Is Greenpeace lying about Apple’s ‘toxic laptops?’

“In Greenpeace Apologizes For Apple Stink, I reported on Toxic Chemicals in Your Laptop Exposed, a new report which labored to find any trace of chemicals, toxic or not,” Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted. “The report not only wholly contradicted the group’s earlier Guide to Greener Electronics, but its sensationalist press release also contradicted the data in the report itself! Why is Greenpeace shooting in such random directions?”

Eran writes, “The basic problems in the Guide, which I originally critiqued in Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent, were sidestepped in a rebuttal from Tom Dowdall of Greenpeace International, but the followup laptop lab test report seemed to indicate a new direction for Greenpeace: an interest in accuracy.”

Eran writes, “Unfortunately, Greenpeace ignored their own very expensive lab reports to instead retreat back into sensationalism, fear mongering, and deception. The top story on Greenpeace International’s press release blog is an entry titled “HP and Apple’s toxic laptops exposed” which states: ‘Some of the best-known laptops are contaminated with some of the worst toxic chemicals. Of the five top brands we tested Hewlett-Packard and Apple laptops showed the worst contamination levels.’

Eran writes, “Was Greenpeace lying in its press release? Yes, Greenpeace lied to sensationalize a report it spent a lot of money on, but which didn’t provide data the group wanted to hear. While the group’s earlier press releases and information was mostly just incompetent and sloppy, the latest ‘poison Apple’ campaign was simply a malicious attack based upon lies.”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “LinuxGuy and Mac Prodigal Son” for the heads up.]

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report called ‘misleading and incompetent’ – September 02, 2006
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006


  1. Do you go to an Optometrist to have your lawn mower repaired or to a mechanic for prescription glasses? I didn’t think so.

    So why would an environmental advocacy organization be expert in the testing of a manufacturing process or the finished product? Apple is a responsible manufacturer, or about as close to one as you are likely to find in today’s marketplace. When greener materials are available at a market sustainable price, Apple will use them.

    I’m all for wise and sound environmental practices and policies and support many different organizations, but I’m really tired of this unresponsible behavior by some. Some advocacy organizations and their followers get so wrapped up in the rightness of their cause that they think that the end justifies the means. There so sure that they are right that anyone who does not march to their tune is evil and worthy of whatever damage can be done to them.

    People, groups and organizations that see things in strict binary fashion often do a great disservice to the very cause they seek to advance. While passionate advocacy can live in the theoretical world, businesses and the people who run them must live in the realities of the day. Get a grip, Greenpeace.

  2. Any group that attempts to lie or in process of, distorts the truth is wrong…. in any attempt to do “GOOD” by doing “WRONG” is wrong and should be punished as such.

    Who decides what is good by the means involved…. if you ask me I believe green peace is more of the problem than a solution.

    And who thinks we can destroy the environment? Can we change the weather, zones in climate, or any manner effect the planet. NO!
    Nature will destroy the what causes the inbalance and simply return the planet back to its former state in thousands, millions or billions of years. Human kind will be gone as well as all traces of anything made by human hands.

    Just study science and you will discover that all the land mass will one day be pulled in, melted, and new land will emerge. Hence no trace…….. LIFE WILL NOT STOP!

    As in this case there is NO GOOD involved here. But simple WRONG!

    I say let the hounds of hell burn those who lie to gain!!!!!!

  3. Oh, a little added statement….

    ZERO Tolerence for any LEFT or RIGHT extreme agendas. As both are equally wrong and distorted.

    Greenpeace is doing the same as any person, company, or group when it lies….. What is the difference when the LEFT LIES or the RIGHT????

    IT IS A LIE…. and if believed, protected, and rallied by those with the same belief with little regard to balance. It is called being extreme and I to attack a company just to gain media coverage is INSANE!!!!!!! WEXTREME!!!!!!!!! UNBALANCED!!!!!!!!!

    WOW, I love a good rant when trying to protect my favorite APPLE!!!

    That was FUN!!!!!

    ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

  4. Come on… the ends justifies the means…… doesn’t it?

    How many other people and causes have been skewered for using that logic?

    Once you get a taste of notoriety, power, or fame, people will do a lot to get more.

    Greenpeace, line up and take you lumps…

    (any coincidence that the MDN Magic Word for me to post was REASON –

    2 the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic : there is a close connection between reason and emotion. • what is right, practical, or possible; common sense : people are willing, within reason, to pay for schooling. • ( one’s reason) one’s sanity : she is in danger of losing her reason.)

