November 2008

Joint Response of Right to Light and Spectrum, Alliance for Light Sensitivity to your "Draft Implementing Directive text for Eco-Design Requirements for Non-Directional Household Lamps".

As ecologically-conscious citizens and consumers we are, of course, aware and supportive of the need to meet the CO2 reduction targets by 2020. We are therefore aware of the Eco-Design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EUP) Directive 2005/32/EC and the part that low-energy lighting technologies contribute to this measure.

However, we are absolutely clear that the requirements under Article 15, paragraph 5 (re impact assessment) of the above directive have not been met, with regard to:-

"b) health, safety and the environment shall not be adversely affected" [P9].

Your comments on the report of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) with regard to Light Sensitivity, do not take into account that the Committee was unable to draw conclusions regarding the lighting needs of people with several health conditions. This is because of the "sparseness of the primary scientific literature". We attach Right to Light's Interim Review of the SCENIHR Report which looks at several of these health conditions - migraine, photophobia, autism/aspergers syndrome, ME/CFS and electrosensitivity.  Migraine alone affects an estimated "14% of the adults in Europe" i.e. 70 million people.

Even with regard to the skin conditions, to which you refer on page 9 - "the symptoms of about 250,000 people in the EU suffering from diseases accompanied by lighting sensitivity (which) could be aggravated by bare CFLS", the SCENIHR note the lack of high quality research. Thus, there is still uncertainty as to what precise technical parameters of the bulbs are causing the aggravation of symptoms. We attach two recent letters from senior UK consultants in the field of light sensitive skin conditions. Dr Sarkany confirms "given that the clinical symptoms are so varied, it is likely that 'fluorescent light sensitivity' is caused by a variety of disease processes, many of which are not currently understood".

We are therefore extremely concerned that you state "the most efficient halogen transparent lamps (class B) will offer equivalent light quality to incandescents, full dimmability, no health issues". [P12]

That these bulbs will meet the lighting needs of all light-sensitive people - who number over 70 million people in Europe - is a huge assumption, made without any clinical studies of these halogen lights on the people with the disabling health conditions.  It is completely irresponsible to make such assumptions. These bulbs have only recently appeared in the UK supermarkets. We have heard from only a few people who have tried them; four people with electrosensitivity have been able to use class C halogen bulbs without transformers, but not bulbs with transformers. Four people with ME/CFS (including the founder of Right to Light), have had a variety of seriously adverse reactions to them, ie aggravation of ME symptoms.

We do not know why they have adverse reactions to these bulbs. However, if one considers the high prevalence of food and chemical allergy/intolerance (one person in three reports such symptoms - House of Lords recent report) and that even well-tolerated drugs cause unpleasant and dangerous unwanted side-effects for some people, then it is perhaps understandable that different lighting technologies also can cause unwanted ill-effects. We wish it were otherwise but the inconvenient truth is that people's health profiles are very individual.

Thus the SCENIHR note there are some similarities between autism and migraine "the presence of sensory overstimulation". Professor Pinching notes that with ME/CFS, light sensitivity "is likely to relate to the wider sensory distortion ....." (see attached).

Professor Hawk - Head of Department of Skin Sciences, Professor of Dermatology at St Johns Institute of Dermatology Medicine, Kings College, London, writes that it is "absolutely essential" that incandescent bulbs are retained for the use of light-sensitive people. This means that GLS 100, 60, 40 and 25 watt bulbs need to be retained, as many light-sensitive people, when using incandescent bulbs, do not have a problem with the intensity of the light. They need adequate levels of lighting, just like anyone else. They also have the right to participate in the electrically-lit world outside their homes.

The draft regulation is also inconsistent with the human and disability rights legislation of the EU. For example, the European Community and all the Member States are signatories of the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (www.un.org/disabilities). Also, the core elements of the EU disability strategy, embodied in the Disability Action Plan, "combines anti-discrimination, equal opportunities and active inclusion measures ....... which are reflected in the Convention."

Article 25 states "Persons with disabilities have the right to the highest attainable standards of health without discrimination on the basis of disability"

and, further "On the fundamental issue of accessibility (Article 9) the convention requires countries to eliminate obstacles and barriers to ensure that persons with disabilities can access their environment, public facilities and services ....."

Their rights to equal participation in cultural, educational, recreational and social life is also documented. Lighting conditions that make people ill are serious barriers to any kind of life outside their homes, which people with sensitivity to fluorescent strip lights know well. Now even the safety of their homes is threatened. One woman wrote to us saying that she is having to cook in the dark because she is in a rented flat and cannot reach to change the low-energy light bulb there that makes her unwell.

The increase in fluorescent lighting (CFLs) is already excluding some people with fluorescent light sensitivity. Thus, the issue of access is paramount and we will continue to campaign for incandescently-lit areas in hospitals and other places, as this is the only safe option for light-sensitive people at present. As Dr Sarkany points out, people do not go and are not referred to hospitals because going there makes them so ill. We know personally of people in this situation.

New building regulations have already caused discrimination eg to individuals seeking access to organisations of which they are paid-up members, where there have been renovations.

Changes to street lighting will also severely discriminate and cause some people to be prisoners in their homes after dark. Some of these people have such severe conditions that they can only go out after dark, ie they cannot tolerated daylight.

The complete phase-out of incandescent lights as outlined in this draft directive is premature and unworkable. The research recently undertaken by the UK Health Protection Agency is beneficial for everyone - but does not go far enough. Lightbulbs need to be tested on actual people with the light-sensitive conditions.
Thus, "experimental and epidemiological research studies" are required to establish the true extent of the problems and demonstrate that there are alternative low energy bulbs which can be tolerated by all groups who have had bad reactions to existing bulbs.

Evelyne Muller                                                                                   David Price
Co-ordinator, Right to Light                                                               Co-ordinator, Spectrum

Spectrum, the Alliance for Light Sensitivity representing the charities:

Lupus UK

Eclipse Support Group

XP Support Group

The Skin Care Campaign

ES-UK

Also supported by: The National Autistic Society and Migraine Action

David Price
Co-ordinator SPECTRUM
5 Gainsborough Walk
Yew Tree Estate
Denton
Manchester M34 6NS
Tel: 0161 320 9484

Right to Light is a signatory to the Earth Charter (www.earthcharterinaction.org)