iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Elaine Shannon

Elaine Shannon

Posted: August 28, 2009 02:23 PM

Can SIGG Salvage Its Brand After BPA?


Last week, Steve Wasik, chief executive officer of SIGG Switzerland, made an astonishing admission: the company's aluminum water bottles manufactured before August 2008 had been made with epoxy resin that contains bisphenol A (BPA).

"The primary reason that I am writing this letter today is because I believe that the BPA conversation has changed dramatically in the last 12 months," Wasik said in a "bulletin" posted on the SIGG website. "Last year, the primary concern was that of BPA leaching from bottles. Since that time the dialogue has evolved such that now some people are concerned about the mere presence of BPA and some states are considering legislation."

Which sounds a lot like -- Oh, that BPA.

Wasik's disclosure marks a stunning about-face. Back in March 2007, as other bottle makers were struggling to cope with the burgeoning furor over their use of plastics based on BPA, a synthetic sex hormone, Wasik posted a statement on the company website asserting, "We understand the controversy and concern surrounding BPA leaching from plastic water bottles and can assure you that SIGG bottles are leach-free and 100% safe."

It's hard to see Wasik's posture as anything but cynical. To be fair, he didn't say point blank that SIGG bottles contained no BPA. He said they didn't leach BPA. He decided, on his own authority, that consumers didn't want or need to know more.

And if others failed to parse his artfully worded statements, he didn't bother to correct them. His March 2007 reassurance to customers quoted an email from a consumer advocacy group that said, in part, "SIGG bottles do not contain BPAs."

Around the same time, a SIGG public relations representative engaged in a heated dialogue with Environmental Working Group over the nature of SIGG's liner wrote in an email that the company was seeking to "assure dealers, press and consumers that come to us asking questions that there is no BpA in SIGG products."

Maybe the PR man didn't know the facts. But Steve Wasik did. And he didn't set the record straight.

The mistaken perception that SIGG bottles were BPA-free very likely boosted the company's position in the growing reusable bottle market. Wasik, profiled by Fortune/Small Business Magazine as a "marketing whiz," joined the Swiss company in 2005 and promptly launched a high-profile advertising campaign touting the company's committment to the environment and featuring eco-stars Cameron Diaz and Julia Roberts. Wasik's strategy paid off: in November 2007, Advertising Age reported that SIGG sales had spiked 250 percent between 2006 and 2007 and that U.S. outlets selling SIGG wares had multiplied from 400 to more than 1,300.

Not surprisingly, many consumers who bought SIGG bottles because they thought they could avoid dosing themselves and their families with BPA, which scientists have shown to disrupt the endocrine system and trigger a range of serious conditions, are now expressing outrage.

What's the difference between drinking from a metal bottle with a plastic liner and a plastic bottle?

As far as we're concerned - none.

To add insult to injury, in last week's bulletin, Wasik informed consumers that he foresaw the BPA firestorm as early as mid-2006 and set out to develop a non-BPA alternative:

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. After two years of comprehensive testing and development and a one million dollar investment in new equipment for our Swiss factory, SIGG began producing bottles with our new, next generation "EcoCare" liner in August 2008.

"EcoCare," he went on to say, is a "special powder-based co-polyester liner certified to be 100% BPA and Phthalate Free."

Notice that he didn't say what's actually in EcoCare. That remains a mystery, just as the nature of SIGG's pre-August 2008 lining was suspected but unconfirmed -- until last week.

SIGG vs EWG

SIGG's campaign to disassociate itself from BPA involved EWG. Back in March 2007, Wasik and his aides challenged an EWG report said that "many metal water bottles, such as those sold by the brand Sigg, are lined with a plastic coating that contains BPA."

As it turned out, EWG's information was right on the money. But within a day after EWG's report went online, SIGG threatened to sue EWG for "damaging its brand reputation."

