In order to guarantee the rights and interests of consumers, the Department of Consumer Protection, Executive Yuan, Taiwan (hereafter referred to as the DCP) recently sampled, through physicaland on-line saleschanneloutlets, including 37 plastic protective covers and ten blue-light blocking screen protection stickers. The DCP tested if they had plasticizers and checked their blue-light blocking ability. Plasticizer test results of the 37 plastic protective covers were in full compliance with the regulations. In regard to test results for the 10 samples of blue-light blocking screen protection stickers, their manufacturers were asked to explain, at a meeting held by the DCP, how well their products blocked blue-light and provided related medical certificates. Four of the ten manufacturers were not present at the meeting, while the remaining six manufacturers, unable to submit a test basis or medical certificates, were willing to remove their products from store shelves and change the text content on the packaging. The four manufacturers that failed to attend the meeting were required by central competent authorities to make corrections within a set time period in order to protect consumer rights and interests.
In August 2017, the DCP assigned a consumer ombudsman to visit 20 physical stores in the municipalities of Taipei City, Taichung City and Chiayi County, and went on two well-known shopping sites to purchase samples. SGS Taiwan was entrusted to conduct plasticizer testing (37 samples) and blue-light blocking (ie, transmittance) detection testing (ten samples). In addition, the Central Region Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs conducted an inspection of the products, and the results are as follows:
1. Quality inspection section
1.1 Plasticizer test: 37 plastic protective covers (shells) all comply with the CNS 15138 phthalate standard (Detailed in Table 1)
Blue-light blocking rate detection: Ten blue-light blocking screen protection stickers were tested, but there is no national standard or international standard at present. According to the current industry common measurement method, the visible light wavelength is used as the test benchmark, and the test results are used to check the products and whether the advertisement on the webpage is inconsistent or inaccurate, and the operator is required to explain.
2. Commodity labeling section:
2.1 General labeling (Article 9 of the commodity labeling law): 37 plastic protective covers (shells) and ten blue-light blocking screen protection stickers were checked. For a total of 47 pieces, 42 pieces do not conform to regulations, primarily because the manufacturers and importers of the products, including the business name, address, phone number were not marked.
2.2 Misrepresentations (Article 6 of the Commodity Labeling Act): Six blue-light blocking screen protection stickers were checked for their "eye protection" and "reduction of damage" effects. The manufacturers were asked to explain, at a meeting held by the DCP, how their products block blue-light and provided related medical certificate, but they were unable to provide related medical proof and were willing to take the In order to guarantee the rights and interests of consumers, the Department of Consumer Protection, Executive Yuan, Taiwan (hereafter referred to as the DCP) recently sampled, through physicaland on-line saleschanneloutlets, including 37 plastic protective covers and ten blue-light blocking screen protection stickers. The DCP tested if they had plasticizers and checked their blue-light blocking ability. Plasticizer test results of the 37 plastic protective covers were in full compliance with the regulations. In regard to test results for the 10 samples of blue-light blocking screen protection stickers, their manufacturers were asked to explain, at a meeting held by the DCP, how well their products blocked blue-light and provided related medical certificates. Four of the ten manufacturers were not present at the meeting, while the remaining six manufacturers, unable to submit a test basis or medical certificates, were willing to remove their products from store shelves and change the text content on the packaging. The four manufacturers that failed to attend the meeting were required by central competent authorities to make corrections within a set time period in order to protect consumer rights and interests.
In August 2017, the DCP assigned a consumer ombudsman to visit 20 physical stores in the municipalities of Taipei City, Taichung City and Chiayi County, and went on two well-known shopping sites to purchase samples. SGS Taiwan was entrusted to conduct plasticizer testing (37 samples) and blue-light blocking (ie, transmittance) detection testing (ten samples). In addition, the Central Region Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs conducted an inspection of the products, and the results are as follows:
1. Quality inspection section
1.1 Plasticizer test: 37 plastic protective covers (shells) all comply with the CNS 15138 phthalate standard (Detailed in Table 1)
Blue-light blocking rate detection: Ten blue-light blocking screen protection stickers were tested, but there is no national standard or international standard at present. According to the current industry common measurement method, the visible light wavelength is used as the test benchmark, and the test results are used to check the products and whether the advertisement on the webpage is inconsistent or inaccurate, and the operator is required to explain.
2. Commodity labeling section:
2.1 General labeling (Article 9 of the commodity labeling law): 37 plastic protective covers (shells) and ten blue-light blocking screen protection stickers were checked. For a total of 47 pieces, 42 pieces do not conform to regulations, primarily because the manufacturers and importers of the products, including the business name, address, phone number were not marked.
2.2 Misrepresentations (Article 6 of the Commodity Labeling Act): Six blue-light blocking screen protection stickers were checked for their "eye protection" and "reduction of damage" effects. The manufacturers were asked to explain, at a meeting held by the DCP, how their products block blue-light and provided related medical certificate, but they were unable to provide related medical proof and were willing to take the initiative to remove products from shelves and change the text content on the packaging. (Detailed in Table 2)
Advertisements that are likely to be false: Five pieces on the shopping websites claim that blue-light blocking provides eye protection, reduces damage and prevent injuries, but there is not any relevant content of medical certification.
Up to present, the product label check has classified 42 unqualified items, seven of which have been removed and 23 of which have been corrected. The remaining twelve items still need to be improved. The other five false advertisements are referred to the Fair Trade Committee.
The results of this inspection were presented to the 54th meeting of the Consumer Protection Committee, which made the decision to urge relevant central competent authorities to task local governments to take the following steps. They should request manufacturers who failed to meet the requirements about labeling to improve the labeling of their products, and reinforce their efforts on the inspection of the labeling of plastic protective covers and blue-light blocking screen protection stickers. If a commercially available protection sticker is found to involve false advertising, relevant information should be given to the Fair Trade Commission for legal solutions.
In summary, the DCP reminds consumers to heed the fact that there is lack of medical evidence that proves bright blue-light screen protectors protect the eyes or reduce eye damage. Such items should be purchased carefully, and consumers should pay attention to available details and avoid buying inferior unfamiliar products.