Such a beautiful morning, the balloons are out.
They did it, finally, bravo Canada! An entire country, Canada, banned the use of BPA by declaring it toxic. Bisphenol-A (it just sounds toxic, eh?) , known as BPA, was banned two years ago by Canada for baby bottles. I think it was their idea of baby steps back then, but we'll take it today.
In the event that you have been sailing the South Pacific for 2 years and need some updates on BPA, I have some previous posts about the toxic chemical. (toxic is not just my word, it is now Canada's)
Several countries around the world have been dabbling with various partial bans, but Canada is the first country to label BPA toxic which requires it to be removed from products that humans come in contact with, like canned foods, water bottles and, oh wow, cash register receipts.
This will be a tall order for sure but it's a start. It is also a message to the chemical industry to clean up their act and stop using cheap hormone disrupting, gender-bender chemicals in the name of progress. (there are alternatives, they just cost a little more) Lucky for Canadians, the money hungry chemical companies just couldn't squash this move. Unlucky for us, the all too powerful chemical industry has, well, just too much power. Some would say, follow the money.
Kudos to Canada. May we benefit from Canada's ban on BPA and give strength to our own legislatures to do the right thing. Are you listening America?
Showing posts with label bisphenol A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bisphenol A. Show all posts
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Saturday, August 22, 2009
SIGG and BPA - Treehugger Got Hoodwinked
Full rainbow and just spectacular.
SIGG's confession about BPA, bisphenol-A, being in their water bottle lining has shocked the eco world. Almost equally as shocking has been Treehugger's un-in depth reporting about SIGG's containing or leaching BPA issue, which began over a year ago, with their loose endorsement of SIGG's BPA-Free claim. (Could it have anything to do with SIGG and other big green companies who also sell SIGG and their own aluminum water bottles that contain BPA being big time advertisers on Treehugger?) Treehugger's last posting as of this writing ends with "Safe (SIGG)? Yes." Did Treehugger get hoodwinked and can't admit it?
Really? Lloyd Alter, after 4 postings and an ambush of comments still comes to the conclusion that SIGGs are safe? Is he for real? I'm not going to take the absolute position that they are unsafe but I do question those who claim "safe". That is a pretty tall (high on yourself?) order to make. Treehugger even quoted SNEWS, which was tougher on SIGG, and then wimped out in the end. So you're telling me that all pregnant moms and and little beings are perfectly safe sucking on SIGG bottles knowing that we don't know whether they leach below 2 PPB (because it has never been tested) , knowing that we do know (now) they contain BPA in the lining, that we do not know what the ingredients are in the new secret eco-care liner and knowing that Canada, States and Cities have taken the precautionary approach and have banned BPA products for under age 3 because for safety concerns? That's interesting that an entire Country bans BPA due to safety concerns while Lloyd Alter (who's out of Canada) concludes SIGG is safe. WOW.
To continue to make the claim of safety based on such little fact is irresponsible. We don't have the facts in about the safety of BPA since that is ongoing as we speak. We do know that BPA in very small amounts, PPT, is causing fetal and developmental damage. Scientists are working on this now. It is inconclusive for humans, (for some though very conclusive),but not looking good, which is why bans are continuing for precautionary reasons. This is why it is shocking that Lloyd Alter continues to say SIGG is safe.
But media attention is good, right? Even negative media attention is better than no attention at all. Unfortunately it rewards the liars, in this case SIGG. And that stinks.
And still no one is talking about the leaching of aluminum. The OKO Testing done in 2004 showed SIGG leaching aluminum. (you can find it on SIGG's competitor's site, Laken, but conveniently omitted from their own website.) But SIGG on their website says "ensure 0.0% leaching" of aluminum. Hmm, not adding up here either. Let's also be clear about these results. The level of testing was done at standards that are acceptable for drinking water purposes. These levels are high, otherwise most public water systems would fail. SIGG did leach aluminum but below these standards. OKO gave a very good rating for any water bottle that came in below these standards but very good does not mean no leaching. (this is deja vu, right?) This is the same BPA scenario all over again. SIGG then went out of their way to test stainless steel bottles so they could post it on their website to convince their customers of the dangers of stainless steel.
Let's face it, SIGG has cashed in on the water bottle craze using sleazy big corporate marketing tactics. It reminds me of Monsanto claiming on their website how happy their Indian farmers are using their GMO seeds back in 2002 and 2006 but omitting the recent update that these farmers are now committing suicide in the hundreds due to farming debt. Oops, sorry, minor detail omitted.
I've blogged in depth about SIGG and BPA before (see headlines on the right of this blog), and also about SIGG's "greenness". My first blog was over year ago when I didn't buy the BPA-free claim SIGG and Treehugger were making. I've said it before and I'll say it again...consumers have the right to know the ingredients of the products they purchase. Hiding behind "it's a proprietary secret" is deceptive, not transparent and definitely not real "green". Is this where I get to say "I told you so?"
SIGG led us to believe that SIGG was "BPA-Free". They refused to answer direct questions about the ingredients of their lining. They didn't directly lie but they sure danced around in order to satisfy the majority. This is the height of corporate deception. They have confessed that their old lining had BPA. They now claim their new eco-care liner is BPA-Free. Their certifications and testing are on their website and are pretty impressive. I am glad to see they meet Japan's standards since they are the highest in the world. SIGG's new lining sounds legitimately free of BPA and many other nasties. BUT Sigg's new lining is a proprietary secret. Doesn't this take us back to where we were before? That's like the shampoo bottles that list all the ingredients they don't have and then you look on the back only to find the word fragrance.
