SIGG made headlines when it announced that it had stopped producing aluminum water bottles with a lining that contained BPA. But they weren't the kind of headlines it wanted. Many consumers had already believed that SIGG bottles were BPA-free, and despite the lack of such explicit language in the official statements made from SIGG's highest levels, there is some evidence this care may not have been taken at all levels of the organization, or among retailers.

SIGG Switzerland CEO Steve Wasik, an American who held posts at Chanel and other lifestyle brands prior to joining SIGG as the General Manager of SIGG USA in 2006, has been under fire in the blogosphere and is now garnering some mainstream media attention as well. Our own assessments of SIGG's actions have been harsh, and we were interested in hearing the company's top official explain its actions, so we emailed a list of ten questions to Wasik as we gathered information for our stories. He graciously responded with an offer of a phone interview. What follows is a near-complete transcript of that conversation.

ZRecs: When did you first learn that there was BPA in the lining of SIGG bottles?

Steve Wasik: When I met with suppliers back in the summer of 2006 [as General Manager of SIGG USA], I learned about BPA in the liner. I was reassured that there was no leaching, but I knew at the time that if we could remove the BPA, we should do it. And I sat down with the CEO at the time and said, "Let’s develop a new liner."

One of our objectives was to remove BPA so consumers could have confidence in our product; the other issue we wanted was to be able to speak more transparently about the ingredients of the formula. The reality was that we did not own the formula and the agreement that was in place before I got there was that we would not speak about it. So we began by doing leach testing. But we also wanted to develop a solution that was more environmentally friendly. We developed this whole new process that is powder based.

Most water-based epoxy coatings contain VOCs so as you're spraying it they're kind of released into the air. Not good for your carbon footprint. So as we started developing the brand image back in 2005 we said, we are a Swiss company, we should start being eco-minded, and when we walked through the factory, we said, we could probably do better there. It's a whole new process. If any of the powder is sprayed outside of the bottle it's captured by a vacuum and recirculates. No fumes going into the air.

ZRecs: Why did the suppliers tell you about the BPA in the liner at that point?

Wasik: I asked. I wanted to know more about the formula. I basically did not want to take "No, we will not tell you" as an answer, which is what my predecessor had heard. I demanded a meeting with the supplier and said I have to know what is in the formula. They said look this agreement precedes you, but the fact that I knew there was BPA in there I said now was the time. And it didn’t take me long to convince the CEO and the board.

ZRecs: So you met with them and said that it was not enough for you that they had this agreement, but they still would not provide you with the formula?

Wasik: I said point blank you have to tell me what is in this. They told me at that time [that there was BPA in it] but were not providing us with an ingredient list.

ZRecs: We've read in some of your statements that you chose to "honor the agreement" by keeping the ingredients of the liner private until your recent announcement. But we've also read at least one statement from SIGG in an email to a customer that seemed to claim that the company did not know about the BPA. The email, which was published on the blog Light Green Stairs, read: "I understand where you are coming from. Fact is SIGG did not manufacture the old liner, it was provided to us by a third party that would not disclose the ingredient list, only testing that assured no leaching of BPA or ANYTHING else into any beverage poured into a SIGG. Several tests were conducted in Europe and the US to make sure of it. And we paid to have one too!" Isn't this saying that SIGG didn't know there was BPA in the liner?

Wasik: I think I know where that confusion may have come from. We knew there was BPA in the liner, but they would never give us the formula.

ZRecs: We've had some confusion about the timing of your shift to the BPA-free EcoCare liner. When did you convert your factories to test and begin production of bottles with the new liner?

Wasik: The conversion took place in July and August. We shut down factory for 4 to 6 weeks. The [product] category was growing tremendously and it was a difficult time to shut down the factory, but we knew it was the right thing to do and we wanted to get into the new liner as quickly as possible.

If we didn’t own our own factories, it would have been a lot easier. But when you do, you have to work with machine manufacturers and suppliers and since we purchase our own equipment you unfortunately can't do that so quickly.

ZRecs: When did you stop manufacturing bottles with the BPA-free liner?

