|
|
|
| | Greenlite runs a red light at Lightfair | | 17 May 2010 | | A fake Lighting Facts label on an LED lamp displayed at Lightfair was caught by the DOE. | |
You cannot always believe what you hear or what you read, to paraphrase Jack Curran from his presentation at Lightfair, and product displayed at Lightfair itself is no exception.
There were many great SSL products at Lightfair this year from manufacturers who are committed to presenting the facts properly. However, there were bad apples, and one company that misrepresented the facts by using a fake Lighting Facts label.
Greenlite of Montreal, Quebec, a CFL manufacturer and now an LED-lamp purveyor, was speeding a little too quickly on the way to market and was caught on the radar of the US Department of Energy’s Lighting Facts program late on Thursday at Lightfair.
As shown in the picture, taken at the DOE booth at Lightfair on Thursday, the product packaging graphics include the Lighting Facts label, which was determined to be a counterfeit.
On Thursday it was confirmed that not only is the label a counterfeit, the appropriate documentation for the product in question has not been as submitted and that is likely also due to the fact that Greenlite itself is not even a Lighting Facts Partner.
In an interview with DOE representatives on Thursday, it was indicated that Greenlite will be receiving an official letter to cease and desist from DOE General Counsel…and the letter will not be a counterfeit!
This follows previous instances of Lighting Facts label counterfeiting involving both Philips and Osram Sylvania products.
| | COMMENTS | | Name: uncle Posted: Tue, 18 May 2010 07:05 |
| It is so suprisingly that as a canadian company, there have so shameful behaviour. | | Name: jonconnell Posted: Mon, 24 May 2010 00:05 |
| Is the Lighting Facts calorie label itself copyrighted? I can't see the entire box obviously... but it seems to me that the label is simply presenting lighting data. Does the vendor actually claim to have Energy Star status anwyhere I wonder? The data may or may not be accurate of course. Energy Star being an expensive test, but photometrics testing being relatively low cost the company may simply have presented accurate information in an unfirtunate manner.
Is this simply a graphic layout issues in that case? And if so, had the vendor moved the rainbow Ct indication to the top rather than the bottom of the label would they be breaking no rules at all?
The labels displays lighting information in a what I believe to be a very sound manner. Had I never seen the Energy Star label I would probably have gone for something rather like this myself for some commodity LED product lines that I manage. Administrators Reply Energy Star and Lighting Facts are different programs. The Lighting Facts label is copyrighted. But most importantly, the (genuine) LF label confirms that the measurements were made in a standardized way and have not been mis-calculated, or simply fabricated, by the company concerned. | | Name: theluminator Posted: Wed, 26 May 2010 23:05 |
| This is a comment on the ADMINISTRATOR"S reply regarding ENERGY STAR and LIGHTING FACTS.
Oh, it is not enough that it takes two federal agencies to administer the ENERGY STAR program, but try getting a definitive answer as to which agency administers what part of that program from an employee of either entity.
You'll get answers, but not two will be the same, ever.
Of course, we know that the DOE administers the LIGHTING FACTS program, but assuming that it should have anything to do with ENERGY STAR is apparently too big a leap.
To this alphabet soup of DOE and EPA, add some CEE, sprinkle some T24 and GU24 on it, garnish with a bit CRI, ASTM283 and LPW, and serve it all on big shiny platter made by LFI, presented by IES, IALD and AMC.
Pretty soon, we'll all be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars with third party testers and fourth party certifiers, all no doubt testing to ANSI standards in NVLAP accredited laboratories.
This will weed out those pesky small and medium size companies that simply cannot afford to pay $3000 per product to third party labs or cannot employ a dedicated legal staff to negotiate the regulatory thickets.
But it's satisfying to read that giants like SYLVANIA and PHILIPS can run afoul of these rules despite their layers of protective bureaucrazies. | | Name: hysan Posted: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:05 |
| It takes my breath away that reputable companies like Philips, Osram Sylvania, and now Greenlite would have such poor internal governance as to allow their brand value to be destroyed by such practices. It begs the question what other untruths are being foisted on the commercial and residential buyer. Lighting efficacy? Expected life? Product safety? Product origin? Recyclability? Who knows? | | Name: low power solutions Posted: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:05 |
An episode like this further stiffens resistance by the end comsumer to alter such a fixed mindset towards the ecology and envirenment in general. It is difficult enough to convert users of such products herein mentioned even when there are true facts such as cost and short term advantages of converting to low power devices.
Manufacturers worldwide are currently enjoying voluntary regulation of products to broad markets that do not require CE and UL approval along with a host of other safety standards. I wonder how long it will be before a lot of the untruths, half-truths and false claims related to LED products will be exposed and banished to the rubbish bin and where manufacturing standards will become inviable to any manufacturer.
If this industry is to enjoy the growth it deserves then should there not be an international approval body covering all LED related specifications for related purposes. | | Name: maadamos Posted: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:05 |
| Rather sad that there is so much of this stuff going on. Brings me to traffic lights and truck lites. I see a lot of these with failed "pixels" on quite a few. I wonder if these failures happened during the listed warranty period? If the lites are speced at 60,000hrs then the traffic lite signals should do at least 6.85 yrs (6yrs and 10 mos). I do believe a lot of them do not last that long. So much for honesty. | | Name: martin Posted: Fri, 28 May 2010 19:05 |
| Working and speaking for a serious lighting manufacturer and importer based in Montreal, Greenlite has never been a serious importer on the Canadian market and their products are less than average!!! It is just too bad that such company gives bad representation to Canadian businesses!!! |
| | | |