Wasik demanded a letter that EWG had "no knowledge or information that SIGG bottles pose any kind of health risk." The company refused to provide data to support this statement, so we politely declined.

However, since we had decided not to name the brands of canned food we had tested for BPA contamination, we removed SIGG's brand name from our consumer guide on how to avoid BPA exposure.

Wasik posted his own statement on the SIGG website attacking EWG's report. He added:

SIGG bottles 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.... SIGG bottles have been thoroughly tested in Europe to ensure 0% leaching of any substance - no trace of BPA, BPB or any phthalates...We are upset about the misinformation which has circulated and are working feverishly to clear the good name of SIGG.

Wasik even disputed EWG's description of SIGG's bottle liner as "plastic." It's hard to understand why. Plastic is a generic term that encompasses a wide variety of flexible man-made materials. The "Facts on Plastic" website of the American Chemistry Council, the Washington-based lobby for the chemical and plastics industries, goes into great detail about epoxy resin, popularized during the Eisenhower era. In the same vein, the Society of the Plastics Industry website lists "epoxy" among a number of "plastic resins" whose makers and users are represented by the trade association.

Wasik's blustery description of the unnamed "resin" in SIGG bottles now seems a disingenuous distraction. As his recent bulletin, also carefully crafted, makes plain, the stuff was nothing more nor less than epoxy resin, whose "key building block," according to the American Chemistry Council, is BPA.

For many consumers, the question has transcended the issue of BPA.

It's, can you trust this company?

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RMankovitz
Researcher, inventor, entrepreneur, author
08:08 PM on 08/28/2009
Below is a summary of my posts on this subject.

I exposed Sigg- style bottles, with a so-called "inert epoxy liner" in my book "The Wellness Project", last November.

Next, we move on to stainless steel, known to leach metals into food. There is a possibility that potentially toxic amounts of iron, chromium, nickel and molybdenum may leach into the liquid. The chromium industry did a study on it, admitting that leaching from food grade stainless (the stuff used by Klean Kanteen) will occur, and assuming that hexavalent chromium (remember Erin Borckovich) will not be absorbed by the user!

OK, on to plastics. First stop is PET (#1) used by virtually all bottled water companies. It leaches antimony (similar toxin profile to arsenic) into the water.

Onward to polycarbonates (#7), known to outgas BPA-A, and the subject of legal action to ban its use in certain applications.

Next stop, LDPE (#4) (Polar Bottles), and HDPE (#2). Here are the chemicals used in production:

Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE #4): Principle raw materials: ethylene gas (monomer). Sometimes copolymerized with butene, hexane, octene, or vinyl acetate. Toxic chemicals used in production: benzene, chromium oxide, cumene hydroperoxide, tert-butyl hydroperoxide.

Personally, I do not want to wait until the studies come out showing one or more of these plastics do leach and are toxic, perhaps more so than BP-A. My health is certainly worth the inconvenience of lugging glass water bottles.

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
06:57 PM on 08/28/2009
Hi, I wrote extensive comments on this very issue yestersday on Nena Baker's article here on HuffPost. I discussed that I have been using Glass Jars to carry my filtered tap water for the past 4 months. It's really effective and the water tastes great. I'll repost my comments here.

I think a class action Lawsuit for Fraud would be appropriate against the manufacturers of Sigg.

Thousands and thousands of customers were Lied too, thinking they were buying BPA Free water bottles.
This is intolerable.
Is there an Attorney reading this story and comment thread?
Sue them!!!

For people who want an alternative, read my comments below about Glass Jars for taking your filtered tap water on the go.
And for people who feel better with a non-breakable water bottle, go to the website below for the Polar Bottle Company.

http://www.polarbottle.com

They manufacture BPA Free water bottles right here in the U.S.A. and you can find it in a store near you. Check their website for store locations near you. Also, tell your neighborhood health food store to distribute these safe water bottles.
It's clear that Sigg does not care about BPA in their bottles and have done everything to mislead their customers. Shame on them!!