Wasik: We tried to build up some stock raw bodies that are undecorated. So there's two sides of our company. One side is turning it into a finished assembled bottle and the other is the decorating side - the painting. We tried to keep up some stock so we could keep the workers working. [In a statement in a follow-up phone call, Wasik stated that "this project never really got off the ground," and maintained that few bottles were actually stockpiled.]

ZRecs: When did you stop shipping bottles with the BPA-containing liner from Switzerland?

Wasik: We stopped shipping the old bottles out of Switzerland in December 2008. In the U.S., we had bottles that were the old liner and we never did a recall, we consider the bottles to be safe, so yes there are still bottles that are at retail and that were in our warehouse. All of the ones on the MySIGG line are the new liner. What we can’t control as much is what the retailers do.

ZRecs: Do you still have any more bottles with BPA in SIGG's U.S. warehouses?

Wasik: We only have one warehouse and we aren't sending out any more with the old liner. [Follow-up: Wasik explained in a subsequent phone call that after the public outcry following its announcement, it had decided to stop selling the remaining stock from its U.S. warehouse that used the old liner. Wasik could not provide detailed numbers of the bottles that would be recycled, but said it was "millions of dollars worth."]

ZRecs: When did you begin shipping bottles with the EcoCare liner?

Wasik: At the end of August or the beginning of September 2008. Typically it takes a month to get to the U.S. and then warehouse to stores. They could have been sold as early as October.

ZRecs: What date did you publish your statement about the liner change to the MySIGG website?

Wasik: On August 14 [2009].

ZRecs: You mentioned in April 2008 that you were choosing to "honor the agreement" with your liner supplier by not discussing ingredients in the liner. When did you feel that you were no longer bound by this agreement?

Wasik: In my view we stopped being bound to it in January 2009. We didn't come out and say exactly what we're saying now, and we should have have said it in January. If we had it to do all over again, we would have. It was my mistake to basically not understand that consumers were interested in the mere presence of BPA rather than just "Is it a leach-free bottle." That was a miscalculation on my part. When consumers write into us, we're basically saying, "We should have handled this better and we should have been more clear in our communications."

ZRecs: Do you have plans to test your new liner for BPA on an ongoing basis?

Wasik: The new liner has been certified in powder form. We also have asked our supplier to test every time they make a batch.

ZRecs: Do any SIGG products still use the older BPA-containing liner? Your food tins, mugs?

Wasik: No. The old liner is gone.

ZRecs: How does the cost of the new liner compare with the old one?

Wasik: I was told that the new powder was going to cost us ten times as much as the old liner. It wasn't just the cost of the $1M piece of equipment but the ongoing cost of goods. But we decided it was the right thing to do. We also know it differentiated us from the Chinese suppliers out there who are maybe using low-cost, off the shelf epoxies.

ZRecs: Readers have been sending us complaints and photographs of bottles with the new liner that have coating chipping from the lip of EcoCare-lined SIGG bottles. Did you have initial problems with the new liner, even after your initial testing, when you began producing bottles and distributing them to be sold?

Wasik: We had some trouble at the beginning - there was a learning curve. We found out that they looked great going out but as a Swiss company you want to make every bottle perfectly. Some customers have come back to us and said the mouth of the bottle is peeling away. We would take back their bottles and give them a new bottle, and what we found was that in the early weeks of the production the sprayer was spraying too much liner in the lip. Because it was too thick, it would cause the liner to peel away. That took some adjusting, but we're pretty confident we got it right now. It’s a process. We definitely tweak it here or there. But I think compared to other manufacturers we still have fewer returns than anybody.

ZRecs: And I assume that exchanges of bottles with the EcoCare liner, based on this problem, are not subject to the return shipping policy you require for replacement of the old SIGG bottles?

Wasik. Correct.

More on this story

• SIGG's BPA Confession


• Two warnings before you request a replacement SIGG bottle


• The ZRecs 2009 BPA-Free Water Bottle Showdown


• ZRecs evidence of misleading statements by SIGG representatives


• BPA researcher claims older SIGGs did leach BPA, and we can independently confirm it

Last week, we wrote about SIGG's careful management of information in the years leading up to its announcement that the products many consumers had turned to to avoid the endocrine disrupting chemical bisphenol-A actually contained it. Their announcement marked the beginning of what now appears to be a public relations freefall, as the company grapples with a massive and overwhelmingly negative consumer reaction to what it had pitched as positive news.

