CONSUMER REPORTS

are they BLOWING IT ON AIR PURIFIERS?

In their December 2007 issue Consumer Reports (CR) magazine once again reviews room and whole-house air purifiers. Many members of VDTA have voiced the opinion that CR has badly missed the mark with this and other reviews. One VDTA member summed it up best when he said, “Do not read if you value your sanity.” To answer the question of just where CR went wrong, the VDTA interviewed Frank Hammes, president of IQAir, and current president of the International Association of Air Cleaner Manufacturers.

VDTA: You make a compelling case in your press release (printed on pages 62-63 of this magazine) that CR’s testing is seriously flawed. You made essentially the same points two years ago when CR published their 2005 review. Why didn’t CR listen?

FRANK: I think CR is simply overwhelmed with the complexity of air purifier testing. So, I guess their rational is to simplify their testing and to try to appeal to as many readers as possible by over simplifying their rating process. CR today gives consumers less information about air purifiers than ever. In their first two reviews of air purifiers in 1989 and 1992 CR dedicated six pages just to room air purifiers. They educated consumers as to the advantages and disadvantages of technologies and features. Their recent 2007 covers both room air purifiers and whole-house air purifiers on just four pages. This is a 50 percent reduction in information, and what they do write is much less substantial than in earlier years. CR wants to eat its cake and have it too. CR is claiming to be the source of definitive product testing, but in reality their testing is very superficial.

VDTA: You met with CR after you issued your 2005 press release. Did you ask them about this?

FRANK: Yes. When we met face to face I asked them why their articles were less technical and less involved than in earlier years. They told me, and I quote, “We want to appeal to more women readers.” I honestly got the impression that they believed simpler articles would appeal to a broader demographic. Unfortunately, I think CR’s policy of dumbing down their reviews is infesting their entire rating process.

VDTA: Do you think simplified reviews are hurting consumers?

FRANK: Definitely. Simplified reviews are going hand in hand with simplified testing. Many air purifier manufacturers today are designing air purifiers not do the best possible job in cleaning a home, but to do well in the CR test. The same goes for the AHAM test which much of the CR testing is based on.

VDTA: Did CR make any other changes to this year’s rating system?

FRANK: Other than rating whether or not an air purifier emitted ozone -- there are no improvements we could see.

VDTA: We noticed though that CR mentions that they tested IQAir along with another manufacturer for odors and found it to be effective. Isn’t that a change?

FRANK: While CR apparently tested the HealthPro Plus for odors, they fail to include this in their rating system. Most consumers that buy air purifiers want their air purifier to remove odors and gaseous contaminants, not just particles, so this is a very important quality that CR should reflect in their rating process.

VDTA: In your press release, you seem to be attacking CR on admitting that low ozone levels are a possible health problem. Why? Isn’t their admission evidence that they are coming around?

FRANK: Yes and no. Yes, it is great that CR has finally come around to recognize that air purifiers shouldn’t produce a lung irritant. But after 15 years of ignoring the issue, I think a public apology to the millions of misguided consumers is in order. Stop and think for a moment how many parents of children with severe asthma purchased these devices because they were recommended by CR… and these parents actually paid CR for this bad advice. They put their faith into CR judgment.

VDTA: California recently banned air purifiers that produce more than 50 ppb ozone. Is that why CR finally added this criteria?

FRANK: I think this was one of the factors. The other is the overwhelming evidence that even low levels of ozone are harmful. This information has been around for years. CR didn’t see the elephant in the room. They were recommending these devices for over 15 years.

VDTA: Do you think any consumers suffered health consequences because of this?

FRANK: Well, I was talking on the phone to the president of another air purifier company and he asked me “How many kids do you think died because of Consumer Reports?” He wasn’t asking that rhetorically. 30,000 people suffer asthma attacks every day here in the U.S., and 4,000 people die each year because of their asthma. I have no doubt that a number of people have suffered adverse health effects because of CR’s bad air cleaner recommendations over the past 15 years.

VDTA: Are you accusing CR of incompetence?

FRANK: Incompetence is a strong word. I am accusing CR of failing consumers through their lack of depth in testing and rating air purifiers.

VDTA: You’ve voiced many times that you don’t think AHAM’s CADR test, which CR bases much of its testing on, is an ineffective test for identifying a good air purifier. Why do you think CR adopted it?

FRANK: My guess is that it was the simplest thing for them to do, given their budgetary and other limitations. It is another example of how CR is lacking the kind of leadership in product testing that is necessary for a first rate product testing organization.

VDTA: IQAir and some other air purifier manufacturers refuse to have their products tested to CADR because they believe it is a bad test. What are the problems with CADR?

FRANK: In a nutshell, it has encouraged manufacturers to make air cleaners that are optimized for the AHAM CADR test and disregard the requirements of an air purifier to function well in the real world. It rewards manufacturers for making air cleaners that deposit particles on room surfaces, that don’t effectively deal with odors and gaseous contaminants and that quickly lose their effectiveness.

VDTA: Are there other product categories where CR is getting it wrong?

FRANK: I’m not a vacuum cleaner expert, but I’ve heard a number of well stated complaints from vacuum dealers about CR’s vacuum cleaner ratings.

VDTA: You put out another press release a while ago announcing the introduction of the Perfect 16. In the press release you state that it is the world’s first true MERV 16 rated whole-house air cleaning system. Why didn’t CR test it?

FRANK: I have no idea. We personally sent the head of CR’s air purifier testing all of the pertinent information on the product -- so they can’t say they didn’t know it exists. It is the best whole-house system by a big margin. Historically, CR has not been interested in testing the best or most innovative products in a category. Instead, they look for heavily advertised products that capture a lot of market share. I think CR here again is doing a disservice to their readers. Consumers believe an organization of the stature of CR is rating products to find the best ones. Consumers often don’t even realize that CR is not even testing the performance leaders. Performance leaders are seldom market share leaders.

VDTA: Do you think CR can ever get it right?

FRANK: I hope so. But I think it will take some major rethinking on the part of CR. The people in charge need to come off their high horses and face up to a simple fact: their air purifier testing is seriously flawed. Consequently, their recommendations have been wrong. It takes an ethical organization to face up to this. I am hoping CR steps up to the plate.

Reprinted from Floor Care Professional, January 2008