Our report criticised the use of a type of toxic chemicals called brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Many electronics companies have committed to stop using these chemicals and some phone makers have already dropped these chemicals from most parts. Having had our report for a week BSEF (the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry) put out this press release accusing us of faulty methodology and not offering alternatives.

Now we’d normally ignore such chemical industry PR but a few blogs have picked it up. Macworld, MacNN and Wired all report it more or less for what it is - the industry who make brominated flame retardants fighting back. But Gizmodo posted this with the misleading headline (Electronics Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone)

Here’s our rebuttal to the Bromide group allegations and which were partly repeated on Gizmodo.

Let us first address the major accusation, that of “faulty methodology”:

The study clearly identified bromine in a wide range of materials and components in the iPhone. The technique used is widely recognised for this purpose (XRF; X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometry).

Similarly, analysis of other hazardous chemicals in the iPhone, such as phthalates, were conducted using recognised techniques.

As so many components were found to contain bromine (9 of the 18 materials tested), it was not feasible for Greenpeace to undertake the extensive and extremely costly work necessary to determine (as far as it is possible to do so) the exact brominated chemical or chemicals present in all these samples.

However, the study did include additional analysis in order to characterise as fully as possible the nature of the brominated chemicals in two of the nine materials. This relied on using an additional technique (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry), as is detailed in the report.

Despite use of this appropriate and widely recognised technique it was not possible to determine the nature of the brominated chemicals in these two materials.

This, however, was not due to the use of faulty methodology or techniques.

As the report states, it is likely that the bromine present in the materials is present in a reactive polymeric form.

To obtain information by analysis on the chemical nature of the bromine in this form is extremely difficult and may not even be possible with any currently available analytical technique.

Ultimately this information may only be available from the manufacturers themselves. Unfortunately this information has not been made publicly available by Apple.

The report does not raise ‘an alarm without any basis for doing so’.

As the report states, due to the iPhone containing bromine in whatever form, impacts can result at the product’s end of life. These arise from the unintentional formation of toxic brominated byproducts (including brominated dioxins) during some disposal or recycling operations. This has been demonstrated in another recent independent scientific study.

“Greenpeace study is not only alarmist, since all substances are approved for use by EU regulatory requirements…”

Despite current EU regulations being the most stringent in the world, these regulations do not cover all kinds of hazardous chemicals, including all BFRs. It is surely reasonable to expect that an industry which prides itself on innovation should be well ahead of the curve on issues as fundamental as the use of hazardous substances.

“no alternatives as effective as BFRs to prevent fires in consumer electronics”:

This suggests we are stuck with BFRs. However, it is possible to significantly reduce the use of BFRs by substituting non-flammable materials for plastics in mobile phones, as some manufacturers already do.

“the BFR most likely used in the iPhone is actually a reactive—i.e. it reacts with other substances to form a plastic and, once reacted, it is also no longer available to the environment."

This fails to take into account the real-life situation in which consumer electronics are dismantled by hand, in countries such as China. While the iPhone might not yet be waste we want all companies to eliminate BFR’s from their products.

Of course we welcome the debate that has been sparked by our report analysing hazardous chemicals used in the iPhone. We are confident that, whatever opinions are expressed, airing this issue this will help increase pressure on manufacturers such as Apple and others to do the right thing and eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals as quickly as possible.

As for the Bromine industry attack, I just like to remember what a certain Indian once said:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Or as a commentor on MacNN succinctly put it:

Greenpeace is wrong! The chemical industry says so! And we know they have no reason to lie!