Apple's iPhone still uses brominated flame retardants and PVCs
Apple faces iPhone legal challenge
/v3-uk/news/1974983/apple-iphone-legal-challenge
19 Oct 2007, Iain Thomson , V3
An environmental group is planning to sue Apple over hazardous materials used in the iPhone unless the company changes the design.
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has warned Apple to stop using brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and PVCs in the iPhone within 60 days or face legal action.
The group is not seeking a product recall, but wants warning stickers put on all iPhones to alert users to the alleged risks.
BFRs are used internally in the iPhone to deal with heating issues but their use has been discontinued by most mobile phone manufacturers.
PVCs, which Apple uses in the iPhone headphones, have been shown to cause birth defects in animals and are banned in children's toys in Europe.
"If a pregnant woman is winding and unwinding that cord a number of times each day, like we all would, she is getting exposed to this chemical," said CEH chief executive Michael Green. "That is a big piece of our concern."
Apple has already promised to phase out the use of such materials by the end of the next year, but the CEH wants much swifter action.
The iPhone controversy started after Greenpeace issued a report detailing the environmental cost of the iPhone. Other criticisms include the practice of soldering or gluing the battery into the iPhone, making recycling much more difficult.
Greenpeace has condemned Apple for having one of the worst environmental records in the technology industry.
The environmental group put Apple bottom of the table in April for environmental awareness in technology, although that rating has been raised recently.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
Yawn!
All Apple iPhones meet material safety requirements. Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by Ed Figbert, 19 Oct 2007
Are these environmental wizards going after...
all the PVC plumbing in all those California subdivisions through which all that drinking water runs? (Not just in homes, there are many miles of this stuff being used as water mains.) Unlike earphones, you're SUPPOSED to drink the water that's been running through these.
Are they going after all the brominated flame retardants in mattresses, bedding, upholstery, and even in the food chain, including California fisheries? (You're not supposed to eat or sleep inside the iPhone.)
Posted by Just zis guy see, 19 Oct 2007
I thought that I read that Apple's iPhone met
Europes strick environmental and health standards or even exceeded them?
Posted by James Quinn, 19 Oct 2007
Green seems to now demonstrate dishonesty
In other words, pull your product off the market even though it meets or exceeds all standards for consumer electronics. Sadly some people think it's a toy and should be a safe for our kids as it can be.
What kind of numbskull would give a child a $300+ device like the iPhone I don't know, but this lawsuit should go against this group. Suffice it to say I will ensure that none of MY dollars ever go to the group.
Let's go after the sexy "in the news" vendor so we can get some attention. Environmental groups need to stop using this inherently dishonest means of pushing their agenda. I used to favor Greenpeace and have tried to get involved in moving towards green living. Lately have found my self angered by these spurious lawsuits and articles that are solely designed to gain more internet clicks and more donations and very little to do with actual forward progress.
Be careful environmentalists, keep this up and the backlash for lying might be more than this planet can afford. Your misdirection and half-truths are all the ammo the wasteful consumer needs to justify their behavior.
Posted by Angry Centrist, 19 Oct 2007
standards?
Apple's iPhone does conform to that standard. The article does not mention that, nor does it mention what standards Apple is violating in the US to attract a meaningful lawsuit by this third party. Not very informative.
Posted by Michael Brian Bentley, 19 Oct 2007