on this as I find it incomprehensible that SIGG washes itself environmental yet uses virgin aluminum, while recycled aluminum would only use 5% of the energy.

With regard to the potential of BPA in the SIGG lining, this is considered a product's chemical footprint. For review, SIGG's only one test for BPA did not show any BPA "detectable" above 2 parts per billion, PPB. They did not test below 2 PPB. Since my first blog about SIGG vs KK, more research has shown disturbing findings of hormonal disruption from gender bending chemicals - BPA, Phthalates and pesticides. In one study the serious affects of BPA showed at 1 PPB, with affects also down at 1 parts per trillion, PPT. The gold standard is to test using the calibration of PPT, parts per trillion, not PPB. SIGG claims 0% leaching but what they don't put in parenthesize is (above 2 PPB). Is this a big deal? My opinion is if genitalia are being deformed at PPT, then BPA seems to be a problem. BPA has traditionally been part of an epoxy mix and until proven innocent, I think it is fair to be cautious given that continued research shows that minute levels of gender benders do bend the genders. A quote from Environmental Defense of Canada, "Concentrations at much lower levels (parts per trillion) have been found to cause adverse health effects in animal studies." From a biological stand point, humans are part of the animal world.

The last area is labor issues. Most of us would prefer if products were made in our own back yard (unless it is polluting then its okay to have it made in China) (you know that is sarcasm, right?), employing our neighbors and feeding our own economy. I am not happy that KK is made in China, and as a reminder, the new SIGG stainless steel bottles are also made in China. So KK visits their factories 4-5 times per year and SIGG says they have full-time employees located there. I am not sure where "there" is - could be in the next city over - but I hope to find out. Either way, being made in China goes against the grain of many. However, the global economy is here to stay. China is where the steel is made. So either, you don't get steel, or you work with China to change and improve their labor issues. Both SIGG and KK have tried to be responsible in addressing this labor issue. Some small stainless steel water bottle makers have no idea where the factories are even located. So at least the 2 biggest manufacturers of water bottles are taking steps to insure good manufacturing practices. Not my preference by any means, but it is a start. As consumers, it is our job to hold companies accountable for their labor conditions - so go forth and question. China has been in hot water recently but it is also a huge country. Just like we would not want the world to assume that all of our banks are corrupt, (my local bank is fantastic) so we should not assume that all of China has bad working conditions. To do so is...uh...prejudice.

So let me recap:
1 - Klean Kanteen's partly recycled stainless steel produces 10 times less CO2 than SIGG's virgin aluminum..and the winner is...Klean Kanteen.

2 - Klean Kanteen's food grade stainless steel is not lined while SIGG's aluminum is lined with an undisclosed epoxy lining that has not been tested below 2 PPB, where levels show birth and genitalia abnormalities... and the winner is... Klean Kanteen.

3 - Klean Kanteen's factories are in China, supervised and visited 4-5 times per year. SIGG's aluminum bottles are made in Switzerland and the stainless steel bottles are made in China with full time employees. It is my opinion that you can not assume that a factory in a given country has a given working condition. Yes there are trends to be sure, but the subjectiveness of this comparison can not guarantee anything...and if there has to be a winner...SIGG.

So in summary, my personal eco criteria considers carbon footprint first, followed by chemical footprint, followed by social footprint. This is an environmental blog first, not a humanitarian blog, though it does not diminish my personal interest and commitment to social and labor issues. Therefore, I stand by my original assessment which is: SIGG aluminum water bottles are not green in and of themselves, only in that they are reusable, and that Klean Kanteen is the greenest choice for reusable water bottles.

Whew.

SIGG vs Klean Kanteen - No Contest (Madonna and Crawford got hoodwinked)

Crazy hazy today.

