IPC Criticizes Science Behind Greenpeace Electronics Guide
Nov 16, 2010
 Print this page

Electronics association IPC criticized the science used by Greenpeace in its latest “Guide to Greener Electronics.” The guide rates consumer electronics companies against Greenpeace criteria on hazardous substances, take back and recycling, and energy use and climate change.

“Greenpeace continues to mark down leading consumer electronics manufacturers for failing to lobby for an agenda based on faulty science. Several computer manufacturers received lower scores for not aggressively removing brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from their products,” said a statement form IPC — Association Connecting Electronics Industries. “The science does not support the need to phase out all BFRs. In fact, the World Health Organization and the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks conducted separate, comprehensive scientific assessments of Tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), a widely used BFR, and both found TBBPA to be safe for human health and the environment.

“In addition, IPC, on behalf of our members, is extremely concerned about Greenpeace’s tactics in penalizing companies for ‘failing to openly support restrictions on ... brominated flame retardants (BFRs)….’ In fact, Greenpeace provides specific wording it would like to see companies use in calling for an expansion of the RoHS Directive to include the ban of BFRs.

“Demonizing certain substances without a scientific basis can lead industries to adopt substances that have a greater environmental impact or that cause resources to be inefficiently used. IPC calls on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and regulators to adopt scientific principles in the evaluation and banning of any chemicals and substances.”

IPC offers its information on Greenpeace ranking criteria at:

Back to Breaking News