I am actually hopping mad about this, because I have vigorously promoted, defended, and gifted Sigg bottles for the last 8 years. I have used them exclusively (no plastic) for the last 8 years and have many shapes and sizes of my own.
The Sigg CEO has published an essay on Huffington Post finally admitting that he has known since 2006 that Sigg liners have bpa in them, even though the company has DENIED that their bottles had bpa in them, until 3 weeks ago.
The company is going to launch some kind of redemption program, so people can return their old bottles (at their own expense) and get new bottles that have a different kind of liner.
Here is some helpful advice from a poster on Huffington Post: "For those who are concerned, go to the Sigg web page and you can first see if you have the old bottle; it has a shiny, copper color inside. The new bottles, made after August 2008, have a dull, cream colored liner. If you do have the old one and want to exchange it, I just called Whole Foods, where I purchased all of my Sigg bottles, and they told me they ARE participating in the exchange program. All you have to do is take your bottle to the store and they will exchange it. The only thing they said was they can't guarantee they'll have the exact same bottle since designs change."
--- Here is a link to the CEO's letter to customers. I have bought items from their website using my currernt email address and current postal address, but I never received this letter.
http://mysigg.com/bulletin/
--- Here is an email exchange between a German customer and Sigg in 2007, showing how Sigg denied the bottles had BPA in them, 1 year after they found out that the bottles did have BPA in them: http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/sigg-supplemental-evidence-email-exchange-on-bpa-in-sigg-bottles/
I turned my June 2008 Sigg bottle in at my local Whole Foods and they exchanged it without a receipt. The bottle was actually a gift to me and was purchased by my sister on Amazon. Happy to have a new SIGG bottle. thanks!
fw memebers these days would rather stick their heads in the sand then actually learn about things. The media tells them BPA is 'bad' so it is. Much like other 'bad' things.
jolma
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 11, 2009 @ 11:33p
A lot of science shows a dose-dependent connection between problems in sexual development and BPA. I certainly would avoid it for products like baby bottles and pacifiers, because the effect it has on the very young is much stronger. I think though that for adults in a water bottle it is probably harmless.
One of the Whole Foods in my area said no, but the other one exchanged it without a receipt!
amannamedhorse
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 12, 2009 @ 1:53p
BPA is really dangerous when the microwave is involved, cold water should be harmless, it really doesn`t matter does it because they will find something else out that will harm us?
While a flawed experiment can't prove it is unsafe, it also doesn't prove it is safe. When it comes to industrial products, by-products, and additives in food/consumption products I prefer to err on the side of caution and consider them unsafe until proven otherwise (e.g. phase IV trials).
Why risk something as irreplaceable as your time and health to save $0.25? I am for mandatory product labeling that allows the public to make an informed decision at the time of purchase.
michal1980 said: myhotrs said: Good thing that BPA is actually not at all harmful then!!
fw memebers these days would rather stick their heads in the sand then actually learn about things. The media tells them BPA is 'bad' so it is. Much like other 'bad' things.
duckfan5554
Member
posted: Sep. 14, 2009 @ 9:55p
We have become a nation of sheep. We are incapable of researching the claims made by the psuedo-scientists in these environmental organizations by ourselves and accept nitwit Media's interpretations of their research as gospel. Most of the people who posted after the Junk Science entry are proof of this. Either they didn't bother to read it or they are incapable of understanding it. The Media has told them BPA is toxic and they believe it. It doesn't matter that people who actually know what they're talking about say it's not true. The Media is their god. Thank God these morons weren't around when aspirin was commercially introduced. They would have had it outlawed(just to be safe) God help us all.
So a company charged a premium for a product that they knew had BPA while advertising it as BPA free. Now they say "We are sorry" and that's all, case closed? How about fining them for false advertising and misrepresentation? Whether BPA is harmless or not is beyond the point, the company publicly lied. Screw the redemption program, this is the case where I would have no trouble seeing a small army of trial lawyers take them apart.
aleck said: So a company charged a premium for a product that they knew had BPA while advertising it as BPA free. Now they say "We are sorry" and that's all, case closed? How about fining them for false advertising and misrepresentation? Whether BPA is harmless or not is beyond the point, the company publicly lied. Screw the redemption program, this is the case where I would have no trouble seeing a small army of trial lawyers take them apart.Sue 'em dude!
aleck said: So a company charged a premium for a product that they knew had BPA while advertising it as BPA free. Now they say "We are sorry" and that's all, case closed? How about fining them for false advertising and misrepresentation? Whether BPA is harmless or not is beyond the point, the company publicly lied. Screw the redemption program, this is the case where I would have no trouble seeing a small army of trial lawyers take them apart.
I don't seem to recall them saying that the bottles were BPA free. I know they said that tests showed BPA wasn't detected, but they were always mum about what the special lining inside was made of.
kenyanboy
Broke Member
posted: Sep. 19, 2009 @ 10:37p
I have a Nalgene bottle and a Camelbak bottle. I'm wondering if theirs are truly "BPA free". Maybe I should stick to Pyrex lab-quality glassware.
