Anyone who follows research in the field of blue light protection knows the large number of studies that are published on this topic, and how inconsistently the term blue light protection is used in these studies. When science journalists then pick out individual results and present them for a lay audience, misunderstandings often arise. We took a recent radio feature as an opportunity to ask our scientific advisor, Dr. med. Alexander Wunsch, why it was once again claimed here that blue light from monitors is supposed to be completely harmless.
The topic of blue light is circulating through the media once again – this time with the underlying tenor that everything is harmless and that protective measures are not necessary. What’s the deal with these recent publications: who spoke up and who found out what? In this article we want to get to the bottom of the matter…
Before that, however, a few preliminary remarks:
But now to the matter itself: PRiSMA Innovative Eyewear, with the scientific support of Alexander Wunsch, MD, has been dedicated to the prevention of artificial light-induced eye damage and endocrine disruption for over 13 years. There are a number of good reasons to assume that artificial light can lead to such problems:
1. In cell experiments, it can be demonstrated with relatively simple means that artificial light, and especially the high blue content found in modern artificial light sources, damages cell metabolism. The main targets are the mitochondria, i.e. the cellular power plants that are essential for survival; the mechanism of damage is mainly through the light-induced production of oxygen radicals and oxidative damage caused by these.
2. Light-induced retinal damage has been observed in various animal models. Research examining light-induced retinal damage began in the 1970s, when it was found that quite ordinary laboratory lighting with fluorescent lamp light at workplace-standard illuminance levels was able to damage the eyes of rodents.
3. Another finding from animal models was the fact that the blue light content in artificial light has negative effects on chronobiological functions.
4. These “biological lighting effects” of short-wave light are now often exploited under the name HCL (Human Centric Lighting), for example to increase productivity at the workplace. There have been numerous studies on this, showing effects such as the ability of blue-enriched light to lower melatonin levels in the blood.
We know today that the issue of blue light protection must be considered in a highly individualized manner, as there are many different factors that play a role here: Genetics, previous damage to the retina, the balance between damage and regeneration, the presence or absence of protective spectral components, especially in the near-infrared range, etc.
Today, we still know too little to be able to say for sure whether a slight reduction in the blue component can really reduce the risk of blue-light-related damage and disorders. Therefore, we decided to eliminate the potentially harmful spectral components as effectively as possible. Only in areas of application where the legislator stipulates corresponding requirements, such as in road traffic, do we allow just enough short-wave light to pass through our filter systems for the products in question to receive approval.
With all other filter systems, we understand the term blue light protection in the most literal sense, in that we rigorously eliminate the spectral ranges that are recognized as problematic by experts. An important basis for this is the table provided by the CIE, from which the wavelength-dependent damage potential for the so-called Blue Light Hazard (BLH) can be obtained. In addition to such specifications, we constantly carry out our own measurements to ensure that the filter systems we develop deliver what we promise: consistently effective and individually adapted blue light PROTECTION.
A possible interpretation of the study results here could therefore actually be that such a low blue light reduction as is applied in these intraocular lenses is not sufficient to reliably protect the retina. This conclusion, by the way, would correspond exactly to our argumentation, namely that a mere reduction of the blue components is precisely not sufficient if one wants to protect oneself reliably.
In our view, there is no reason for an all-clear, as explicitly given in the broadcast, since the epidemiological studies used for this purpose are unsuitable to address such a question.
There is a recent experimental study (Mastromonaco, C. et al., 2021) which found that significantly fewer drusen were detectable in eyes fitted with yellow-tinted implant lenses than in eyes fitted with colorless lenses. Another study that investigated macular pigment after cataract surgery does see benefits to using yellowish colored IOLs (Obana, A. et al., 2021). Incidentally, the range of studies that consider blue-light protection to be useful is extensive and beyond the scope of this statement. It should be noted, however, that the multitude of measures to reduce high-energy light have an increasingly solid scientific basis.
The study “Effect of blue light-filtering intraocular lenses on age-related macular degeneration: A nationwide cohort study with 10-year follow-up” is unfortunately not available as full text. But even the abstract linked here shows the variation in the groups studied.
This study shows statistically significant differences in the development of pigment layer density after cataract surgery depending on whether the lens is clear or yellow tinted.
This studyinvestigates the presence of pathologic changes in donor eyes with intraocular lenses and concludes that they occur significantly less frequently when the inserted lenses have blue light protection.
However, other arguments were put forward to support the thesis of the harmlessness of blue light: The intensity of short-wave light in nature is much higher than the intensity of artificial light. Examples given ranged from 500 lux for artificial light and at least 5000 lux in bad weather to 100,000 lux on a sunny summer day. In this context, the question of pupillary response was raised, but rejected by the author as irrelevant: the role played by pupillary response were far too small.
For the facts: The pupil is able to reduce the amount of light entering the eye by a factor of 16. This would at least cover the difference between 500 lux up to 8000 lux. But how can one explain the fact that the eye can adapt well up to 100,000 lux? Thus, there must be other adaptive mechanisms involved in regulating vision in addition to the pupillary response.
Whenever one comes across media reports that go in the direction of an all-clear, such as an article by the German Society of Ophthalmology that went through the press in September 2021, it can be seen that the authors are guided by definitions, studies and limit values that are in part decades old and have long since been questioned by renowned scientists.
Even the EU department responsible for risk assessment of new technologies (SCHEER) is not immune to referring to outdated beliefs and thus spreading misconceptions. For example, current findings were ignored when assessing the potential harmfulness of LED light sources, although (or precisely because?) these would have necessitated a complete revision of the assessments.
Why should you put up with a yellow tint when there are completely transparent glasses available that promise blue light protection? In fact, it is
Admittedly, the term blue-light dictatorship is somewhat provocative. But shouldn’t we at least become pensive in view of the unholy alliance of politics and industry
You probably know it yourself: After a long day at the computer screen, your eyes are red or burning. Often there are also headaches, blurred
+49 (0)881-1359 4070
Mon. – Thur. 10am – 12pm and
Mon. – Thur. 2pm – 4pm (CET)