Shifting from secrecy to transparency on any topic is always difficult, but the damage to SIGG's ability to connect with customers is downright corrosive. Like an unfaithful partner expecting praise for ending a secret affair, SIGG's attempt to come clean depends on consumers' belief in their deep-down goodness, which in turn requires SIGG to continue to defend actions which suggest, outside of the culture of secrecy and its desperate internal logic, the hardened cynicism of a serial philanderer.

We interviewed SIGG CEO Steve Wasik on Friday afternoon, and talked with him again on Saturday to follow up on some of his statements. Topics ranged from details about SIGG's transition to a BPA-free liner in 2008 to how they have attempted to handle it publicly, as well as an admission of initial production problems that affect some bottles currently on the market. We'll publish an extensive transcript tomorrow.

Today, though, I'd like to draw from that interview and from other sources that have come our way to address what has become a working assumption about this case: That SIGG claimed only that its bottles did not leach bisphenol-A, and never claimed its water bottles were "BPA-free."

Below is the evidence we have collected from readers, from our research and interviews, and from some excellent bloggers over the past week.

Paving the way for consumer confusion

One problem companies face when maintaining a fiction - even if this does not involve lying - is that everyone has to stay on script, all the time. Our sense at this point is that SIGG was very concerned about being on script when it came to the highest official channels of their organization, but ultimately either failed to control communication at all levels of their company, or used a different script altogether.

"I also double checked with our PR agency last week and Meredith Maldonado, who has been working on the SIGG account for the last 3+ years, confirmed that she has 'never ever told a journalist that SIGGs are BPA Free,'" Wasik told ZRecs in an email. "She always tells them that SIGGs are tested to ensure no leaching of anything including BPA." Wasik also mentioned attempting to control the claims stores made about their bottles, and shared an anecdote about dropping a Canadian distributor because they were making BPA-free claims.

Whether this razor-thin distinction was made throughout SIGG is a different story. Megan Kress, a former sales representative for Laken aluminum water bottles who now represents Innate Gear, summed it up in a comment on SNEWS, an outdoor and fitness website that published one of the first reports of BPA in aluminum water bottles, days after SIGG posted their own announcement. Kress is a seasoned veteran of the outdoor industry, and she believes reps were provided with false information about BPA from both companies:

We may be debating the consequences of BPA for years to come. Heck, tomorrow we may find scientific evidence it could cure cancer. But one thing is clear: Too many retailers were misled about what was and was not in the liners of aluminum bottles - frequently by sales teams that were fed a line of hooey who in turn fed that same hooey to accounts.

If retailers were making false claims on SIGG's behalf and appending them to SIGG-provided displays, it is easy to understand why consumers would become confused by the layers of messaging. But looked at another way, if consumers were confused by SIGG's roundabout and often evasive way of "telling the truth" about their products, maybe those retailers were, too.

After publishing our article last week, we found a full transcript of the March 2007 press release Wasik issued after forcing the Environmental Working Group to remove statements about SIGG bottles containing BPA from a report. (In SIGG's defense, EWG had included SIGG in their list without testing any SIGG bottles for BPA.) After examining the full release, we noticed something even more questionable than the careful wording and overarching intent we highlighted in our previous discussion. Wasik went on to cite the retraction made by the Organic Consumers Association, who had picked up EWG's statements and then overreached with their apology. By citing it, he allowed them to make a claim that thus received SIGG's implicit endorsement, without anyone at SIGG having to say it:

Unfortunately, in the meantime this message was picked up by a few other websites, one of those being The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and their newsletter Organic Bytes. When we questioned the OCA on their mention of SIGG, this is the emailed response we received:

“We made a mistake. Sigg bottles do not contain BPAs… it was read wrong and there was confusion. Apologies about this.” - Member Services, OCA

Wasik then goes on to describe the safety of SIGG bottles in his own words - of course, never calling them BPA-free himself.

