OPINION: Information on energy emissions should be clear at point of sale so buyers can make informed choices
IT WAS the news that none of us wanted to hear. Earlier this week, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer issued a statement indicating that mobile phone usage may possibly be carcinogenic to humans.
This tentative conclusion was based on a review of hundreds of scientific papers. With an estimated five billion mobile phones in operation globally, and with the frequency of mobile usage rising due to the popularity of smartphones, the public health implications could be serious.
The evidence on phone safety itself is limited. Fully establishing the relationship between mobile phone usage and cancer will take time, just as it took decades to establish conclusively a link between smoking and lung cancer. We may hope mobiles are safe, but nobody can conclusively say either way. For this reason, the agency has encouraged more research on the issue.
With such uncertainty, it is prudent to take precautions when using the phones. In light of the agency’s statement, the Department of Health and Children has recommended sending texts instead of calling and using wired hands-free devices when making calls, and warned against carrying mobile phones in pockets. Because children are more vulnerable to mobile phone radiation, it has recommended they use them only in cases of emergency.
There is another key step that can be taken by consumers to reduce their risk, and legislators have an important role to play in assisting consumers here.
Every mobile phone has a specific absorption rate value which measures the maximum amount of energy emitted by the phone when in use. These values are controversial: some scientists dispute their relevance for human health, although they seem to be the best measure of mobile phone energy emission that we have.
There is an established upper specific absorption rate limit for phones in the EU, based on a presumed safe limit. However, it must be remembered that the agency’s cautious assessment of the cancer risk is based on phones which are under the presumed safe limit. While every mobile phone sold is below the upper limit, some phones are considerably closer to the maximum level than others. For example, the highest-ranking specific absorption rate value is more than four times that for the lowest-ranking model on the market.
This is information that consumers are entitled to know, although anecdotal evidence would suggest most consumers are unaware of the issue.
The current practice is that consumers are informed of their phone’s absorption rate value via a safety leaflet included with the phone. At this point the purchase has already been made, and the information is delivered too late in the decision-making process.
The relevant regulatory bodies have an obligation to rectify this by ensuring specific absorption rate information is made available at point of sale, and that it is prominently displayed alongside information relating to other aspects of the phone’s functionality, both in stores and online.
In this way, the specific absorption rate value could become one of the many factors users consider on buying. It would encourage mobile phone manufacturers to spend some of their research and development budgets in creating phones with lower radio-frequency emissions. Lack of consumer awareness currently means manufacturers have no incentive to develop phones with lower than the maximum allowed absorption rate value.
This is ultimately a consumer rights issue. Alcohol manufacturers must display the percentage alcohol volume on their products. There is no reason why the level of energy absorbed from mobiles should be any different. Consumers have a right to information which will allow them make informed choices.
Undoubtedly the mobile phone lobby will reject this suggestion. After all, they exist to sell phones and to encourage their frequent use. They are not guardians of public health. That is the job of the Government, which should devise regulations ensuring consumers receive this safety information at point of sale.
If we have learned anything from the experience of tobacco consumption, it’s that we should be proactive in protecting public health, and act prudently when the health risks are inconclusive.
The first step is providing information to consumers which will allow them to make responsible decisions themselves.
Patrick Kenny is a lecturer in the school of marketing in the Dublin Institute of Technology; e-mail Pat.Kenny@dit.ie