Group turns tables on Greenpeace, questions comments on BFRs in electronics, iPhone

By Suzanne Deffree, Managing Editor, News -- Electronic News, 12/5/2007

The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF) is turning the tables on Greenpeace, questioning the environmental group’s comments on the use of brominated flame retardants (BFR) in electronics.

Greenpeace has been targeting electronics manufacturers that use BFRs for fire prevention in their products, including Apple and Microsoft. BSEF claims that such targeting, however, is irresponsible as BFRs discourage the fire danger electronics can pose if they overheat.

“In a recent update of its report Guide to Greener Electronics, Greenpeace attacked several major electronics producers for not moving fast enough to reduce their use of certain chemicals, including flame retardants. However, the substances Greenpeace seeks to eliminate are all approved for use, and provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products. Among the substances attacked by Greenpeace are brominated flame retardants, which are commonly used in electronics to provide a high-level fire safety. In certain applications, they are the most effective, efficient products available,” BSEF said in a statement this week.

Fires started by electronics were brought to issue this year when several battery makers recalled lithium-ion laptop and cell phone batteries that were overheating, causing fires and in some cases exploding, severely disrupting the electronics supply chain and power market. 

BSEF noted in its statement that in 2005, Microsoft was forced to recall 14.1 million power cords for its Xbox game console because they were thought to be a fire hazard. The company reported that 30 customers reported fire damage, seven Xbox users suffered burned hands, and 23 reported other damages from fires. However, the group pointed out that in Europe and the United States, thousands of people are killed every year as a result of domestic fires, many of which are started by or involve consumer electronics.

“It is critical that consumer electronics be fire safe, and brominated flame retardants are a very effective, proven way to provide that protection,” said Michael Spiegelstein, chairman of BSEF, in the statement. “It is irresponsible and dangerous for Greenpeace to simply propose eliminating these products without proposing equally safe and proven replacements.”

The group exampled two BFRs commonly used in electronic devices: TBBPA and Deca-BDE. A recent risk assessment conducted by the European Union concluded that TBBPA, widely used in printed circuit boards, is safe for continued use and presents no health risk, according to BSEF. Deca-BDE, meanwhile, is used to protect the plastic components of electronic devices from the risks of fire and has also been evaluated under an EU risk assessment, which concluded that it did not present any risk to human health or to the environment under current conditions of manufacturing and use, the group said.

Greenpeace has also specifically targeted the Apple iPhone in its recent reports. According to the environmental group, tests run in the United Kingdom have revealed the iPhone contains two types of hazardous substances -- toxic brominated compounds, indicating the presence of BFRs, and hazardous polyvinyl chloride (PVC) -- which have already been eliminated by other mobile phone makers. BSEF has responded to those claims, pointing out that all of the substances reported by Greenpeace, including the BFRs noted, are approved for use and provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products.

“The Greenpeace report does not say which BFRs are present in the iPhone because it does not know,” BSEF said in a separate statement. “The report speculates about what substances might be present, and raises an alarm without any basis for doing so. Even according to the Greenpeace study, the iPhone complies with all EU regulatory requirements. The brominated flame retardant 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. Therefore, the Greenpeace report is incorrect in its assertions about the potential for releases to the environment.”

BSEF maintained that as a result of the EU’s WEEE directive, printed circuit boards, such as those used in the iPhone, are separated out before being recycled in large part because they contain significant amounts of precious metals.

“Greenpeace offers no constructive alternative for providing fire safety in electronic equipment and fails to note that BFRs are among the most tested and well-known flame retardants currently available. While alternative substances do exist, none are as well known or as well tested. Given this critical public safety function, common sense supports using substances that are already compliant with existing regulations, such as REACH and WEEE, rather than using untested or unknown ‘alternatives,’” BSEF said.