Comments on: SIGG and the Problems of Transparency http://blog.channelsignal.com/index.php/2009/09/sigg-and-the-problems-of-transparency/ Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:59:18 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paul Kirwin http://blog.channelsignal.com/index.php/2009/09/sigg-and-the-problems-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Paul Kirwin Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:46:22 +0000 http://www.channelsignal.com/?p=962#comment-214 Based on my reputation, I hardly think anyone would call me a shill for anything; however, you seem to have inside information. And how do you know that Sigg absolutely lied about BPA? You said "we contacted them". Who is we? I have said that Sigg made many mistakes. Too many. And that they handled the situation poorly. I have second hand information that the company lied to the public, but nothing confirmed. Perhaps you can help in this. Based on my reputation, I hardly think anyone would call me a shill for anything; however, you seem to have inside information. And how do you know that Sigg absolutely lied about BPA? You said “we contacted them”.
Who is we? I have said that Sigg made many mistakes. Too many. And that they handled the situation poorly. I have second hand information that the company lied to the public, but nothing confirmed. Perhaps you can help in this.

]]> By: joe http://blog.channelsignal.com/index.php/2009/09/sigg-and-the-problems-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-213 joe Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:11:32 +0000 http://www.channelsignal.com/?p=962#comment-213 you're a shill for every corporation that deceives people. sigg is merely a symptom of a systemic problem. the people cannot take on aig. they can take on sigg, so we fight the battles we see fit. and sigg ABSOLUTELY lied about BPA. we contacted them asking SPECIFICALLY about BPA and were told in 2007 that NONE of their bottles contained BPA. NOTHING was said about leaching or anything else. we were FLAT OUT LIED TO. you’re a shill for every corporation that deceives people. sigg is merely a symptom of a systemic problem. the people cannot take on aig. they can take on sigg, so we fight the battles we see fit. and sigg ABSOLUTELY lied about BPA. we contacted them asking SPECIFICALLY about BPA and were told in 2007 that NONE of their bottles contained BPA. NOTHING was said about leaching or anything else. we were FLAT OUT LIED TO.

]]> By: Paul Kirwin http://blog.channelsignal.com/index.php/2009/09/sigg-and-the-problems-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-166 Paul Kirwin Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:39:01 +0000 http://www.channelsignal.com/?p=962#comment-166 Cinghiale, You are starting with the assumption that Sigg "lied". I can not make that assumption, because I don't know that for a fact. I come at this problem from the standpoint that (they say) they have science backing up that water did not leach from their older liners. And no one seems to be challenging that. In my view, still, the outcry was disproportionate to the core problem. That problem migrating from a leaching problem to anything having BPA in it. Based on what I know, the CEO came clean. And I maintain that the negative response was over-the-top. If he did know that BPA was leaching into the water, and kept quiet, then my blog would have been far less kind. Cinghiale,
You are starting with the assumption that Sigg “lied”. I can not make that assumption, because I don’t know that for a fact. I come at this problem from the standpoint that (they say) they have science backing up that water did not leach from their older liners. And no one seems to be challenging that.

In my view, still, the outcry was disproportionate to the core problem. That problem migrating from a leaching problem to anything having BPA in it.

Based on what I know, the CEO came clean. And I maintain that the negative response was over-the-top.
If he did know that BPA was leaching into the water, and kept quiet, then my blog would have been far less kind.

]]> By: Cinghiale http://blog.channelsignal.com/index.php/2009/09/sigg-and-the-problems-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Cinghiale Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:22:58 +0000 http://www.channelsignal.com/?p=962#comment-165 I'm not buying this. Sigg and Steve Wasik deserve the beating they're taking. While Nalgene and other plastic bottle manufacturers were getting scalded by the BPA issue, Sigg was raking in sales, knowing full well their bottles also placed BPA directly in contact with drinking water. It’s naïve to give Sigg the benefit of the doubt regarding the "science" that shows no migration of BPA to water in their bottle, considering the company's record of truth-telling. I've seen science showing no human risk to BPA exposure, but I don't believe it. And the Exxon web site has quite a bit of "science" that suggests climate change is harmless. The argument that we should cut Sigg some slack because everyone else lies, like the SEC and brokers selling falsely labeled securities is absurd. A lie is not made OK, simply because someone else told a bigger one. Last and most importantly, Wasik didn't "come clean". His initial, awkward statement was forced when he was outed by a competitor. If not for that, does anyone doubt that his mouth would still be firmly shut? Giving companies a free pass for duplicity, as advocated here, is a slippery slope. Yes, the world has bigger problems, but that fact doesn’t lessen what Sigg has done. Patagonia was smart to publicly walk away from these guys and the consumer backlash is well-earned. I’m not buying this. Sigg and Steve Wasik deserve the beating they’re taking.

While Nalgene and other plastic bottle manufacturers were getting scalded by the BPA issue, Sigg was raking in sales, knowing full well their bottles also placed BPA directly in contact with drinking water.

It’s naïve to give Sigg the benefit of the doubt regarding the “science” that shows no migration of BPA to water in their bottle, considering the company’s record of truth-telling. I’ve seen science showing no human risk to BPA exposure, but I don’t believe it. And the Exxon web site has quite a bit of “science” that suggests climate change is harmless.

The argument that we should cut Sigg some slack because everyone else lies, like the SEC and brokers selling falsely labeled securities is absurd. A lie is not made OK, simply because someone else told a bigger one.

Last and most importantly, Wasik didn’t “come clean”. His initial, awkward statement was forced when he was outed by a competitor. If not for that, does anyone doubt that his mouth would still be firmly shut?

Giving companies a free pass for duplicity, as advocated here, is a slippery slope. Yes, the world has bigger problems, but that fact doesn’t lessen what Sigg has done. Patagonia was smart to publicly walk away from these guys and the consumer backlash is well-earned.

]]> By: dvdsweeney http://blog.channelsignal.com/index.php/2009/09/sigg-and-the-problems-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-162 dvdsweeney Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:15:07 +0000 http://www.channelsignal.com/?p=962#comment-162 Amen brother. Now, if only we can get enough of those little green pieces of paper together we can solve all our problems right? Amen brother. Now, if only we can get enough of those little green pieces of paper together we can solve all our problems right?

]]>