I’m awfully pleased to learn that Patagonia has terminated their relationship with SIGG Water Bottles.
Patagonia is currently accepting returns of any SIGG bottle purchased through the company, and it’s offering its customers full refunds. (Unlike, say, a certain bottle manufacturer.) All unused SIGG inventory on Patagonia store shelves will be sent back to SIGG to be recycled.
I’ve never shopped at Patagonia before (my workout wear tends to be Rocco’s old stained sweats and band t-shirts from my days of workin in Heavy Metal), but I just may start.
I’m riled up. Pissed off. Fuming. And I don’t think it’s just because of my raging case of PMS.
It seems like every damn newsletter I open today was written with the express purpose of getting my goat. Really, my goat is pretty damn hard to get but these people are knocking it out of the park today. (How many mixed metaphors can I cram together in one posting? Hmm, let’s see. I don’t think well when I’m infuriated.) Two articles are especially angering.
You don’t even need to read the article to know the correct answer in my opinion: NONE.
“Can I get you a glass of water? Would you like ice? A little lemon perhaps? A dash of atrazine?”
Recent studies suggest that, even at concentrations meeting current federal standards, the chemical may be associated with birth defects, low birth weights and menstrual problems.
Laboratory experiments suggest that when animals are exposed to brief doses of atrazine before birth, they may become more vulnerable to cancer later.
Atrazine is used to protect crops, golf courses, and manicured yards. Did I mention my childhood home was at the base of a golf course? Yum. Now I know it’s easy to just freak out over one random chemical that may or may not cause cancer. But aren’t we seeing more and more of this shit?
Forty percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once last year, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data, and dozens of chemicals have been detected at unsafe levels in drinking water.
I know I’m a big naive douche, but is it so wrong to want to trust the EPA? I mean, who else are we supposed to trust? The FDA? The companies that produce these harmful chemicals? The companies that sell consumer products manufactured with materials proven to damage our health?
Which brings me to Article Two: Betrayed: SIGG bottles contained BPA lining through 2008
Seriously? I totally jumped on the “get rid of your plastic bottles” band wagon last year. Especially when I read how BPA can interfere with chemotherapy. Suddenly carrying my big Gatorade filled Nalgenes to Sloan-Kettering every other week was bad news. I switched to metal immediately. Boy was that smart.
BPA is bad – plain and simple. It’s in every damn thing! It’s been banned in multiple countries, but not here. Thanks again, FDA and EPA. You guys really have our best interests at heart.
But I certainly don’t think SIGG should be let off the hook. They flat out lied. They misled the public and intentionally deceived consumers, me included.
The worst part, however, has been SIGG’s handling of the matter; carefully refusing to answer questions about the makeup of its liners until last week (obviously long after it had replaced the offensive material and waited for the old bottles to work their way through the distribution stream).
This statement made by SIGG’s CEO in March 2007, after the EWG report accused the company of using BPA, is the most flagrant: “it was brought to my attention that a website sponsored by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) made mention that SIGG bottles contain plastic liners with bisphenol A (BPA). I can assure you that SIGG bottles are absolutely not made with a plastic liner and are in fact lined with a proprietary non-toxic, water-based resin which has been refined over decades of study and is extremely safe & stable… we questioned the EWG and requested that they provide us with the testing they have conducted on SIGG — or alternatively to remove the “SIGG” mention from their website if they have not tested SIGG.” The EWG removed the mention of SIGG.
The bulletin recently posted on SIGG’s Web site does not apologize for distributing bottles containing BPA without informing consumers, nor does it contain any consciousness of SIGG’s role in perpetuating the mythology of safety surrounding its products. Instead, it applauds the company’s forward-thinking in developing (secretly) a BPA free liner (and not telling consumers about it for an entire year after it had been launched) and crowing: “It is also environmentally friendly as its application generates virtually no waste and utilizes no organic solvents or VOCs. Our new bottle liner is not only a technological advance; it’s a major step forward in SIGG’s journey towards sustainability.”
These people make baby bottles for Christ’s sake! Is there a line that Corporate America won’t cross? But what do you do? It’s not like you can stop drinking water. Hell, maybe I’ll just take a cue from the Roman’s and drink wine instead. It damn sure won’t be from a SIGG bottle, though.