Longitudinal Location Influences Preference for Daylight Saving Time

The practice of Daylight Saving Time in Canada: Its suitability with respect to sleep and circadian rhythms

Daylight Saving Time (DST) is the practice of setting the clocks one hour forward from Standard Time (ST) in the spring and back again to ST in the fall. This commentary discusses the impact of bi-annual time changes on sleep and circadian rhythms and suggests avenues to minimize negative outcomes on the well-being of Canadian citizens. Ideally, ST should be close to solar time, meaning that daylight is equally distributed before and after noon time, i.e., when the sun is at its highest point in the sky. In Canada, some provinces are proposing to opt out of DST to either return to constant ST throughout the year or to implement permanent DST. National and international associations of clinicians and researchers on sleep and biological rhythms and in health sciences have positioned themselves in favour of permanent ST. In Canada, the Canadian Sleep Society and the Canadian Society for Chronobiology have also issued such a position. This commentary focuses on the implications of previous research findings for sleep and health in Canada given its northern geographical location. It concludes with a research agenda focusing on the Canadian context.

The controversy over daylight saving time: evidence for and against

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biannual clock changes to and from daylight saving time have been pervasive in many societies for over 50 years. Governments are considering abandoning this practice and choosing a single permanent time.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our endogenous circadian clock follows our photoperiod, which changes over the year. The acute disruption caused by changing our clocks can affect safety (motor vehicle and on the job accidents), health (cardiovascular disease, drug overdoses, suicide), and human behavior (sport performance, generosity, and procrastination). Although abandoning the clock change could help avoid these acute harms, choosing the wrong permanent time could lead to chronic circadian misalignment, which could have even more profound implications for health, safety, and human behavior.

SUMMARY

Ceasing the biannual clock change may be a good choice, but governments need to be mindful of which permanent time to adopt. Many regions of the world already follow the wrong time during standard time, and circadian misalignment would be amplified by moving to permanent daylight saving time. In many regions, Standard Time better aligns with our circadian clock, thus providing a more natural light cycle that minimizes circadian misalignment.

A Data-Informed Perspective on Public Preferences for Retaining or Abolishing Biannual Clock Changes

Scientific, public, and political discourse around the perennial changing of the clocks during the transitions into and out of daylight saving time (DST) is a touchstone issue for the translation of fundamental chronobiology into societal impacts. The Society for Research on Biological Rhythms, along with other sleep science bodies, has issued a position statement that advocates for the abolition of the biannual clock changes and the adoption of permanent standard time for the optimization of population circadian health. However, there is a paucity of data on preexisting public perceptions and preferences with regard to these issues. In this perspective, we examine 5 issues that we believe are pertinent for chronobiologists to consider to enable effective advocacy on these policies; in particular, we discuss public preference for permanent DST and steps that may need to be taken to understand this preference. We inform our discussion with reference to cross-sectional studies we undertook in Spring 2020 and Fall 2019, around the transition out of and into DST Ireland. We conclude that there appears to be a gap between existing public perceptions and preferences around the clock changes and chronobiological and sleep science-informed positions, and that the chronobiology community may benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration with colleagues with specific social sciences expertise to most effectively advocate for these research-informed positions.