We know, Steve. You never said it.

Telling customers what they wanted to hear

Under normal circumstances, we would probably not consider a single email exchange with customer service at any company to be worthy of publication. We receive questionable information from major corporations about the BPA status of their products on a regular basis, and it's why we work our way into organizations to get the product chemical listings we publish in the ZRecs Guide. In this case, however, we sat up in our chairs when a reader emailed us to say that a SIGG representative had told her point blank back in 2007 that there was no BPA in SIGG bottles. As it turned out, she had the emails to prove it.

We have the full German transcript of the email exchange between Christina and the Product Manager with whom she corresponded, and were able to verify the employee's presence at the company by examining additional emails he sent to another blogger in 2008. We have attempted to protect the identities of both the employee and the customer by using only Christina's first name and redacting the SIGG employee's entirely.

It's August 2007. Christina sends an inquiry to SIGG that is brief and to the point.

Subject: Questions

1) Is it true that Sigg bottles contain Bisphenol-A?
2) Are there Sigg bottles that can survive a crash better than anyone else (other lacquer?)?
3) If the active bottle top suitable for children?

Thank you.
Christina *****

The Product Manager responds according to SIGG's BPA playbook:

Dear Mrs. *****,

Thank you for your inquiry. We are happy to answer your questions:

1. All test trials have been no bisphenol-A found in our bottles
2. The typical aluminum bottles from SIGG we also carry a stainless steel collection (Hot & Cool), which is very robust - also applies to our oval-bottle made of aluminum.
3. Generally NO, the ABT is designed for adolescents and adults.

Sincerely,

********* ****
Product Manager

This is where most consumer inquiries end, and although we could criticize the manager for their slippery wording in that first answer, there may be something lost in translation as well. But Christina followed up, more persistently, on the question of BPA. And that's when the Product Manager appears to go off script - or at least, to stop following the one we're familiar with.

Christina:

Mr. ****, thanks for your answer. Frankly it does not reassure me, your answer to question No. 1 is not particularly .... This could be interpreted either way ...

I would ask again: Is bisphenol-A used in the manufacture of SIGG bottles?

Please excuse my persistence but I'm about to renounce the Sigg bottle and switch to Kleen Kanteen .... I will not take risks for my children if I am not 100% sure that the bottle is okay.

Thank you,

Christina *****

Five hours later, the manager responds.

Hello Mrs. *****,

No, SIGG does not use Bispenol-A. Our aluminum bottles are completely okay.

Sincerely,

********* ****
Product Manager

We have heard similar stories from others who have no record of conversations they believe they had with SIGG. We have seen similar claims online that we had no way of verifying. On close questioning, it can be hard for someone to be certain they remember exactly what was said, or simply what SIGG invited them to infer.

But this above exchange is strong evidence that such incidents did occur. How often this occurred is and will likely remain a mystery.

You can read a full transcript of this email exchange, in German as well as our English translation (performed by Christina and replicated in Google Translate) here.

Transparency is a value, not a strategy

SIGG is a company of around 100 employees. For the past three years, SIGG's secret has been their own. It has been a secret kept through the cynical urgency of preserving and expanding market share at the expense of other companies whose secret world had been exposed.

Secrets can be as corrosive to companies as they can be to individuals. One reason for this is that they allow a company culture to develop assumptions and beliefs that are never challenged by outside views or information. These views may naturally arise from the perspectives of those involved in the deceit, or they may be self-justifications for it, but either way, they don't get properly ventilated and informed and shaped by opposing viewpoints. This is one of the plausible ways we can explain how SIGG could be genuinely surprised by the tremendous backlash it has faced in the wake of its announcement.

But this also means that transparency, when employed as a new tack in an evolving public relations strategy rather than a deeply felt value, is a mixed blessing. Being transparent from the outset tends naturally to make an individual or a group make choices that will look appropriate in hindsight. But being transparent after being vague, misleading, or obscure means that you get all of the risks of transparency - including the instant exposure of your company's insular, incubated views on issues your customers are passionate about - with few of the benefits.

This is the problem SIGG faces now.

