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.