Enviro agency may sue Apple following Greenpeace iPhone report
A potential lawsuit from the Center for Environmental Health would accuse Apple of violating pollution laws by allowing its first cellphone to ship with toxic chemcials inside.
The announcement came just hours after Greenpeace published the results of a scientific test of the iPhone. Greenpeace discovered that many of the components in the device contained small but significant traces of hazardous chemicals -- even as part of the earbuds.
"Brominated compounds [were found] in half the samples, including in the phone's antenna, in which they made up 10 percent of the total weight of the flexible circuit board," the activist group said. "A mixture of toxic phthalates was found to make up 1.5 percent of the polyvinyl plastic (PVC) coating of the headphone cables."
These materials are dangerous enough to be labeled as "toxic to reproduction" in Europe and are already banned in all childcare goods for the continent, the organization said. Their place in a cellphone was not explicitly illegal but placed Apple behind other cellphone designers who were already producing phones without either brominated flame retardants (BFRs) or PVC plastic. Motorola, Nokia, and Sony-Ericsson were described as ahead of Apple in eliminating most or all of the substances from their production lines.
But while the practice is only frowned upon in Europe, Apple could not claim such protection for the iPhone in its home of California, claimed the Center for Environmental Health. The CEH alleged that the American state's Proposition 65 law barred any anti-reproductive or cancer-inducing plasticizer chemicals, like PVC, from shipping inside a product without a "clear and reasonable" label. The iPhone has lacked any such label since its launch in June, the group said.
And while the Center had so far only submitted a complaint, legal action was impending as a "citizen enforcement" measure if Apple did not voluntarily address the concerns, according to the report. To avoid a lawsuit, the Cupertino-based company would have to sign a binding agreement that would add a suitable label to new iPhones, recall every unit sold in California, and pay a financial penalty for the offense.
No matter the exact laws, both the CEH and Greenpeace shared the opinion that the iPhone was not living up to the spirit of Apple chief Steve Jobs' new environmental policy, which pledged to scrub BFRs, PVCs, and other toxic materials from Apple products by the end of 2008.
"There is no reason to have these potentially hazardous chemicals in iPhones," said CEH director Michael Green. "We expect Apple to reformulate their products to make them safer from cradle to grave, so they don’t pose a threat to consumers, workers or the environment."
The announcement came just hours after Greenpeace published the results of a scientific test of the iPhone. Greenpeace discovered that many of the components in the device contained small but significant traces of hazardous chemicals -- even as part of the earbuds.
"Brominated compounds [were found] in half the samples, including in the phone's antenna, in which they made up 10 percent of the total weight of the flexible circuit board," the activist group said. "A mixture of toxic phthalates was found to make up 1.5 percent of the polyvinyl plastic (PVC) coating of the headphone cables."
These materials are dangerous enough to be labeled as "toxic to reproduction" in Europe and are already banned in all childcare goods for the continent, the organization said. Their place in a cellphone was not explicitly illegal but placed Apple behind other cellphone designers who were already producing phones without either brominated flame retardants (BFRs) or PVC plastic. Motorola, Nokia, and Sony-Ericsson were described as ahead of Apple in eliminating most or all of the substances from their production lines.
But while the practice is only frowned upon in Europe, Apple could not claim such protection for the iPhone in its home of California, claimed the Center for Environmental Health. The CEH alleged that the American state's Proposition 65 law barred any anti-reproductive or cancer-inducing plasticizer chemicals, like PVC, from shipping inside a product without a "clear and reasonable" label. The iPhone has lacked any such label since its launch in June, the group said.
And while the Center had so far only submitted a complaint, legal action was impending as a "citizen enforcement" measure if Apple did not voluntarily address the concerns, according to the report. To avoid a lawsuit, the Cupertino-based company would have to sign a binding agreement that would add a suitable label to new iPhones, recall every unit sold in California, and pay a financial penalty for the offense.
No matter the exact laws, both the CEH and Greenpeace shared the opinion that the iPhone was not living up to the spirit of Apple chief Steve Jobs' new environmental policy, which pledged to scrub BFRs, PVCs, and other toxic materials from Apple products by the end of 2008.
"There is no reason to have these potentially hazardous chemicals in iPhones," said CEH director Michael Green. "We expect Apple to reformulate their products to make them safer from cradle to grave, so they don’t pose a threat to consumers, workers or the environment."
Comments
I freely admit, I'm as liberally treehugging as they come, but c'mon....the antenna...10% of it by weight is bromide....that's what a couple nanograms?
PVC is hazardous?? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that means like half my wardrobe is toxic (yes kids, I wear PVC/Latex). C'mon, don't we have more important things to deal with? Gas prices, CO2 emissions, a horrible war, the possibility of Skeletor becoming president (sorry, I love ya Hilary, but I really don't blame Bill).
*sues Greenpeace for giving us flaming liberals a bad name*
Oh dear god....
I freely admit, I'm as liberally treehugging as they come, but c'mon....the antenna...10% of it by weight is bromide....that's what a couple nanograms?
PVC is hazardous?? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that means like half my wardrobe is toxic (yes kids, I wear PVC/Latex). C'mon, don't we have more important things to deal with? Gas prices, CO2 emissions, a horrible war, the possibility of Skeletor becoming president (sorry, I love ya Hilary, but I really don't blame Bill).
