SIGG Bottles Contained BPA Until Aug 2008

This just in (well, a couple of weeks ago): SIGG bottles made before August 2008 contained bisphenol-A (BPA), a compound suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s. (Source.)

Here's the whole story:

You can't make drinking bottles out of untreated aluminum, because it is reactive and toxic, so the shiny, trendy, multi-colored SIGG bottles have always required a liner of some sort. SIGG was never straightforward about the make-up of the liner, saying merely that it was "proprietary" and "non-leaching".

It turns out that until recently the liner contained BPA, which is a plastic of the sort that everyone was trying to avoid by buying metal drinking bottles.

In August 2008 SIGG quietly changed the formula for their liner so that it would not contain BPA. There was no press release. (Imagine: "SIGG: Now with non-toxic liner!")

SIGG's business had benefited massively from a buying public who made a conscious decision to avoid plastic water bottles (whether one-time or reusable, like Nalgene) in favor of (what appeared to be) healthier, more environmentally friendly metal bottles. Folks weren't aware of the fact that SIGG bottles used BPA, because this information was not available.

SIGG made a decision in June 2006 to reformulate their liner so that it would be BPA-free, did the necessary R&D, and in August 2008 stopped selling bottles using the old, BPA-containing lining.

SIGG, to their credit (although under duress, faced with the threat of consumer outrage), has just announced an exchange program through which old bottles can be exchanged for new, BPA-free bottles at no charge.

What are we to think? Should we pile all our old SIGG bottles in the town square, and light them on fire? (Wait, we can't do that because of the pesky BPA lining!)

In their shoes, would you have:

1. Gotten on the ball and started work on a new liner before 2006? 
2. Announced what they were doing, and why, when they started work on their new liner?

The business impact of their decision remains to be seen. It is clear, though, that they will lose the faith of a lot of their customers.

Personally, will I buy bottles from SIGG in the future?

No. I prefer Klean Kanteen bottles anyway. Stainless steel is non-reactive and doesn't require a lining. End of story. Makes much more sense to me than making a bottle out of something reactive and toxic like aluminum, and then going to great lengths to figure out how to line it so that it won't be toxic.

Jellyfish Alert

For years I've been eating jellyfish (another link), and recently I've been encouraging others to do so, arguing, slightly tongue-in-cheek, that if we don't start eating them, a lot of them, really soon, they're going to take over the world. To make matters worse, in the 1990s, it was found that some species of jellyfish are immortal. Unfortunately, there's a problem. The process generally used to prepare raw jellyfish for packing or consumption, a process necessary to prevent the jellyfish from dissolving into a big pile of goo, involves alum (potassium aluminum sulfate) and can leave non-trivial amounts of aluminum in the finished product. So: When you get raw, untreated jellyfish, and process and prepare it yourself without using alum, using some other alkalizing agent, all is well. Under other circumstances, I'm afraid that I can no longer recommend eating jellyfish.

Why Cast Iron?

In my post a few days ago, I recommended using (and buying) cast iron.

Cast iron cookware has many virtues. I'm not the first to point them out. But I'm going to point them out anyway.

• Cast iron heats uniformly. Great for searing, toasting, and sautéeing, and great for baking.
• It holds a lot of heat. So when you drop in a cold piece of something, the pan doesn't get cold, and the something sears. Or if the pan is full of oil, the oil doesn't get cold.
  
• You can make cast iron REALLY hot. Simply put it on a high flame with nothing in it for a while. Great for searing and blackening. Cast iron can also go in the oven, and under the broiler if you are sensible about it.
  
• Over time and with proper use, cast iron develops a pretty good non-stick surface. The more you fry in it, the better it cooks, the less it sticks, and the easier it gets to clean.
  
• It is heavy, and will impress your guests and potential burglars.
• It is nearly indestructible. You can use metal spoons and tongs in it all day long. Even if you mess up its finish, you can easily refinish it yourself.
• It is a bargain, whether you buy it new or used.

Its downsides:

• If you use it to cook things that are acidic or too liquid (spinach, tomatoes, stews, soups), it can oxidize, discoloring the food, and adding some iron to it. A little supplemental iron in our diets can be okay, depending, but black tomato sauce is a bummer.
  
• Cast iron holds a lot of heat. If you want to be able to vary the temperature quickly, like when you're stir-frying or sautéeing something delicate, this can be a drawback.
  

When I'm not using a cast iron pan, I might use enameled cast iron (Le Creuset), anodized aluminum ("classic" Calphalon, not nonstick or "infused"), or stainless steel.

Enameled cast iron cooks very much like cast iron, except that its finish is impervious to acid and liquid. It is more fragile than cast iron; you don't want to bang it with a metal spoon, or burn things in it. It tends to be expensive. Great for soups, stews, and roasting.

Anodized aluminum heats nicely. Unlike cast iron, aluminum holds little heat; this can be nice when you want to vary the heat quickly and precisely. Anodized aluminum is also more fragile than cast iron, is expensive, and is increasingly hard to find. Anodized aluminum can really do everything pretty well; if I could only have one type of pan, this might be it. Fortunately, I have no such limitation.

Unfinished aluminum has nothing to recommend it over anodized aluminum, except that it's cheap. But unfinished aluminum oxidizes, and is pretty toxic, so I don't use it.

Stainless steel heats okay but not great, although some fancy stainless pans, like All-Clad and other laminated types, heat nicely. Stainless steel is impervious to acid and liquid, is not so fragile, and can be inexpensive (although not the All-Clad). A good choice for messy, sticky, or corrosive things, like dessert sauces and acidic reductions. Or for boiling water.

Non-stick is fragile, and can't safely be used on high heat because of toxicity. I can see the case for frying eggs and fish in non-stick, because fried eggs and fish are very delicate—but that's about all. I avoid it when I have a choice.

I don't have experience with glass cookware. My impression is that it heats poorly, is fragile, and is difficult to clean.