Are VDTs a Pain in the Neck? : Workplace Rules Lag for Lack of Research

Each day millions of Americans come home from work with sore eyes, stiff shoulders, back pain and mental tension. All have one thing in common: They work at computer stations that have video display terminals (VDTs).

Today, 10 years after the first U.S. government study of VDTs, the health debate continues. Does their use cause serious problems with reproduction, vision, the muscles and psychological stress? Government, industry, university and union experts still disagree over the meaning of research findings. Meanwhile, 15 million Americans, mostly women, continue to use VDTs at work everyday, many worried about the potential dangers.

Just why does this debate persist, given the apparent suffering of so many VDT users? A major problem is that there is not enough good research. What there is shows contradictory results. While not all experts agree, the weight of research evidence indicates that working at a video display terminal produces a greater number, and more severe, daily visual disturbances than other visually demanding jobs. Yet other studies have not been able to confirm these short-term effects.

There has been less debate among the experts on the seriousness of musculoskeletal health complaints. Most experts agree that poor workplace design can lead to serious cumulative trauma injuries. These include blood-pooling in the legs, lower-back pain, upper-back, neck and shoulder strain, and arm, hand and wrist disorders. Yet there is a paucity of research showing that VDT work really causes these problems.

Research on the reproductive hazards of VDT use is even less conclusive. Studies in Canada, Finland and Sweden show no increases in spontaneous abortions in VDT users or birth defects in their babies. A study at the University of Michigan provides conflicting evidence of a higher risk of spontaneous abortion depending on how many hours per day were spent at the VDT. A recent study at the Kaiser-Permanente Medical Care Program found that VDT users who worked at the terminals more than 20 hours per week had almost twice as many miscarriages as women doing other types of office work.

These findings are being hotly debated because serious weaknesses in the ways in which the studies were designed or conducted limit the conclusions that can be made. Again, there isn’t enough good research evidence to draw solid conclusions. And other workplace conditions such as radiation, body posture and psychological stress are possible contributing factors.

Job stress is also a concern. Studies have shown that introducing computer terminals into the workplace can change the way jobs are done, making them more stressful. This influence is most often seen in clerical jobs. But it has also been seen in professional jobs like programming and accounting. Debate centers on whether the way in which organizations change work is the cause of the stress rather than the VDT.

Last month the debate got hotter. The county board of Suffolk County in New York passed a law regulating workplace use of VDTs. It requires employers to provide properly designed terminals, desks and chairs as well as proper lighting, reduced noise and other office environment improvements. Employers who do not meet these requirements will be subject to fines. The business community has denounced this legislation as baseless and too costly. They contend that it will severely affect their ability to compete with business in other counties that do not have such requirements. Labor unions hail this legislation as a first step toward state and federal laws to protect the health of VDT users.

As an educator and a research scientist who has studied the VDT health issues for a decade, I am convinced that the debate will continue until more research is done. There are multiple causes for VDT-user problems, and standards can only deal with a few. Until sufficient research evidence is available about which hazards are the most dangerous, and on effective ways to control hazards, manufacturers, employers and users need flexibility in developing solutions.

The labor unions are justified and correct in pushing for standards. Not enough is being done by the majority of employers to help deal with the problems of VDT use. Many are waiting for the debate to be completed or for directions from the government before they take action. Government agencies have not provided this guidance because they are hampered by a lack of sufficient research and experience. This is short-sighted. The federal government must develop flexible guidelines that can help manufacturers, employers and users make informed choices about how to deal with VDT health concerns based on current knowledge and best available advice. We need an aggressive federal research program to address the potential for VDT work to produce serious health hazards, and to provide guidance in their control.

It has been 10 years since the first government study of VDT health issues in this country, and we have made very little progress. We have been sitting back and letting the rest of the world press this debate. Why are we lagging behind? Possibly because of pressure from business, but most likely due to a lack of leadership from the federal government in developing safety and health policy.

The VDT health debate has had its positive side. User knowledge of potential health problems has forced employers to be more selective in buying computer equipment and office furniture. Employers have demanded that manufacturers of VDTs and office computer furniture provide products that help alleviate the “discomfort” and the potential for chronic trauma injuries. Even without safety standards, some employers have voluntarily improved VDT working conditions. However, more have to join this voluntary effort.

In a few instances, federal inspectors have taken action by writing citations for safety violations for employers at VDT workplaces where cumulative trauma musculoskeletal disorders have occurred. While this action may be hard to defend in court, it brings employer attention to the serious nature of the problems and it may prod some employers to take ameliorative action.

Meanwhile, VDT users will continue to work at VDTs because they need to keep their jobs. The real debate on the VDT health question is: Can the human suffering and worry that afflicts many VDT users be eliminated now, before we have most of the answers through research? The answer is yes, if the federal government provides leadership through guidance and direction to manufacturers and employers.