We know there are standards for safety glasses (frames and lenses) and dress lenses. Is there any standard for dress frames? :bbg:
ANSI Standards for dress frames?
We know there are standards for safety glasses (frames and lenses) and dress lenses. Is there any standard for dress frames? :bbg:
I was always under the impression that all large manufacturers made their frames up to the same and/or higher standard to those of safety frames. I could be wrong, but for some reason that's been stuck in my head. lol
there are no standards for regular frames and there have never been, otherwise you could use a rimless mount for safety purposesOriginally Posted by AdmiralKnight
You can purchase ANSI Z80.5-2004, Requirements for Ophthalmic Frames from ANSI's Web Store.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
It does exist! Thanks Darryl, we learn something every day!
Unlike safety frames in which compliance is mandatory (stamped Z87 or Z87-2), I have never seen a dress frame stamped with a Z80, not even higher end frames. It costs around $530.00 US to test a frame to a standard and you need to submit 24 samples per model. This is quite costly and I doubt companies will ever comply.:hammer:
Thanks Darryl....................always something new to learn
Stamping the frame with "Z80" isn't a requirement of Z80.5; it is a requirement of Z87.1 though. The requirements aren't as extensive either. Frames adhering to Z80.5 must be properly marked with the eyesize and DBL on the frame front, pass a basic flammability tests, meet certain dimensional tolerances, and so on. I suspect that most quality frames sold in the US meet the requirements of Z80.5.Unlike safety frames in which compliance is mandatory (stamped Z87 or Z87-2), I have never seen a dress frame stamped with a Z80
I should add that there is a similar international standard that overeas spectacle frame manufacturers would generally adhere to: ISO 12870-2004 Spectacle Frames - Requirements and Test Methods.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Interesting, thanks for the info. But, is this mandatory?
The ANSI Z80.5 is a standard; ANSI standards are only ever mandatory if someone, somewhere has passed a law to that effect (and I'm not aware of any pertaining to Z80.5). ISO standards, on the other hand, are more rigorously enforced for products that are imported or exported.But, is this mandatory?
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Thought so, it's really tough to enforce anything that isn't law or mandatory.
Standards like these don't generally need to be "enforced" by regulatory agencies, because customers will ultimately choose whether or not to purchase or utilize products, components, information, etcetera from vendors that do not adhere to these standards. When a significant health or safety risk to consumers is involved, a regulatory agency -- such as OSHA -- may choose to regulate certain products by mandating that they satisfy the requirements set forth in one or more applicable standards. (Note that the standard, itself, isn't the actual regulation though...)
ANSI Z80.1 for dress eyewear is not federally regulated, for instance, but some states have made the use of this standard compulsory for certain licensed eye care professionals. Additionally, if you choose to distribute products that do not satisfy certain standards, you may be failing to provide the "standard of care" typical of the industry, which may have legal implications for you in the future.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
This more or less sounds like a money grab with some bragging rights. A lesser quality, non compliant dress frame is highly unlikely to pose any health risks to a wearer other than a skin rash from an allergic reaction to the nickel. If we were discussing ophthalmic or contact lenses, then yes, there definitely is a risk to the wearer, but frames??
Keep in mind that, since frames aren't marked or identified as ANSI Z80.5 compliant, and since most quality frames would satisfy the Z80.5 requirements anyway, it is unlikely that frame manufacturers are either bragging or profiting from Z80.5 compliance.This more or less sounds like a money grab with some bragging rights.
Which is why the Z80.5 standard hasn't been made compulsory by a federal agency, such as the FDA.A lesser quality, non compliant dress frame is highly unlikely to pose any health risks to a wearer other than a skin rash from an allergic reaction to the nickel.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Which is is why it seems silly for this to even exist...it is not mandatory, it is optional...there is no risk to the wearer...there is no bragging rights...and compliance testing is not free which definitely inflates the wholesale cost to optical professionals.
Darryl, you have provided excellent information on this topic. My opinion is there are just too many 'make work committees' out there that love to have meetings and dream up new policies and standards. The problem is, most of these standards never develop into anything of substance and only lines their pockets with manufacturers' money which ofcourse gets directly passed on to the optical professional. I would say this thread is closed. :hammer:
With all due respect, your assessment of the usefulness and relevance of standards couldn't be further from the truth. First and foremost, standards organizations, such as ANSI, ASTM, IEEE, and so on, are non-profit organizations that are supported by their members. Manufacturers do indeed typically bear the direct cost burdens associated with standards development. Further, standards development activities are typically executed by member volunteers from those same manufacturers. (And, trust me, manufacturers have no particular desire to shell out time, money, and effort to these various standards bodies just for the heck of it!)
