Throughout the year, we not only “spring forward” but also “fall back,” as clocks move ahead or back by an hour for daylight saving time. Formally adopted during World War I as an energy-saving measure, this biannual time change has been practiced in the United States for decades.
But Americans have long questioned whether the time change is beneficial. Earlier this month, Michigan senators introduced a bill calling to eliminate daylight saving time in Michigan entirely. More than a dozen other states have considered the prospect as well. While changes to legislation are pending, many must contend with health effects resulting from the time change.
According to an article by Morgan Coulson for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, along with the usual feelings of tiredness and lack of motivation, there may also be an increased risk of chronic health conditions.
“Moving the clocks forward in the spring results in going to sleep and waking up before our internal clocks are ready for us to,” Poulson said.
Stanford science writer Nina Bai also reported on new research from Stanford Medicine indicating that time changes have been linked to long-term effects such as higher risks of stroke and obesity.
“From a circadian perspective, we’ve made the worst choice,” Bai said. “Either permanent standard time or permanent daylight saving time would be healthier than our seasonal waffling, with permanent standard time benefiting the most people.”
Attention has also been given to the idea of making daylight saving time permanent. In an article by Mike Allen for Virginia Tech News, economics expert Jadrian Wooten discussed how some industries benefit from daylight saving time, as well as its consequences and potential justifications.
“People generally vote in favor of not changing clocks, and politicians have tried to push through bills choosing either daylight saving time or standard time and sticking with one,” Wooten said.
The inability to pass further legislation regarding the time change has led many to question why it remains in place. Wooten explained that the amount of energy saved is minimal — only a fraction of a percent. Energy studies over time have produced mixed or minimal results.
“Many would argue that energy savings simply aren’t enough to justify it anymore,” Wooten said.
Although several states have sought to adopt permanent daylight saving time, passing such laws has proven difficult. Federal approval is required before such changes can take full effect nationwide. Some may enjoy the extra hour of sleep in the fall, but when spring arrives, their opinions often change.
As studies continue to highlight the limited benefits of daylight saving time, the urgency surrounding potential changes may increase. There is no clear consensus on how best to address the gains and losses of time each year.
Ultimately, it is up to individuals to weigh the benefits and drawbacks as uncertainty remains about whether the practice will continue or be eliminated. As conversations on the issue intensify and politicians push toward ending seasonal time changes altogether, debates continue at both state and federal levels across the country.
