Article about SIGG and BPA leaching...

[shoxie]

I didn't want to post this in the other SIGG threads as they are long, and it might get lost. I just saw this article, and I'm beyond angry now...

At this point, I simply don't want to deal with SIGG at all. I want them to test these bottles correctly and see if they actually leach...I'm not optimistic, however. :angry-smiley-005:

http://thestar.com/article/690222

[brittone2]

:shake:

I don't even have one, but wow. They suck.

[kijip]

Well, Kleen Kanteen must be raking it in right now. I know I grabbed one when stocking up for back to school (his old water bottle is too small for him now). And I got the Kleen Kanteen sippy for F.

[vludmilla]

Wow. I am no particular fan of class-action lawsuits but I do think they may deserve one for playing so fast and loose with the facts.

[katydid1971]

Has anyone who has sent back their bottles received their credit yet? I know mine were received on Monday but I haven't heard anything from the company yet. Not scoring points when they are already on shakey ground with me.

[lowrioh]

I read the article and I just thought that I would chime in. In the EU they have a standard for BPA concentrations that is in the part per billion (ppb) range. Many laboratories have the equipment that can measure ppb levels of BPA but very few can measure at the part per trillion level that the professor found in the bottle. The equipment needed is around ~$350K and then you need a couple of PhDs to run them.....most industry labs just don't have that lying around. The equipment needed to measure ppb concentrations is less expensive (~100K) so more facilities can measure it. I am guessing that Sigg ran the tests using this more widely used instrumentation so they didn't see any BPA.

To put it into context ppb is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 250 chemical drums (50 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31.7 years.

And ppt is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 20, two-meter-deep Olympic-size swimming pools (50,000 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31,700 years. (courtesy of wikipedia).

I'm not going to get into the BPA debate but I just thought I would put it into context since most non-scientist can't visualize what ppm, ppb and ppt mean.

[Melaine]

Ironically, I *just* saw Siggs at Target yesterday for the first time! I don't know if they just picked them up or what, but their timing sure is funny....

[brittone2]

I read the article and I just thought that I would chime in. In the EU they have a standard for BPA concentrations that is in the part per billion (ppb) range. Many laboratories have the equipment that can measure ppb levels of BPA but very few can measure at the part per trillion level that the professor found in the bottle. The equipment needed is around ~$350K and then you need a couple of PhDs to run them.....most industry labs just don't have that lying around. The equipment needed to measure ppb concentrations is less expensive (~100K) so more facilities can measure it. I am guessing that Sigg ran the tests using this more widely used instrumentation so they didn't see any BPA.

To put it into context ppb is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 250 chemical drums (50 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31.7 years.

And ppt is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 20, two-meter-deep Olympic-size swimming pools (50,000 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31,700 years. (courtesy of wikipedia).

I'm not going to get into the BPA debate but I just thought I would put it into context since most non-scientist can't visualize what ppm, ppb and ppt mean.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't get to talk with my DH (a chemist) about this much yet.

I think the problem comes in with saying the product does not leach BPA, only to find out that the company's measurements aren't all that sensitive, kwim?

I guess I'm just tired of their semantics games, etc. "BPA-free" vs. "not leaching BPA" which is obviously confusing and misleading to 99.5% of consumers.

Their pattern when handling this situation has created the distrust about their intentions IMO. (eta: along w/ their comments that this is essentially not their fault since the lining was produced by a third party, etc. And now they don't do the most sensitive testing so it isn't their fault either, kwim?)

[bubbaray]

I just sent back my Sigg to Sigg Canada yesterday. I actually ended up keeping one of my old Siggs (and calling the company so they could charge me for the bottle I got free -- they sent me 2 new ones and I sent back 1 old one instead of 2) because the more I read, the less concerned I am about the Sigg liner issue.

From what I understand (armchair chemist that I am -- my h/s and university chemistry teachers must be laughing at that), leaching of BPA is mainly when plastic is heated or hot things are put into the plastic. Neither of those apply to my Sigg bottles, which only ever have cold fluids in them and are not washed (per instructions) in the d/w (and obviously, they are never microwaved). I was really really sad about sending back my pink breast-cancer bottle, so I ended up keeping that one.

ITA that how the company handled this is poor. Lots of other companies have PR nightmares and still move forward. I do like the product otherwise (seriously, they are super cute!) and hope that the company will learn a lesson from this.

As an aside, Sigg Canada did not make me pay shipping -- shipping was free both ways.

[brittone2]

In the past BPA has been shown to leach with wear and tear-scratches, etc. that happen during the cleaning process. With clear polycarbonate bottles this damage is easier to see w/ the naked eye. I wonder how easily you can tell with the BPA-containing Siggs in comparison?