The primary beneficiaries of standards activities are typically consumers, however. Standards are written to ensure consistent performance, reliability, interoperability, and safety. But, more often than not, standards are utilized to "level the playing field" for consumers. When deciding between two products, for instance, you can compare the performance of each using the same benchmark, be assured that they both meet minimum safety standards, and know that they will work correctly with related products. Otherwise, that new television set you just saved $800 on -- for no apparent reason -- might fail to display your broadcast signal, have the wrong audio-video interface for your DVD player, electrocute one of your children without proper grounding, and so on.
Everything from the phone jacks in your house to the gaskets in your car to the digital format of your DVDs is standardized. Submitting your post here on OptiBoard, for instance, relied on a dozen or more standards, including electrical safety standards, computer hardware standards, interfacing standards, wiring standards, data transmission standards, networking standards, markup language standards, etcetera, maintained by organizations such UL, ANSI, ASTM, IEEE, and W3C. Otherwise, your computer wouldn't be good for much more than playing Pong and typing school term papers. ;)
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
My post was directed simply at the relevance of standards on dress frames only and not the other things you listed in detail, to which I fully agree and support. Standards on safety frames and those other items are absolutely necessary as there is definitely a huge potential risk of harm to the public in the event of appliance failure or lack of performance. I have first hand experience as a member of one of these committees. Although it may operate as non-profit, I beg to differ as our meetings take place in executive boardrooms the equivalent of taj mahal complete with expensive catered lunches. I truly enjoy being a part of the committee as I feel I contribute my expertise and advice, but sometimes I have to scratch my head and wonder....why are there so many BMW's and Merc's in the employee parking lot?:)
Daryl,
I applaud your comeents on standards versus regulations. I also have served on these committees, with you, and have the personal gratification of trying to maintain the professional quality and patient success of optical products.
Yes the manufacturers have footed the bill for these ventures, but I feel we have all reaped the benefits.
Being (semi-retired, only 40 hrs a week here) back in the retail part of business, it never ceases to amaze me the lack of understanding in retail, and at the Doctors level overall, of how quality, safe products persist in today's market. The US is SO far behind the European markets in this avenue, but that is primarily due to our freedom to make our own choices, and control our own quality.
Thanks for hanging in there!
Denny
There are thousands of very necessary standards out there that do not reflect a matter of public safety. But if you want to use the Internet or a telephone or a DVD player or whatever else, you are still relying on some form of standardization. The fact that you, personally, do not see the need for a spectacle frame standard doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. Personally, as a spectacle wearer, I'm glad to know that my eyeglass frames meet some basic product safety and performance requirements, as embodied in Z80.5. Although I don't work with that particular subcommittee, I appreciate their efforts, myself. But, even if we don't see eye-to-eye, I certainly respect your right to have your own opinion on the matter.My post was directed simply at the relevance of standards on dress frames only and not the other things you listed in detail, to which I fully agree and support... Standards on safety frames and those other items are absolutely necessary as there is definitely a huge potential risk of harm to the public in the event of appliance failure or lack of performance.
I'm not sure what standards committees you've worked with, but with organizations such as ANSI and VCA, the two I frequently work with, the meeting rooms (typically hotel meeting rooms) and catered lunches (if we're lucky, we get a cookie with our sandwich) are paid for by membership dues -- that is, by the actual attendants. Those attendants are also directly responsible for paying for their own travel expenses, in addition to whatever time they contribute to standards development activities. This is just a cost of doing business for us. Nevertheless, your statement is an example of spending the members' money, not a profit-motivated attempt at making money...?I beg to differ as our meetings take place in executive boardrooms the equivalent of taj mahal complete with expensive catered lunches
Hey, Denny! Good to hear from you!Thanks for hanging in there!
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Do you think that we should be able to make dress frames from cellulose acetate again?
There's a standard we can truly live with!
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
This remark certainly doesn't deserve a comment.:hammer:
Quote=eyemanflying - A lesser quality, non compliant dress frame is highly unlikely to pose any health risks to a wearer other than a skin rash from an allergic reaction to the nickel. If we were discussing ophthalmic or contact lenses, then yes, there definitely is a risk to the wearer, but frames??
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that standards on dress frames is silly. Certainly banning cellulose acetate was a good move as that is definitely a health risk to the wearer.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
(But, even if we don't see eye-to-eye, I certainly respect your right to have your own opinion on the matter.)
Likewise, my posts are based on my personal experiences with one committee. Perhaps I need to be involved with others so as to water down some of the bs I have witnessed. Thanks for shedding some light on this.
(Nevertheless, your statement is an example of spending the members' money, not a profit-motivated attempt at making money...?)
Exactly my point...I'm sure you understand it would be unethical and unprofessional for me to mention any names.
As I look back at these postings, I notice that what I thought was a simple question can grow a loooong thread. I appreciate the sincerity and thoughtfulness of the responses.
I contacted several name-brand (but not high-end) frame companies that we deal with. The results are not all in, but none of the responders acknowledged using ANSI certification. The president of one large company says he believes they meet the standards even though they have not been tested. Based on my results, I don't think any Medicaid contract which uses cost as a primary consideration can expect official ANSI certification.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks