Comments on: Sigg Update

By: Dave j

Dave j — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:43:42 +0000

Sigg now admits they were using BPA in the manufacture of there bottles all along.

By: dave j

dave j — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:39:44 +0000

There is a bit of scientific double speak in the Sigg statement.
I think they actually say there is 0.0% leaching.

So if I were to pour 0.4ml of pure BPA straight into my 1L bottle I would have a concentration of 0.04%. That would round up to 0.0% that Sigg claims.

By the way the levels of BPA considered dangerous are measured in the parts per billion. aka 0.0000001%

The real question which the folks at Sigg refuse to answer is “Is BPA used in the manufacture of your liner? – Yes or No.”

Since they refuse to answer that I think we all know the answer.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:39:14 +0000

I think at the end of the day you are still talking about an aluminum bottle, the very idea of which is suspect, to the point that it requires a lining to be considered safe (by some). Scratch or otherwise compromise this lining and you have what everyone would agree is an unsafe container. Sigg sells some kind of special brush to clean their bottles, but I have never actually seen one in a store nor do I know anyone who has one . . . this also speaks indirectly to the problem.

Glass or stainless bottles are both inherently “food grade” without any special treatment. Nalgene and Sigg are both introducing stainless bottles, which tells a fuller story, no matter what their respective Presidents have to say on the record.

By: Jennifer Lance

Jennifer Lance — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:21:00 +0000

Yes, the use of the term is confusing. It was actually picked up off my blog by a linguist listwserv. This is what they wrote:
Erik Hoover wrote:
> I think Dr. Nehring or may have confused/switched noxious and innocuous.
>
>

This was my reading too. That or a rephrasing error ("[SIGG bottles] ...
are innocuous to human health").

The phrasing ("does not add to the beverage any particles and/or
components") sounds rather German-native-speaker to me.

Chris Waigl
so "injurious" >> "innocuous". i'd guess this was a classical
>> malapropism -- Nehring got the word he wanted, but it's the wrong one
>> from other people's perspective -- but it could have been a Fay/
>> Cutler malaprop, an inadvertent error in word retrieval.
>>
>> arnold

The listserv is from the American Dialect Society.

I still trust my Klean Kanteens, and in fact, just bought another one.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:27:00 +0000

Thanks for the update on Sigg bottles.

My confusion still rests with the quote on their website (and reposted here) which I'm hoping is just a grammatical error. Anyone else catch the "does not add any {particles} which are innocuous..." ?
To me, this means the bottles don't add any 'safe' particles. I'm thinking they misspoke.

Thoughts?? Just an accident? Spin? Thanks again for the letter, seems like they have their heart in the right place and I'm hoping it's just a grammatical error.
BTW, I did email them and got no response. Hmm.