I haven't read their full test report, but I also wonder if they've tested under those conditions-bottles w/ some wear and tear from cleaning and use vs. newer, perfect linings, kwim? Anyone know?

[bubbaray]

In the past BPA has been shown to leach with wear and tear-scratches, etc. that happen during the cleaning process. With clear polycarbonate bottles this damage is easier to see w/ the naked eye. I wonder how easily you can tell with the BPA-containing Siggs in comparison?

I haven't read their full test report, but I also wonder if they've tested under those conditions-bottles w/ some wear and tear from cleaning and use vs. newer, perfect linings, kwim? Anyone know?


I could see that being a problem if you used a brush or something to clean. My Siggs only ever have water in them, so I just soak them for a few minutes in warm soapy water, then use a cloth to clean the lipstick off the mouth area.

Like I said, for how *I* use my Siggs, I'm less concerned now. Plus, my lifetime exposure to BPA is probably more related to the liners in canned foods and microwaving of food in plastic.

[brittone2]

I could see that being a problem if you used a brush or something to clean. My Siggs only ever have water in them, so I just soak them for a few minutes in warm soapy water, then use a cloth to clean the lipstick off the mouth area.

Like I said, for how *I* use my Siggs, I'm less concerned now. Plus, my lifetime exposure to BPA is probably more related to the liners in canned foods and microwaving of food in plastic.

Yeah, I think lots of people are probably careful when cleaning them but I suspect there are people who use bottle brushes, scouring pads, scratchy sponges, etc. to clean...even mildly abrasive stuff over time I would think could lead to some scratching and damage that might leach.

I agree w/ you that many people probably get far more exposure from canned goods.

[Snow mom]

Well, I don't see any actual numbers in that article. I see mention off ppb and ppt but I don't see how many ppb the company reported (none?) and how many ppt the scientist in the article is claiming he measured. I'd like it if they gave that information, as well as saying at how many ppt the chemical is considered harmful.

[n2ou]

I read the article and I just thought that I would chime in. In the EU they have a standard for BPA concentrations that is in the part per billion (ppb) range. Many laboratories have the equipment that can measure ppb levels of BPA but very few can measure at the part per trillion level that the professor found in the bottle. The equipment needed is around ~$350K and then you need a couple of PhDs to run them.....most industry labs just don't have that lying around. The equipment needed to measure ppb concentrations is less expensive (~100K) so more facilities can measure it. I am guessing that Sigg ran the tests using this more widely used instrumentation so they didn't see any BPA.

To put it into context ppb is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 250 chemical drums (50 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31.7 years.

And ppt is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 20, two-meter-deep Olympic-size swimming pools (50,000 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31,700 years. (courtesy of wikipedia).

I'm not going to get into the BPA debate but I just thought I would put it into context since most non-scientist can't visualize what ppm, ppb and ppt mean.

I am done worrying about it. I printed the return sheet, but won't send them in. Yes, I am disappointed by the semantics game, but there are much more important things to worry about in my life. Thank you for pointing this out to me ...

[brittone2]

Well, I don't see any actual numbers in that article. I see mention off ppb and ppt but I don't see how many ppb the company reported (none?) and how many ppt the scientist in the article is claiming he measured. I'd like it if they gave that information, as well as saying at how many ppt the chemical is considered harmful.

There's still debate over what levels are harmful.

Vom Saal is considered by many to be the leading expert on BPA.

Why I personally am not very trusting of the FDA's assessment of "safe" levels:
http://www.ewg.org/BPA/newsrelease/Deja-vu-At-FDA-With-BPA

From the above:
This week, Mitchell Cheeseman, the point person for the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety review of bisphenol A (BPA), strongly suggested that the agency is not taking the “fresh look” at the chemical promised in June. During a briefing before the agency's outside Science Board Monday, Cheeseman, the scientist responsible for a highly controversial review of the safety of BPA contamination in food, indicated that FDA continues to rely almost exclusively on two industry-sponsored studies that have dismissed BPA exposure as harmless. As well, he made it clear that FDA is still ignoring the more numerous independent research studies, many of them conducted with funding from the National Institutes of Health, that have found that low doses of BPA compromise the health of laboratory animals, especially to those exposed in utero.

There are email excerpts that Cheeseman consulted closely with BPA lobbyists. At one point he also contacted head of the ACC (American Chemistry Council's) BPA group asking for info that might assist in discrediting a soon to be released study that showed a possible link between BPA and miscarriage rates.

I'm not really comfortable w/ many of those trying to establish a "safe" level of BPA when they are closely tied w/ the industry.

More info:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/14513
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1855853,00.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300.11.1353v1
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm

[Ceepa]

I am done worrying about it. I printed the return sheet, but won't send them in. Yes, I am disappointed by the semantics game, but there are much more important things to worry about in my life. Thank you for pointing this out to me ...

