It's not a question of whether BPA _can_ be a threat but rather dosages in water bottle usage. As Blast pointed out, when there are *eleven* zeros to the right of the decimal point it's time to start asking questions.
If you ate the water bottle then the dosage levels might be more problematic...
I'm not so much concerned about the amount of BPA I may consume due to every day contact with or usage of polycarbonate water bottles, canned goods liners etcetera, but rather what the shear tonnage of such containers placed into the waste stream can leach into the environment. That is where I am concerned that those "eleven zeros to the right of the decimal point" can add up and come back to haunt us.
It would be interesting to hear Sigg's side of the story, and whether the Patagonia Procurement team actually specified BPA-free or not. The "VP of Environmental Initiatives" may want it but Procurement may not bother asking for it - after all, Procurement guys are paid to filter out unnecessary specs that add costs. That's been my experience in the corporate world anyway.
Patagonia's continued stance is that they asked specifically about BPA in SIGG bottles and that SIGG assured them there was no BPA in their bottle liners. It is in Patagonia's official press release about dropping SIGG and terminating co-branding contracts.
Thus far, SIGG has not responded to Patagonia's claim at all, but have changed their bottle liners and have officially apologized for "Less than transparent" practices.
Previous Topic
Index