So my new questions for SIGG (are you may borrow for sure) are:
What are the ingredients in the new lining? (there might be a new gender bender that I would want to know about)
Will you be selling this wonderful new lining formula (and make millions to offset your development research) to the canned food industry so we may all benefit, including babies needing safe formula cans?
What long-term studies have been done on the new formula ingredient to insure safety?
May we have full access to these studies?
If a company can not answer these questions in an honest way, (it's okay to say I don't know) they don't deserve to be considered a "green" company. This is , in my opinion, the largest green washing, eco-deceptive, big business scam event ever. Shame on SIGG for giving false pretense to parents, pregnant mothers, children and the rest with regard to their lining and BPA.
SIGG's confession about BPA, bisphenol-A, being in their water bottle lining has shocked the eco world. Almost equally as shocking has been Treehugger's un-in depth reporting about SIGG's containing or leaching BPA issue, which began over a year ago, with their loose endorsement of SIGG's BPA-Free claim. (Could it have anything to do with SIGG and other big green companies who also sell SIGG and their own aluminum water bottles that contain BPA being big time advertisers on Treehugger?) Treehugger's last posting as of this writing ends with "Safe (SIGG)? Yes." Did Treehugger get hoodwinked and can't admit it?
Really? Lloyd Alter, after 4 postings and an ambush of comments still comes to the conclusion that SIGGs are safe? Is he for real? I'm not going to take the absolute position that they are unsafe but I do question those who claim "safe". That is a pretty tall (high on yourself?) order to make. Treehugger even quoted SNEWS, which was tougher on SIGG, and then wimped out in the end. So you're telling me that all pregnant moms and and little beings are perfectly safe sucking on SIGG bottles knowing that we don't know whether they leach below 2 PPB (because it has never been tested) , knowing that we do know (now) they contain BPA in the lining, that we do not know what the ingredients are in the new secret eco-care liner and knowing that Canada, States and Cities have taken the precautionary approach and have banned BPA products for under age 3 because for safety concerns? That's interesting that an entire Country bans BPA due to safety concerns while Lloyd Alter (who's out of Canada) concludes SIGG is safe. WOW.
To continue to make the claim of safety based on such little fact is irresponsible. We don't have the facts in about the safety of BPA since that is ongoing as we speak. We do know that BPA in very small amounts, PPT, is causing fetal and developmental damage. Scientists are working on this now. It is inconclusive for humans, (for some though very conclusive),but not looking good, which is why bans are continuing for precautionary reasons. This is why it is shocking that Lloyd Alter continues to say SIGG is safe.
But media attention is good, right? Even negative media attention is better than no attention at all. Unfortunately it rewards the liars, in this case SIGG. And that stinks.
And still no one is talking about the leaching of aluminum. The OKO Testing done in 2004 showed SIGG leaching aluminum. (you can find it on SIGG's competitor's site, Laken, but conveniently omitted from their own website.) But SIGG on their website says "ensure 0.0% leaching" of aluminum. Hmm, not adding up here either. Let's also be clear about these results. The level of testing was done at standards that are acceptable for drinking water purposes. These levels are high, otherwise most public water systems would fail. SIGG did leach aluminum but below these standards. OKO gave a very good rating for any water bottle that came in below these standards but very good does not mean no leaching. (this is deja vu, right?) This is the same BPA scenario all over again. SIGG then went out of their way to test stainless steel bottles so they could post it on their website to convince their customers of the dangers of stainless steel.
Let's face it, SIGG has cashed in on the water bottle craze using sleazy big corporate marketing tactics. It reminds me of Monsanto claiming on their website how happy their Indian farmers are using their GMO seeds back in 2002 and 2006 but omitting the recent update that these farmers are now committing suicide in the hundreds due to farming debt. Oops, sorry, minor detail omitted.
I've blogged in depth about SIGG and BPA before (see headlines on the right of this blog), and also about SIGG's "greenness". My first blog was over year ago when I didn't buy the BPA-free claim SIGG and Treehugger were making. I've said it before and I'll say it again...consumers have the right to know the ingredients of the products they purchase. Hiding behind "it's a proprietary secret" is deceptive, not transparent and definitely not real "green". Is this where I get to say "I told you so?"
SIGG led us to believe that SIGG was "BPA-Free". They refused to answer direct questions about the ingredients of their lining. They didn't directly lie but they sure danced around in order to satisfy the majority. This is the height of corporate deception. They have confessed that their old lining had BPA. They now claim their new eco-care liner is BPA-Free. Their certifications and testing are on their website and are pretty impressive. I am glad to see they meet Japan's standards since they are the highest in the world. SIGG's new lining sounds legitimately free of BPA and many other nasties. BUT Sigg's new lining is a proprietary secret. Doesn't this take us back to where we were before? That's like the shampoo bottles that list all the ingredients they don't have and then you look on the back only to find the word fragrance.
So my new questions for SIGG (are you may borrow for sure) are:
What are the ingredients in the new lining? (there might be a new gender bender that I would want to know about)
Will you be selling this wonderful new lining formula (and make millions to offset your development research) to the canned food industry so we may all benefit, including babies needing safe formula cans?
What long-term studies have been done on the new formula ingredient to insure safety?
May we have full access to these studies?
If a company can not answer these questions in an honest way, (it's okay to say I don't know) they don't deserve to be considered a "green" company. This is , in my opinion, the largest green washing, eco-deceptive, big business scam event ever. Shame on SIGG for giving false pretense to parents, pregnant mothers, children and the rest with regard to their lining and BPA.
Monday, July 21, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)