I so agree with this. We are all concerned about protecting our children but I'm choosing to dial back the fretting over BPA. Sigg should have been more forthcoming with information and should improve their marketing and customer service departments. I'm more aware now of the potential hazards of BPA in products and will do what I can to reasonably reduce exposure. Same with other household chemicals we all have around.

[Snow mom]

There's still debate over what levels are harmful.

Vom Saal is considered by many to be the leading expert on BPA.

Why I personally am not very trusting of the FDA's assessment of "safe" levels:
http://www.ewg.org/BPA/newsrelease/Deja-vu-At-FDA-With-BPA

From the above:
This week, Mitchell Cheeseman, the point person for the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety review of bisphenol A (BPA), strongly suggested that the agency is not taking the “fresh look” at the chemical promised in June. During a briefing before the agency's outside Science Board Monday, Cheeseman, the scientist responsible for a highly controversial review of the safety of BPA contamination in food, indicated that FDA continues to rely almost exclusively on two industry-sponsored studies that have dismissed BPA exposure as harmless. As well, he made it clear that FDA is still ignoring the more numerous independent research studies, many of them conducted with funding from the National Institutes of Health, that have found that low doses of BPA compromise the health of laboratory animals, especially to those exposed in utero.

There are email excerpts that Cheeseman consulted closely with BPA lobbyists. At one point he also contacted head of the ACC (American Chemistry Council's) BPA group asking for info that might assist in discrediting a soon to be released study that showed a possible link between BPA and miscarriage rates.

I'm not really comfortable w/ many of those trying to establish a "safe" level of BPA when they are closely tied w/ the industry.

More info:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/14513
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1855853,00.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300.11.1353v1
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm

Oh yeah, I had temporarily forgotten about the plastic industry setting the standards for safety of BPA when I had typed that. Thanks for the reminder. Either way I'd like to know what the level in various products that we are exposed to are. That would be ideal world for me but I'm a scientist so I really like to have the numbers to interpret for myself.

[brittone2]

Oh yeah, I had temporarily forgotten about the plastic industry setting the standards for safety of BPA when I had typed that. Thanks for the reminder. Either way I'd like to know what the level in various products that we are exposed to are. That would be ideal world for me but I'm a scientist so I really like to have the numbers to interpret for myself.

The other catch is that when you combine BPA with other chemicals, there is thought to be some potential synergistic effect, so the combo of several is worse than the additive effect of each separate chemical, kwim? There have only been limited studies looking at the synergy, but that's more like our real-life exposure, kwim? That's another thing I find frustrating w/ establishing a "safe" amount of a given chemical. There have been some studies that have discussed the synergistic effects of these chemicals, but we are barely scratching the surface of that issue. No one is exposed to a single chemical in isolation, but they seem to set safety levels that way, kwim?
Links on synergy:
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/synergy/mixtures.htm
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/synergy/synergy.htm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/105588/page/2
From the above:
Other scientists are starting to look at what happens when these chemicals are combined. L. Earl Gray Jr., a research biologist at the EPA, has tested mixtures of two or more phthalates in animals. He deliberately selected doses of each that were too low to cause effects individually—yet found that as many as 50 percent of male rats who were exposed to the combination in utero developed abnormalities in the reproductive tract. In his latest study, he combined three phthalates with four pesticides and found that at the highest doses, the effects equaled those of a sevenfold dose of a single phthalate. "All the males were malformed," he says.


FWIW, I don't lose sleep over it contrary to what many people here have suggested through the years LOL. I've phased things out through the years in favor of what I believe to be better options at this point in time (and I acknowledge that can change at any time ;) ). However, I personally choose to stay on top of what's happening at the regulatory/government levels and what's going on in industry because I feel it is important for those parents that aren't like most members of the BBB, and may still be exposing their kids to high/higher levels of BPA inadvertently (old BPA containing baby bottles plus formula containing BPA for example).

[lowrioh]

Oh yeah, I had temporarily forgotten about the plastic industry setting the standards for safety of BPA when I had typed that.

That's just not true and a pretty inflammatory statement. Many, many government and non-government scientists all over the world work very hard on studying these issues and risk assessments, are not corrupt and make the best decisions they can at the time.

[maestramommy]

Yeah, I think lots of people are probably careful when cleaning them but I suspect there are people who use bottle brushes, scouring pads, scratchy sponges, etc. to clean...even mildly abrasive stuff over time I would think could lead to some scratching and damage that might leach.

I agree w/ you that many people probably get far more exposure from canned goods.


I had to use a bottle brush to clean mine because I was getting black stuff inside, and on the bottom (yuck!).