iPhone's hazardous chemicals
When we released our iPhone testing results that revealed toxic chemicals in the iPhone, chemicals that other phone makers have removed, we expected the news to travel. Two days after the release there's been loads of coverage, especially online, varying of course from the factually accurate in wired to the predictable ranting, like this on gizmodo.
Normally Apple doesn't comment on bad news unless its really thinks it has to. This is the comment they gave to Macworld:
"Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS [Restriction of Hazardous Substances], the world's toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics," an Apple spokesperson, told Macworld. "As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008."
Today the IT website 'The Register' published this headline "Greenpeace admits iPhone 'compliant' with Euro chemicals rules" claiming the most important fact is Apple complies with minimum legal requirements like RoHS.
Of course they do - they have to, but this was not the purpose of our report. Our report was comparing if Apple was making progress compared to other mobile phone makers. Especially after Steve Jobs claimed on May 2nd: "Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors" on environmental issues.
Our toxic campaigner, Zeina (an expert in regulations with strange acronyms like RoHS) spells out why RoHS compliance isn't a big deal even if Apple PR and some blogs might thinks it is.
"Reading the response from Apple, I am actually puzzled whether they missed the point here or are they running away from the challenge.
RoHS is irrelevant to this issue - everyone knows that all major electronics firms who sell in Europe should be completely RoHS compliant. Actually a number of the electronic companies are RoHS compliant globally.
The purpose of our analysis was to see how the iPhone compares to competitors on toxic chemicals being the newest electronics gadgets that is changing the electronics industry."
We did not test the others brands because the data about them is available on the companies' websites. Nokia has a clear PVC-free policy for all its new mobiles since early 2007. Sony Ericsson and Motorola have already BFRs (brominated flame retardant) free components on the market. Apple doesn't disclose these information and doesn't have any unique cases studies despite Steve Jobs' statement on May 2nd mention above.
When the iPhone was released, there was no mention of its environmental characteristics. Therefore, we had to do the testing of the iPhone and its now clear that Apple is behind other phone makers.
Apple as a leader of innovation must be ahead of the curve on environment as well as on design.
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
Apple does not sell more phones than Nokia, Motorolla or Sony. So how can they be the leader and thus responsible for creating the most evnironmental phone. Your article says since Apple is the most inovative, they should therefore be the most responsible. Measure that for me would ya, and then once again take your comments back because you can't back it. Again, more FUD from those unwilling to research before they spew out worthless material for all their followers to climb behind. Its unfortunate you have to operate this way, but you now should realize, you represent everything that is wrong with society today.
(EDITED FOR OFFENSIVENESS)
Posted by: Jim | October 16, 2007 8:22 PM
This story seems more of an attack on Apple than anything else to me. Apple's iPhone may contain some traces of this or that, but seriously, the danger of this is Bull Shit. I beg to differ iPhones as being much more friendly to the earth than anyone. Moving to aluminum and glass alone sets them far beyond what anyone else is doing. Don't forget their products are products people can actually use for many years and resell later on. The life expectancy of all the other electronic companies companied, plus the packaging they use makes Apple an environmental winner and leader all around. Apple products rarely wind up as trash/garbage. If you want to talk about trash and wasting paper, talk about Windows and all the computers in the world that run it. They have bad resell value, and most of the time the bad software results in destroyed hardware. The use of paper has more than doubled since Bill Gates gave us his stolen system full of all of its bugs. Nobody trusts his or her info is safe unless it is on paper. The solution is Apple, and if you disagree, you have so much to learn about this timesaving, and stable system. I have no paper since I bought my mac. They have the option in every print menu to simply save as a PDF. A beautiful solution even Vista hasn’t figured out. For Shame Green peace wrote this article. It will do more harm for the environment than good.
Posted by: Ross | October 17, 2007 5:11 PM
Greenpeace's stance on this issue of toxic materials in the iPhone is deeply disturbing to me. It's just wrong, and you should stop trying to make out like you have the higher moral ground here when in fact all you are doing is acting like a school-yard bully.
I am a Vancouver resident, as left-wing as you can get, and have supported Greenpeace since it started. I even attended the very first "Save the Whales" concert when Greenpeace was just starting, but I will NEVER, EVER, give a single dime to Greenpeace ever again.
This campaign against Apple is wrong. It's so clearly biased, and political and just unethical. Try attacking the people who actually are at fault, and lay off a bit on those that are not perfect, but actually trying their best to adhere to the same philosophy that you supposedly espouse.
WAKE UP GREENPEACE! Take a long look at all the damage you are doing to your own support network by means of this childish, slanted vendetta against Apple.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 17, 2007 11:07 PM
"We did not test the others brands because the data about them is available on the companies' websites."
Yeah, okay. No need to look into every OTHER cell maker. Their website says it's all fine, so surely it must be, because everything any company says is true. You people are nuts, sorry, but wake up and take a realistic approach to this.
I'm all for saving the environment. I don't drive, own an iPod or use a cell. Which, I am sure, is more than 90% of the people at Greenpeace can say. The childish approach makes people think less of your organization.
When I was a kid, Greenpeace had an air of respect, it no longer does. Publish industry-wide reports, and propose solutions. Do you have members who specialize in mass electronics manufacturing processes? Have them share their ideas on how to build a better system.
=====
Greenpeace comment:
Andrew - we meet with many of these companies and test their products to check they are sticking to their commitments on their website. Maybe you have not read our several reports testing electronics from many companies.
That's why they don't publish fact that are untrue on their website. Most of these companies respect our work in this area.
The solutions are not to use hazardous chemicals like Nokia, Motorola etc. Solutions are for the companies with million dollar research budgets to implement.
Tom
PS - I take public transport to work everyday just like about 95% of my colleagues in the Greenpeace office here in Amsterdam.
====
Posted by: Andrew | October 18, 2007 6:16 AM
The Apple diehards who are deeply offended that Greenpeace attacks their cherished gizmo makers should relax a bit. Apple is cool, Apple works very hard at having us believe that they are "not evil" (like other iconic company), Apple caters to the artists, leftists, anti-corporatists of this world. So the more reason to hold them up to their word, so that their free-spirited users can concentrate on building a better world, without worrying about phtalates and bromides in the plastic toys they buy from their beloved supplier.
Posted by: Peter | October 23, 2007 9:46 PM