And the winner is...Klean Kanteen. Hands down, no question. And here's why:

Let's first compare the two. SIGG is a single walled (though they just started making doubled walled in China) aluminum water bottle, made in Switzerland out of virgin aluminum (with aluminum being the best truly recyclable material, this is not very eco after all) that is lined with a softish amber (it has to be lined) "epoxy based resin". SIGG is adamant that it is not a plastic but based on the definition of an epoxy, I don't know how that can be. Their slick CEO Steve Wasik does a nifty tap dance and never fully answers questions about the lining and passes it off to the makers wanting to hold the info. His words seem carefully chosen and vague.

Klean Kanteen is a solid, food grade, 18/8 stainless steel bottle that is not lined, made responsibly in China. Virgin stainless steel is almost unheard of which makes stainless steel appealing for it's high recycled content and its recyclable ability. Stainless steel is next in line to glass in terms of safety with a few concerns about nickel or chromium leaching. Luckily, our bodies actually need a minimum level of each for functioning and are capable of processing it. After all we cook and brew with food grade stainless steel.

So the real issue comes down to this. What the heck is the lining in the SIGG bottles made of? I mean give us the whole story, full disclosure, the ingredients - let's have it.

No one knows. It's a secret. Maybe a dirty little secret.

SIGG claims it can't divulge the lining ingredients for fear of copy cats. They claim their proprietary right to secrecy like Coca-Cola. Last I saw, the ingredients were on a coke can. There is a lot of discussion on green forums about the subject, much back and forth between the faithfuls. However, in the Land of Green, this lack of transparency just doesn't cut it. SIGG boasts meeting FDA requirements which as most of us know is pretty meaningless. So what are they hiding? Me thinks BPA.

BPA, bisphenol A, a chemical used for decades in resins, plastics and epoxy, has gotten a huge amount of press lately because of its ability to leach and cause health problems. Epoxy was co-invented by a Swiss, Dr. Pierre Caston, back in 1936 when he got an amber colored solid by mixing epichlorhydrin with...BPA. What a coincidence. As a severe hormone disruptor, BPA has been shown to cause many problems in animal studies even at very low levels, so much so that Canada has proposed banning BPA in baby bottles. Canada takes the better safe than sorry road. Yeh Canader, eh? BPA has recently been tested and found in canned foods in the range of 1.6 to 10 or more parts per billion, or PPB. Testing also can also take place at the smaller parts per trillion level, or PPT. In animal studies, very low levels of BPA in PPT have caused cell damage and cancer due to hormone disruption.

SIGG offers an independent study of their bottles to show their safety levels, though not exactly independent since SIGG paid for it. SIGG claims their bottles have been regularly tested extensively in Europe but have yet to cough up any studies despite being hounded. At close examination of this one independent study, the testers used a LOQ (limit of quantitation) of 2 PPB, which means they don't test for accuracy below that level. And in the scientific world, below the LOQ can be called zero, nothing, nada or "undetectable", because the calibration used doesn't go below the LOQ. How conveeeeenient. What's disturbing is that this gave SIGG permission to then claim that the test showed NO BPA leaching from their bottles. Now that's just plain twisting the truth as I see it. If tests can use the parts per trillion range, yet the chemistry lab uses a LOQ of 2 parts per billion and then declares the product BPA free, well ... you can draw your own conclusion. The lab was very careful in its wording saying that "no BPA was detectable above the LOQ". So if you're hanging your hat on this one, paid by SIGG study and declare SIGG totally safe, I have a covered bridge to sell you.

SIGG's marketing is nothing short of genius with long established tentacles and celeb endorsements but this dark shadow isn't going to go away. SIGG makes a big deal about great quality because of being Swiss Made (that's like saying if you've done this and that, you qualify for president) but SIGG was quick to go to China when they introduced their stainless steel bottles. Its time to look behind the curtain and find out the truth behind the lining. Until such time, I will stick to Klean Kanteen. I believe SIGG is hiding something, and you should too.

So don't just sit there. Write SIGG and ask for full disclosure. Write the EWG and ask them to do independent testing on SIGG bottles using PPT (parts per trillion). Don't settle for evasive answers or no answers at all. Don't be duped by fancy colors and cool designs, like Madonna and Crawford were.

Be healthy and safe drinking.