I sent my bottles to them on the 9th - delivery confirmation shows they were received on the 11th.
I haven't heard anything from them yet.
So I sent a nice email today asking when they expect to process my package, or at least the time they expect to take before confirming receipt of the packages, and they responded by writing one sentence to me:
"Please refrain from emailing us to ask whether we have received your package. Wait at least 4 weeks before contacting us."
It was also in wonky font sizes - like 3 different font sizes in the one, sparse sentence.
Pleasant.
-- Reminders: The exchange program is over at the end of October. They have promised to replace your old bottles with new bottles that you can order for yourself on the website (you get credits to apply). They say to keep your old caps as they don't want them - you can use them as extras with the new bottles (which will of course come with new caps).
-- By the way, some consumers are saying that the new liner chips away around the mouth of the bottle pretty easily -- http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/two-new-bpa-free-problems-that-could-drive-away-sigg-users/
-- A pretty comprehensive look at BPA-free bottles that are currently on the market: http://www.thetranquilparent.com/detail/the-zrecs-2009-bpa-free-water-bottle-showdown/
For what it's worth, here is an article about 2 tests that showed that old Sigg bottles were leaching measurable levels of BPA: http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/vom-saal-claims-bpa-leaching-in-siggs-and-we-can-independently-confirm-it/
iamwildbill said: aleck said: So a company charged a premium for a product that they knew had BPA while advertising it as BPA free. Now they say "We are sorry" and that's all, case closed? How about fining them for false advertising and misrepresentation? Whether BPA is harmless or not is beyond the point, the company publicly lied. Screw the redemption program, this is the case where I would have no trouble seeing a small army of trial lawyers take them apart.
I don't seem to recall them saying that the bottles were BPA free. I know they said that tests showed BPA wasn't detected, but they were always mum about what the special lining inside was made of.
aptmowe
Broke Member
posted: Sep. 24, 2009 @ 2:11a
NantucketSunrise said: Update on the exchange program:
I sent my bottles to them on the 9th - delivery confirmation shows they were received on the 11th.
I haven't heard anything from them yet.
So I sent a nice email today asking when they expect to process my package, or at least the time they expect to take before confirming receipt of the packages, and they responded by writing one sentence to me:
"Please refrain from emailing us to ask whether we have received your package. Wait at least 4 weeks before contacting us."
It was also in wonky font sizes - like 3 different font sizes in the one, sparse sentence.
Pleasant.
my bottles were received by sigg on september 1 (according to delivery confirmation). i have yet to hear from them too. i also sent them an email on september 10 asking when i could expect a credit, but they never responded
update: received my gift certificate pin code number today!
kenyanboy said: I have a Nalgene bottle and a Camelbak bottle. I'm wondering if theirs are truly "BPA free". Maybe I should stick to Pyrex lab-quality glassware.
cows123 said: kenyanboy said: I have a Nalgene bottle and a Camelbak bottle. I'm wondering if theirs are truly "BPA free". Maybe I should stick to Pyrex lab-quality glassware.
I ain't hiking with no glass bottles.
Then get Kleen Kanteen - same price as Sigg. I have one and its great.
A general tip - folks should make sure that the free replacements they get at retailers have the new liner and not the old one - there are many bottles with old liners still out there as inventory at stores. The old liner is gold-y-metallic-y, the new liner is a dull whitish (apparently).
All the Sigg bottles on display at my local Target have the old liner - I checked again this week. There are only 2 Whole Foods in my state and both are 75 miles away, so I didn't try them.
I probably would have trekked over there, if I had known I could get a Whole Foods gift card instead of only doing a like-for-like swap. I'd rather have cash for these bottles than the replacements anyway. For one thing, the new liners are said on reliable internet sites to flake off around the rim, creating jagged edges and causing worry about the particles getting into the beverages and being ingested.
cows123 said: Brought 2 1 liter bottles to Whole Foods. Received my choice of 2 new bottles or Whole Foods gift card for $54.44 (retail+tax).
Update: It's been 26 days since they received my bottles, but I haven't heard from them yet. This Friday will be 4 weeks, and according to their earlier email asking me to "refrain" from bothering them, 4 weeks is the point at which they will let me contact them about my shipment. I'll update the thread when there is an outcome.
No response to my email on the 12th, so I emailed them again on the 28th.
They responded a few hours later, saying that their warehouse has been inundated with returned bottles, so it's taking them a long time to deal with the exchange program, and as long as you get your bottles to them by the end of October, you should be fine.
They said to give them 4 to 6 weeks after receipt of bottles to send your credit. It's been longer than that since they received mine. I'll update when I hear something.
PhillyChower
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 11, 2009 @ 2:34p
Thanks for this thread, I otherwise wouldn't have known.
I sent mine about a month ago, I just got an email with my code to buy another one, just placed my order without problems. Sorry you're having issues NantucketSunrise.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