*sues Greenpeace for giving us flaming liberals a bad name*
Liberal activists and Democrats these days can be categorized as two different species. All these non-profits, Greenpeace, MediaMatters buffoons all failed the burger-flipping test.
I agree with you. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and there are a bunch of them that the only way they can do it is slime their way into it.
amazing logic.
"Well, as you can see, when the iPhone is taken apart and then separated by weight and poison content, it can be potentially dangerous in some samples."
and his name is Mike Green?
Are you kidding?
UCH!
Further, when you have more than 130 million pounds of cell phone equipment being discarded annually, concern about toxic content may be something other than ridiculous.
Yea, as stated above, guess no one should eat their iPhone. (Does that mean I can eat a Nokia phone and be ok?)
Hopefully this shames Apple into catching up with Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Motorola...
Oh give me a break!
Yea, as stated above, guess no one should eat their iPhone. (Does that mean I can eat a Nokia phone and be ok?)
Good one
IALMAO
Righto! Nothing but a lame publicity stunt. Did you notice in the YouTube clip that Motorola and Sony Ericcson elimintaed "most" hazordous chemicals? Nice wording there eh? It seems as if they are no better.
Well, not entirely true:
SONY ERICSSON (SE) has now set a timeline of 1st January 2008 for eliminating phthalates, beryllium and some uses of antimony compounds.
All SE products are PVC free ? except for cables in a few early models of chargers and accessories, and these are being phased out.
The SE List of Banned and Restricted Substances sets a deadline of 1st January 2008 for the phase out of two remaining uses of BFR, otherwise all products are BFR-free.
http://pcworld.about.com/gi/dynamic/...lectronics.pdf
If you don't give a hoot about this issue, fine. But at least let the criticism be informed. Nokia is doing slightly better, Dell about the same. I believe the point is that these companies have a plan in place and goals bound to time lines with specific objectives stated. To my knowledge, Apple does not. Perhaps you see no need for them to do so. However, many would disagree, and are exerting pressure designed to encourage Apple in that direction. I love Apple products, have used them for years, but with the tonnage of waste this industry produces annually, I'd have no problem with Apple coming up with an environmental plan as forward thinking as their commercial products.
To my knowledge, Apple does not.
Your ignorance shouldn't be our problem.
Frakking linked off the main damn page of Apple.com.
"Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and arsenic in its products by the end of 2008."
Do I need to wipe you ass in the toilet too, or are you capable of pulling paper off the roll? Because your displayed lack of ability to do the most rudimentary basic research is appallingly pathetic.
And OBTW: It's still LEGAL to put phthalates in BABY BOTTLES and TEETHING RINGS in the US and state of California! The governator signed a law last night that finally addresses phthalates for products made for YOUNG CHILDREN, and manufactured in 2009. I don't think internal components are liable to be eaten or used as a teething ring by young children. Not to mention that is they aren't even illegal for those uses WTF is the big deal that they are inside a phone?
Hopefully this shames Apple into catching up with Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Motorola...
Without knowing what the above phone companies do have in their products, please explain your statement.
The company bringing this suit are jam packed with charlatans, using the same techniques as Class Action Suit lawyers to rip off successful companies.
This is nothing more than a scam and has ZERO to do about the public good.
Just a quick point about the scale of this issue: are you recycling your paper, glass and plastic? I know I am not as well I could be doing.
Your ignorance shouldn't be our problem.
Frakking linked off the main damn page of Apple.com.
Do I need to wipe you ass in the toilet too, or are you capable of pulling paper off the roll? Because your displayed lack of ability to do the most rudimentary basic research is appallingly pathetic.
Thanks. Its always good practice to reply to somebody so void of any sense of decency or decorum, so I appreciate the opportunity.
I am aware of the information on Apple's site. However, I also know that "although Apple commits to halogen-free printed circuit boards, there is no mention of eliminating all BFRs, and no timeline for complete phase out." Further, there are "no PVC-free or BFR-free product systems. Apple lists only some PVC-free peripherals on its website." This differs significantly from the environmental plans of other companies mentioned previously, meaning they're behind the curve. Of course, if you'd read the link in the post you were responding to, you'd already know that. But hey, thanks for the response, and I wish you luck with whatever it is you seem to have up your ass.
If you don't give a hoot about this issue, fine. But at least let the criticism be informed. <snip> I believe the point is that these companies have a plan in place and goals bound to time lines with specific objectives stated. To my knowledge, Apple does not. Perhaps you see no need for them to do so.
I'd like to see it made clear how toxic iPhones are relative to Nokia, Sony-Ericcson today.
I don't like criticisms based on the lack of a promises plans. However, a total lack of plan would be important... are we sure Apple doesn't have one?
Compare Apple's to Apples. Can you inform us as to the
1) current state of the iPhone vs the current state of competitors??
2) current publicised plan of Apple vs current publicised plan of competitors??
3) 2008 iPhone vs 2008 competitors
I just think that
4) current state of the iPhone vs current publicised plan of competitors is wrong.
Alternatively, a year or so back Apple's computers were criticised on #4. When more information was available, how did they rate on 1, 2, & 3?? (Serious question... I don't know the answer).
TONS of tech products are much, much, much worse.
Or what about ever plastic grocery bag we throw away? Or the complete waste of packaging on most products, for instance, memory cards. Get real. The problem has nothing to do with Apple, and there are much greater problems to be tackled.