I'm using Glass Jars for my water and I'm buying a Polar Bottle for my International Trips.
Goodbye Sigg!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Elaine Shannon
11:02 PM on 08/28/2009
Dear Condor101 -- Nena Baker's piece is terrific. Check out other reports by Baker, my colleagues at EWG and me at: http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog/
06:30 PM on 08/28/2009
This is a great article. I am glad you took SIGG to task about their unethical business practice. It is unethical when a company says one thing and does another. It's unethical to profit from misinformation. It's unethical to not correct the false assumptions that retailers and consumers have your product. It's unethical and deceptive to hold back the truth of their lining and disclose only part information.

SIGG claimed the conversation concerning BPA in the past was regarding the leaching of it into the water, and not the prescence of it in food and beverage containers. So according to their logic if there's no detectable leaching then consumers should be happy. This is an absolutely disengenous. Consumers do not understand the SIGG's testing. Leaching very likely occurs, but are the tests done at a low enough sensitivity? BPA in minute amounts (parts per trillion) have been linked with health issues in animals, but do SIGG test at that sensitivity?

I'm not ready to trust the lining material in aluminum bottles from any company at this point, especially the new BPA-free one from SIGG. The ingredients are still undisclosed and the company continues to be untransparent. Consumers should not be held to just the words of the manufacture to "trust us." There must be some form of transparency and disclosure.

Until SIGG apologizes for blatant misinformation and deceptive advertising in the past then I don't think consumers can trust such a company.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Elaine Shannon
10:58 PM on 08/28/2009
Cjac, thanks for adding your voice o this important issue. SIGG does post some info from European tests on its website.
04:51 PM on 08/28/2009
As people think about what to replace their old Sigg bottles with, don't forget that the new Sigg bottles are using a polymer lining. And until Sigg tells us what the lining is, we should be careful. The design of Sigg bottles forces the liquid to flow over the screw threads as you take a drink. And the screw threads are lined with the same plastic as the rest of the bottle.

Every time you screw the thread in and out, you could be scratching or breaking the lining -- and therefore consuming the plastic.

When Consumer Reports did some BPA leaching tests from plastic baby bottles back in the 90s, they found that the bottles that had been scratched released the most BPA.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Elaine Shannon
05:48 PM on 08/28/2009
Good points, Sean. I don't find those tops easy to center, so it takes me a couple of tries. I can imagine if you're out where it's sweltering, or you're skiing, boarding or ice-climbing, or you're in gritty places, like Iraq or Afghanistan, you can mess up that lining fast. Anybody have any experience with extreme conditions?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cleverindie
06:17 PM on 09/08/2009
I have one bottle that didn't fair so well (1 out of 5 bottles that we have)...
To avoid BPA we bought a bunch of Sigg bottles for my son (who is now 6)...
All of them seem to be intact except one- it has chips and it almost looks like the coating is raised a bit and discolored on the threads. We have had it for a little over a year.
I posted a photo on my blog, showing the damage to the lining...
beclever.wordpress.com

This whole thing is frustrating and maddening....
03:36 PM on 08/28/2009
Great article Elaine. Thank you for this piece of work. I'm throwing out my SIGG bottles, and will never buy their products again, just on principle.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Elaine Shannon
04:53 PM on 08/28/2009
Thanks, Nic. I have a bunch of SIGG bottles too. Stuffed stockings with them. Took them to Baghdad, Beirut, backcountry Oregon. As a journalist, I've spent most of my life reading documents and looking for holes, doubletalk and non-denials. if I'd read the long product disclaimers on the SIGG website, I hope I would've spotted giveaway lines like "0%leaching." Why would you test for BPA if your product doesn't contain any BPA? And if it doesn't contain any BPA, why wouldn't you just say so? But I didn't read the website. My bad. Like Peter Townshend says, won't get fooled again.
Elaine