Two brief illustrations of this will close out this post, likely our last about a company we once had high hopes for but now find depressing and sad, with the exception of our full interview with SIGG's Steve Wasik, who was very generous with his time and with the information we were looking for.

First, old habits die hard. The experience of former SIGG user Peggy Rowland, who emailed the company on August 22, is a case in point. She wrote to SIGG to demand a refund.

I purchased two SIGG water bottles on 2.9.08 from reusablebags.com. I feel that you didn't tell the whole truth about your bottles. In fact, you let the public believe they were BPA free instead of setting the record straight.

I don't want another one of your bottles because I don't trust you. However, I do want my money back. I paid a total of $38.90 for the bottles. I can give you my mailing address to send a check or my paypal account address. Either way, you were deceptive and you owe me my money back.

SIGG's response began:

Dear Peggy,

I understand where you are coming from. Fact is SIGG did not manufacture the old liner, it was provided to us by a third party that would not disclose the ingredient list, only testing that assured no leaching of BPA or ANYTHING else into any beverage poured into a SIGG. Several tests were conducted in Europe and the US to make sure of it. And we paid to have one too!

They went on to reject her request.

Peggy inferred from their email that SIGG was claiming it had not known there was BPA in liner it used until the summer of 2008, and we'd go further and agree that the email seems designed to make this inference seem quite logical.

• "I understand where you're coming from" = We are in the same situation, i.e. we feel betrayed as well.


• "It was provided to us by a third party that would not disclose the ingredient list, only testing that assured no leaching of BPA or ANYTHING else..." = The provider did not disclose any ingredients, including BPA.

Peggy published an excerpt from her email in a post on her blog, Light Green Stairs, with SIGG's surprising claim as her headline - "SIGG Not Taking Responsibility." A pretty fair title, if you ask us.

However, statements Wasik made to ZRecs directly contradict the claim made in the company's email to Peggy.

"When I met with suppliers back in the summer of 2006 [as General Manager of SIGG USA], I learned about BPA in the liner," Wasik told ZRecs. "I was reassured that there was no leaching, but I knew at the time that if we could remove the BPA, we should do it. And I sat down with the CEO at the time and said, 'Let’s develop a new liner.'"

Having recently read Peggy's post, we repeated Wasik's statement back to him and asked him to confirm it, which he did: He had known about BPA since mid-2006. We then confronted him with the statement made in the SIGG email.

"I think I know where that confusion may have come from," Wasik said. "We knew there was BPA in the liner, but they would never give us the formula." Italics mine.

Visiting SIGG's Facebook page is like entering Coraline's mirror world, where things are definitely off-kilter but it's hard to say why. It might be because the issue of SIGG's profiteering on the issue of safer water bottles has become so personal for so many people, but a corporate page on Facebook is disembodied and dehumanized by design. Or it may be the fact that while storms rage outside its walls, writing on the page's Wall requires you to actually label yourself a fan of SIGG, making this a quiet little hideout. SIGG's outpost on the world's most powerful social network may be the best metaphor yet for the type of culture SIGG has nourished within its own walls.

The company's erratic and often hostile statements on Facebook culminated in a feed item they published but then had the wisdom to retract - although not before Candace at Mama Saga / Mamanista got a screen capture:


She has more, with some great commentary, here.

A bit further down the list, we are definitely not in Kansas anymore.

Thank you for your support, the blogs are on fire and some [I cannot say which ones] have posted some false information. Some of them have retracted their statements and removed their posts. For info 'straight from the source' please write us directly at [liners@mysigg.com] and we will address each and every one of you personally.

"False information"? Forgive us for wondering what that phrase means, exactly, to you.

And you cannot say which blogs have published false information? How odd.

Retracted? Removed? Will we hear about this someday?

"Straight from the source." Sorry, SIGG - for you, those days are over.

We have much more to say on the predicaments companies are finding themselves in as they attempt to decouple their business and their products from a chemical they should have nothing to do with. We believe standards should be put in place that provide companies with goals to meet rather than penalizing them for failing to anticipate evolving science. But we don't have much sympathy for SIGG.

