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.

Jennifer from Bliss Tree also feels that while the previous SIGGs are likely safe, she is “totally peeved that they were sneaky and slick worded instead of open and honest.”  Amen, Jennifer.  You took the words straight from my head.

Inhabitots explains perfectly “We’re happy to see that they have made an effort to rectify their mistake, but the lost trust won’t be easy to regain.”  Further, check out this post if you are stumped as to what Bisphenol A is, or if you want to see how to tell if your SIGG is the old liner or new formula.

Sean Hecht shares the legal and ethical complications regarding

the company’s ability to sidestep the question for several years, and even convince advocacy groups to remove claims that the product contained BPA, raises interesting questions about the right way to regulate chemicals in consumer products.

Joseph Bill of SafeWaterBottleReview.com explains his own concerns with the weasel-words and non-disclosure SIGG presents in responding to BPA concerns.  Great post.

ZRecommends talks about the consumer backlash on the “SIGG Fibb”.  This post includes currently 70+ post comments.

Sarah Gilbert of WalletPop does a superb job explaining why she so carefully avoided BPA-lined products for her family and why SIGGs breech of trust is particularly hurtful to her.  She also shares that SIGG may be doing something in order to attempt rectifying consumer trust by taking back older SIGGs for new SIGG credit to purchase the new one.

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

This entry was posted on Monday, August 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm and is filed under greenwashing, health, plastic, water. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.