Why eco-lightbulbs aren't what they seem

[Huge]

[Tim W]

Huge wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 14:46

By popular media standards, it's a fairly decent article. They do mention the trade off of waste heat vs central heating, but fail to mention the carbon footprint of manufacturing both types of lamp.

Very impressed that he managed to mention power factors though - wouldn't get that in the Daily Mail. From what I can see, the typical PF of a typical CFL is reckoned to be about 0.5:

interesting article that addresses many side issues such as colour]

[Roger R]

now proved wrong.

What ever happened to the Advertising Standards Authority who are supposed to ensure manufacturers claims are honest, and Trading Standards who were supposed to ensure goods are not mis-described.

I suppose they will say no one 'Officially' drew it to their attention.

I blame Gordon Brown.

Roger R

[Jules]

They doubtless go blind and deaf when the product potentially at fault is supposed to be supporting the government's green credentials.

[Jules]

Yes, manufacturing and disposal issues both left out, unfortunately - but it's still probably the best article I've seen on the matter in recent years.

Sadly no contact details for the author (other than name) that I can see, or I'd ask them if they were planning any kind of follow-up to address the production/disposal side of the story, too.

read that one in a mo, I think...

cheers

Jules

[The Medway Handyman]

The ASA do investigate false claims, but you have to be specific. e.g. "where did you see the false claim - on a box of XYZ bulbs". You can't complain about general issues.

Once you complain they do investigate - eventually, and they do act. Two passive smoking adverts have been withdrawn due to complaints and the recent global warming TV ads are being investigated.

Get a packet of say Phillips bulbs & report the misleading info - if enough do so the claim would have to be changed.

I feel a UK-DIY campaign coming on!

[NT]

the claims on the box are honest, just misleading. Unfortunately manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot by continuing such practice.

NT

[john]

February I complained to the ASA about a Philips "Energy Saver" CFL. Clearly stated as '100Watt equivalent' on the packet but only gave a (measured) 60Watts of light. "Not our remit", sayeth ASA and passed me to local trading standards who investigated. "Can't do any more as the CFL's been approved by the official body at EST"

EST tell me the CFL was "approved to the earlier EST spec'" and can't do anything further. The complaint took only 5 days from start to finish and the official bodies proved very helpful. However, the current CFL testing spec' is good but that early CFL spec' (which appears the root cause of all the problems), has conveniently partaken of a one-way journey into the long grass.