More on this story

• SIGG's BPA Confession


• Two warnings before you request a replacement SIGG bottle


• The ZRecs 2009 BPA-Free Water Bottle Showdown


• ZRecs evidence of misleading statements by SIGG representatives


• our interview with SIGG CEO Steve Wasik


• BPA researcher claims older SIGGs did leach BPA, and we can independently confirm it

The exchange below occurred in August 2007 between a German SIGG customer and a SIGG representative. You can read more about this and other evidence collected in our investigation of SIGG's relationship with the truth on BPA in its products here.

Initial request for information

From: Christina <*******@*****.com>
To: info@sigg.ch
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 10:07:00 PM
Subject: Fragen

1) Stimmt es, dass Sigg Flaschen Bisphenol-A enthalten?
2) Gibt es Sigg-Flaschen, die einen Sturz besser ueberstehen als andere (anderer Lack?)?
3) Ist die active bottle top auch fuer Kinder geeignet?

Danke.
Christina *****

--------------------------------
Translation:

Subject: Questions

1) Is it true that Sigg bottles contain Bisphenol-A?
2) Are there Sigg bottles that can survive a crash better than anyone else (other lacquer?)?
3) If the active bottle top suitable for children?

Thank you.
Christina *****

Initial response to the questions

From: **** ********* <*********.****@sigg.com>
To: *******@*****.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:46:11 AM
Subject: Fragen

Sehr geehrte Frau Amail

Besten Dank für Ihre Anfrage. Gerne beantworten wir Ihre Fragen:

1. Sämtliche Testversuche haben bisher kein Bisphenol-A in unseren Flaschen festgestellt
2. Zu den typischen Alu-Flaschen von SIGG führen wir auch eine Edelstahl-Kollektion

(Hot&Cool) die sehr robust ist – gilt auch für unsere Oval-Bottle aus Aluminium.

3. Generell NEIN, der ABT ist für Jugendliche und Erwachsene konzipiert.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

********* ****
Product Manager

SIGG SWITZERLAND AG
Walzmühlestrasse 62 , CH- 8500 Frauenfeld
Tel. +41 (0)52 728 63 30 , Fax +41 (0)52 728 63 07
Tel. direct: +41 (0)52 728 64 16
email: *********.****@sigg.com
www.sigg.com

--------------------------------
Translation:

Dear Mrs. *****,

Thank you for your inquiry. We are happy to answer your questions:

1. All test trials have been no bisphenol-A found in our bottles
2. The typical aluminum bottles from SIGG we also carry a stainless steel collection (Hot & Cool), which is very robust - also applies to our oval-bottle made of aluminum.
3. Generally NO, the ABT is designed for adolescents and adults.

Sincerely,

********* ****
Product Manager

SIGG SWITZERLAND AG
Walzmühlestrasse 62 , CH- 8500 Frauenfeld
Tel. +41 (0)52 728 63 30 , Fax +41 (0)52 728 63 07
Tel. direct: +41 (0)52 728 64 16
email: *********.****@sigg.com
www.sigg.com

Persistent questioning

Von: *******@*****.com [mailto: *******@*****.com ]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 18:00
An: **** *********
Betreff: Re: Fragen

Herr ****, vielen Dank fuer Ihre Antwort. Ehrlich gesagt beruhigt mich Ihre Antwort zu Frage Nr. 1 nicht besonders.... Dies koennte man so oder so deuten...

Ich frage daher nochmals: Verwendet Sigg Bisphenol-A bei der Herstellung der Flaschen?

Bitte entschuldigen Sie meine Penetranz aber ich bin kurz davor der Sigg Flasche abzuschwoeren und zu Kleen Kanteen ueberzugehen.... Ich moechte das Risiko fuer meine Kinder nicht eingehen, wenn ich nicht 100% sicher bin, dass die Flasche okay ist.

Besten Dank

Christina *****

--------------------------------
Translation:

Mr. ****, thanks for your answer. Frankly it does not reassure me, your answer to question No. 1 is not particularly .... This could be interpreted either way ...

I would ask again: Is bisphenol-A used in the manufacture of SIGG bottles?

