Mobile phones still don’t have an unequivocal clean bill of health, so the industry continues to face difficult ethical decisions
Similar to much previous research, a new report into handsets and health risks has not established a link between mobile phone usage and brain cancer. But also like earlier research, the new Interphone study concludes that further investigation is necessary.
The fact that research has not proved that phones are completely safe leaves companies with potentially difficult ethical choices, and ones that may influence future business risk.
John Cooke is executive director of the Mobile Operators Association. He believes that by complying with the recommendations of the Stewart Report of 2000, and being guided by international agencies such as the World Health Organisation and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, UK mobile companies are acting in a responsible way.
“The science is not showing an established link between adverse health effects and mobile phone use,” Cooke says. “However, we do accept and support the need for further research.”
The Interphone study was initiated in 2000 and coordinated across 13 countries by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with industry providing €5.5m of the total €19.2m funding to date. However, while it is the largest case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumours yet undertaken and includes the largest numbers of users with at least 10 years’ exposure, it has not been immune from criticism and has been the subject of considerable debate.
What about the children?
Meanwhile, the fact that the study has nothing to say about mobile phone use by children – children and young adults were not included in the research – means it provides little help in an area of particular sensitivity.
In line with the Stewart Report, the UK Department of Health advises that children under 16 should use mobile phones “for essential purposes only and keep all calls short”. Pressure groups argue there is little awareness of this advice among the general population.
For campaigners, a measure of mobile phone companies’ responsibility is how accessible they make this guidance to their customers. This appears to vary from company to company but it is fair to say that none places the official advice in a prominent position on its website.
On the Orange website, the company’s Guide for Parents contains no specific reference to the health department guidance. Instead, readers are advised to go to the department’s website and type “mobile phones” into its search. Orange says it is currently updating its website “to include additional information on safety” and make it “easier for consumers to find the information they are after”.
Vodafone says it “fully supports customer education”, providing “explanations and detail on the topic of mobiles, masts and health” on websites across all its markets and via other means such as public meetings and leaflets.
O2 says it has “sought to provide detailed information and advice” that is “consistent with the expectations of the UK government and international health agencies in terms of keeping parents informed”, but it is “parents who determine how and when their children should use mobile phones”.
Companies say the information they present is in line with current science and compliant with national legislation.
Last year France introduced the strictest legislation on mobile phone use and children yet seen. In June this year, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted to compel retailers to display at point of sale the specific absorption rate, a measure of how much energy a person absorbs per kilogram of body weight, for a phone. This move has been criticised by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, a US industry body.
Meanwhile, the question of the exact health risks from mobile phone use, what the industry should be doing about them, and the business risks, remain unclear.