  5. The difference: Greenpeace is trying to do some GOOD.

    Just because you’re on the side of the angels doesn’t make it okay to throw all ethics out the door. The ends don’t justify the means.

    To put it another way: the road to hell is lined with good intentions.

  6. Gawd, but I do love phrases like “right-wing corporate agenda.”

    Almost as much as I ADORE “left-wing anti-business agenda.”

    Next time you want a paycheck, “Greanpeace is exaggerating and telling half-truths,” try to get one from a tree hugger.

  7. I stopped my Greenpeace days many years ago, when I became disillusioned with their sensationalism, and uncaring use of information. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”angry” style=”border:0;” />

  8. People, consider the source of this “article” here: One Daniel Eran, who has ZERO expertise in chemical policy, recycling, environmental law, or journalism. He runs a blog,, that (like many other blogs) is filled with innuendos, mischaracterizations, half-truths, hyperbole, and out-and-out distortions.

    Example: Greenpeace did not “apologize” to Eran or anyone else for their prior reports about Apple — there are no words such as “sorry”, “regret”, or any other indication of an apology in Greenpeace statements. Yet Eran’s headline and text is “Greenpeace Apologizes for Apple Stink”. No self-respecting journalist would put words into the mouth of someone else, as Eran has done here.

    Example: Greenpeace gave Eran a point-by-point rebuttal to his previous articles, and Eran couldn’t even write a straightforward response to that. Eran spends a significant portion of his response complaining about his name being misspelled by the Greenpeace author, and clarifying that “Eran” is his middle name and not his last name.

    Example: Eran tried to smear Greenpeace (via classic guilt-by-association) by implying that environmental organizations had publicly protested against Apple and then solicited donations from Apple. Greenpeace responded that they never accept corporate or government donations. Not only did Eran fail to make even the most basic inquiries before asserting his claims – flunking Journalism 101 – but Eran also did not have the honesty to retract his original allegation after it was categorically denied.

    Example: Eran claims he is interested in reader comments on his blog, but when users have pointed out significant and fatal flaws in Eran’s assertions, Eran responded by deleting readers comments from his blog, banning users, and responding to straw-man arguments.

    Example: Eran is not a neutral third party, or independent expert, or anything of the sort. Eran in fact is a rabid partisan in favor of Apple. Why? Because he makes his living via Apple: as a web and graphic design guy. Much like MDN, Eran is a cheerleader for all things Apple, and his livelihood depends on Apple’s continued success.

    Example: On, at least one of Eran’s articles have been flagged as containing inaccurate or unreliable information. Eran’s track record, at least on environmental matters relating to Greenpeace and Apple, is not a trustworthy one.

    Bottom line: Daniel Eran is a typical blogger, meaning that anything he writes is not to be taken seriously, until and unless his claims and assertions and allegations are independently examined and verified.

  9. “Question” writes:

    “Apple is a responsible manufacturer, or about as close to one as you are likely to find in today’s marketplace.”

    With respect, how do you know this? Have you access to any independent audit, comprehensive environmental review, or any other data to document this claim?

    Or do you just “know” this to be true, because you like Apple and its products?

    The reality is that no one outside of Apple knows the answer, because (unlike HP and Dell and Nokia and other high tech manufacturers) Apple keeps such information confidential and refuses to publish either a comprehensive list of chemicals it intends to substitute, or any sort of plan or a timescale for replacing them.

  10. Apple complies with applicable environmental, health and safety laws of those countries it does business too in addition of having its own policy covering environmental issues. The fact that this last documentation or related plans are kept confidential does not make it less worth than others’ which get published and – sometimes – ignored blatantly.

    So far, Apple has not been found to violates above laws either. The Greenpeace tests on the laptops and their need to lower the rank of HP and not modifying the rank of Apple, ie, raising it, even though their own tests would have suggested it is a proof that having public plans have nothing to do with how environmentally good you are (see HP: hey good plans, thence they MUST be good, right ? WRONG. Ohh, look Apple: they do not disclose their environmental policy, thence it must be really poor, right? WRONG).

    The fact that Greenpeace did not disclose the results of their own tests: “we have dissected a MacBook (Pro) and found it better than we thought” cast a shadow on their stance with respect to reliable, unbiased monitor agency concerning toxicity in IT products.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.