Please excuse my persistence but I'm about to renounce the Sigg bottle and switch to Kleen Kanteen .... I will not take risks for my children if I am not 100% sure that the bottle is okay.

Thank you,

Christina *****

Final response from SIGG

From: **** ********* <*********.****@sigg.com>
To: *******@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:26:06 PM
Subject: AW: Fragen

Hallo Frau *****

Nein, die Firma SIGG verwendet kein Bispenol-A. Unsere Alu-Flaschen sind absolut okay.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

********* ****
Product Manager

SIGG SWITZERLAND AG
Walzmühlestrasse 62 , CH- 8500 Frauenfeld
Tel. +41 (0)52 728 63 30 , Fax +41 (0)52 728 63 07
Tel. direct: +41 (0)52 728 64 16
email: *********.****@sigg.com
www.sigg.com

--------------------------------
Translation:

Hello Mrs. *****,

No, SIGG does not use Bispenol-A. Our aluminum bottles are completely okay.

Sincerely,

********* ****
Product Manager

SIGG SWITZERLAND AG
Walzmühlestrasse 62 , CH- 8500 Frauenfeld
Tel. +41 (0)52 728 63 30 , Fax +41 (0)52 728 63 07
Tel. direct: +41 (0)52 728 64 16
email: *********.****@sigg.com
www.sigg.com

Both Earthlust and Camelbak make adult stainless steel water bottles, and each offers a great downsized kids' version - Earthlust with a 13-oz. bottle with loop cap that is one of the lightest stainless steel bottles we've found, and Camelbak with a shorty version of its relatively new stainless steel water bottle with its patented "bite valve" (you have to bite it to use the straw). The later only missed inclusion in our Toddler to Pre-K Sippy and Straw Cup Showdown by a few days' time. And yes, in light of recent developments, we are regretting that SIGG bottle's Top Pick status.

Here's Earthlust's offering, which Mamanista pointed out was missing from the ZRecs Guide yesterday. (It's there today, thanks!) Earthlust's 13-oz. bottle is lightweight and narrow enough for a five- or six-year old to handle, and simple enough for the same age child to open and close. They have some really nice designs, all guaranteed to be made with lead-free paint.


Earthlust's stainless steel bottles also come in 20 ounce and one liter sizes.

For their kids' cup, Camelbak has added a flip-to-open tab to their standard bite-valve straw lid. It works pretty well, as this demo shows:


This squat bottle is pretty chunky, although it holds about the same amount of water as the Earthlust (it's cited as holding .4 L, or 13.5 oz.), and its weight and circumference will make Camelbak's entry into the kids' stainless steel bottle market a clunky one for smaller users. But the straw and lid are easy to use and easy to clean, the thick-walled bottle keeps cold drinks cold for hours, and we like how the designs show off the bottle's material as well as dressing it up. We've filed the stainless steel version, as well as the company's Tritan copolyester (BPA-free plastic) offering, under "Straw Cups" in the ZRecs Guide, and would highly recommend either of them to anyone.

We'll be announcing a giveaway of a family pack of another of our favorite stainless steel water bottles tomorrow - up to five water bottles in their adult (750 ml) or smaller (350 ml) sizes, for a single winner. The winner will be drawn from our newsletter's subscriber list, which will go out on September 1 after an unplanned summer hiatus. Stay tuned for all the details tomorrow, and make sure to sign up to receive our monthly email so you'll be eligible to win.

We're working on a Showdown-style review of 15 to 20 stainless steel and BPA-free plastic water bottles for Z Recommends, but in the meantime, we've posted chemical profile info and notes (including how BPA-free versions of some transitional products can be identified) for over 30 BPA-free water bottles in the ZRecs Guide today, including a dozen new demo videos and star ratings based on our own product testing for all the items we've actually used.

If you were there even as recently as a day ago, you should take another peek at the Water Bottles section - you may find a new stainless steel, safer plastic, or even glass water bottle to love!

