Send To Friend 
CaptionTweet This! http://mync.com/site/40681/
In the ongoing BPA battle, Swiss-made SIGG CEO Steve Wasik broke news last week that SIGG bottles manufactured before August 2008 contain BPA. He assures customers, however, that the pre-August 2008 water-based epoxy liners are safe and durable, as studies show that the liners do not leach the BPA they contain.
I wonder where the ethical line is drawn with SIGG. Has this seemingly good company done their public wrong by lying?
Yes, I consider this a lie. A lie by omission, but a lie nonetheless.
In CEO Wasik's public letter (found here on their website), Wasik admits to having known the contents of the SIGG liner and working to correct the inclusion of BPA since 2006.
When I purchased my SIGG in 2008, however, SIGG had not publicly disclosed that BPA was, indeed, in their liner. In fact, as I researched reusable bottles to decide between SIGG and the China-manufactured Klean Kanteen, I found numerous forums and bloggers criticizing how mysterious SIGG remained about what their liner contained. I still chose SIGG because as safe as stainless steel is, I do not trust items made in China to be what they claim. I was apparently naive to trust Switzerland-made labels.
According to a TreeHugger post dated April 2008, Wasik explained that international testing laboratories show
SIGG aluminum bottles to have no presence of lead, phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Bysphenol A (BPA), Bysphenol B (BPB) or any other chemicals which scientists have deemed as potentially harmful.
Regarding what the liner's contents are, SIGG's Wasik explained
as there are many copy-cat manufacturers in the market (most based in China) that would like to get their hands on this formula, our supplier has an agreement with SIGG to keep his formula confidential.
Interesting. This, to me, seems to lead customers to believe through (what I refer to as) "weasel-speak" that SIGG products were actually BPA-free.
Further, why did they wait until August 2009 to announce that the change had been made in August 2008? To consumers, SIGG appears to be concealing information.
Sadly, they missed a great opportunity for great public relations case.
SIGG could have been honest from the beginning, assuring customers that while the chemistry behind their water-based epoxy lining in SIGG bottles must remain proprietary, that unfortunately trace amounts of BPA are in the lining. However, independent international laboratories show that the polymer formula prevents even the slightest BPA leaching in our bottles, even after two years of use. Further, SIGG remains committed to environmental and consumer safety as it continues to seek new formulas that exclude BPA while maintaining the remarkable quality associated with SIGG. "Let us all celebrate the activism and advancement of SIGG and the new BPA-free bottle, all in conjunction with our 100 year anniversary celebration!"
Had SIGG practiced full disclosure with their public, they could have announced last summer that they had won the BPA war and found a new supplier and new formula, 100% BPA free, as well as remaining 100% phthalate free. SIGG could have perhaps won new stock holders; continued, renewed, and built new customer loyalties; experienced a resurgence in sales; found the opportunity to further declare themselves the unprecedented leaders in quality, environmental awareness, and customer care.
Instead, SIGG will be riddled with consumer distrust, and rightfully so. They created their own PR nightmare. The ripple effect from their public relations strategy is crippling them as writers refer to their "scandal". Consumers voting with their dollars may turn elsewhere for safety and reliability. I know, as Marc and I are currently looking into buying a new bottle for him and for friends as gifts, we think we will turn to Klean Kanteen and Camelbak.For other customer reactions, visit this article at its original location on the (Green)Grounded website.
What will I be doing? I will contact SIGG, today, to let them know how my trust has been violated and I would like a response on how they will rectify consumer loyalty and betrayal.
Sustainably yours,
Ashley Sue
Report Abuse 
Comments
By charlotte on 09/25 12:15 AM
I am totally baffled at the lack of outrage over the conscious deception by Sigg. This is fraud and Sigg was willing to compromise public safety and perfectly comfortable with lying to their customers.
By Tom on 09/02 02:46 PM
A class action lawsuit was just filed against SIGG over the BPA-containing bottles. Here a link to the article. http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/02/Class_Claims_Toxin_Was_in_Aluminum_Bottles.htm
By Ashley Sue Allen, (G)Grounded on 08/25 10:46 AM
By the way, after emailing liners at mysigg dot com, SIGG replied in a matter of hours offering to replace my previous SIGG if I felt continued concern and wanted one with the new eco-liner. Still does not remedy the aluminum issue, but they are trying to rectify their PR mistake. I bet their PR team is in full throttle right now.
By Ashley Sue Allen, (G)Grounded on 08/25 10:43 AM
That is a great point. The Klean Kanteens are unlined, as they are made of the (theoretically) safe stainless steel. My primary conundrum lies there: every decision has a pro and con, something to weigh out. I chose the "safe" lining of the aluminum SIGG over the China-manufactured stainless steel KK. Plus, the KK makes much more noise opening and closing (relevant only as I do nature photography). Now I have more to weigh again. I do think glass is the best. Not for carrying as a reusable bottle, unfortunately, but certainly for what I buy to keep in my fridge. Great point about this BPA scandal essentially being a symptom of a larger issue, LucyMarie.
By LucyMarie on 08/25 02:33 AM
I think that the still untold story is that aluminum itself is a bad idea. The whole reason linings are a big issue is because aluminum is not considered at all safe for contact with food and drink (otherwise we'd still be able to buy unlined aluminum pans like our grandparents). No thanks. Glass and stainless steel work fine for different uses. If they turn out to not be safe, we're basically screwed, because wine and beer are both made and bottled in them.
Post A Comment