More on this story

• SIGG's BPA Confession


• Two warnings before you request a replacement SIGG bottle


• The ZRecs 2009 BPA-Free Water Bottle Showdown


• ZRecs evidence of misleading statements by SIGG representatives


• our interview with SIGG CEO Steve Wasik


• BPA researcher claims older SIGGs did leach BPA, and we can independently confirm it

I had promised to write about the somewhat shocking marketing tactic SIGG is taking in positioning its new, BPA-free "EcoCare" lined bottles, which they're attempting to favorably contrast not only against their competition but the millions of bottles SIGG previously produced while challenging anyone who claimed their BPA-containing bottles actually contained BPA. But two items must take precedence, because they affect whether or not you should be even thinking about buying another SIGG bottle, or even emailing them (at liners@mysigg.com) to request a free replacement. Both are hot tips from readers that come with ample photographic evidence.

Problem No. 1: SIGG didn't stall long enough

Fully one year after SIGG stopped making bottles with their BPA lining, these bottles are still being shipped to customers by some online retailers. In other words, may have no way of knowing which you will receive until it arrives at your door.

Karen F. ordered a SIGG "Happy Cars" kids' water bottle a week ago through Amazon.com, sold by the third-party seller OnlineComponents.com. This was of course before we published our story and before she'd heard anything about a change in liners in SIGG bottles produced for the last full year. Then she read our story, and that was, you know, surprising. But she even more surprised when she received the package yesterday and discovered that the bottle she'd been sent was one with the older, BPA-containing lining. We found the item for sale through them on Amazon, with nary a whisper (naturally) of which liner was in the bottle.

She wrote:

I just wanted to thank you for your recent story on Sigg water bottles. I ordered one for my son last week. It just came today, and lo and behold, matches the brassy looking BPA filled liner that you display in your story. I would never have know to look for this if I had not seen it here first. I actually thought the product was stainless steel when I ordered it. I didn't realize it was aluminum. Based on your report of the third party testing, it looks like we're still safe with this one, but I wish I had know before I ordered! Thanks again for all the work you do to keep us informed.

What a proposition for consumers willing to swallow their anger and continue to do business with SIGG: Buy your bottle online, wait for it to arrive, and then check a consumer website to see if you actually wanted it in the first place!

We wrote Karen back, asking her for whatever substantiating evidence she could offer. She sent back photographs of everything you need to know. Here's a little slideshow:



Anyone know what those little codes on the sticker mean? We'd love to learn anything else about this bottle based on it. Rogue SIGG employees, we will protect your anonymity!

By the way, this is the single best lesson in how long it can take for a company's "coming clean" to matter to consumers, a fact we mention whenever a company announces they are going BPA-free. It is also the single best reason to do business with a company you trust.

Problem No. 2: The new liner may be very bad

You would think - you really, really would think - that a liner that involved $1 million in factory retooling, two years of secret R&D, and three years of obfuscation and tricky talk would at least be Pretty Damn Good. But we have received reports from two different readers that their SIGG bottles, which they have now identified as being made with the company's new EcoCare liner, have fragments of the liner chipping away from the lid area. ZRecs reader Amelia Sprout writes:

Here are the best pictures I could get. I got it from REI, I think earlier this year. I didn't even notice the different liner until this happened. I came back from a walk and went to take a sip from it and something nicked my lip. I haven't used it since.

Have you had experiences with SIGG's new EcoCare liner, or purchased SIGG bottles in calendar year 2009 that turned out to have the old liner? Tell us in the comments, or email your story to us at editors (at) zrecs (dot) com.

We're working on three posts at the moment that should be of interest: That post I promised about the unwritten rule SIGG is breaking in order to attempt to save its market share, and a two-part, wide-ranging comparative review of safer water bottle alternatives. We have a ton to great adult water bottles to recommend and not-so-great ones to warn you about, so stay tuned, and remember that your purchases through ZRecs links to Amazon help make our consumer research and reviewing possible!

If you'd like to do something about this issue, why not help us do a definitive test to see if EcoCare liners are still flaking? SIGG says' that's impossible. With your help we could test that claim.

Updates to this story

• The ZRecs 2009 BPA-Free Water Bottle Showdown


• ZRecs' evidence of misleading statements by SIGG representatives


• our interview with SIGG CEO Steve Wasik


• BPA researcher claims older SIGGs did leach BPA, and we can independently confirm it