For a good overally summary of the situation as of today, read my article in the latest edition of Fire Safety Matters: https://www.flipsnack.com/E59F88BBDC9/fire-safety-matters-mar-2024/full-view.html (starts at page 24).
I will for now keep this state of play report to headline points. If anyone wants more information, you can reach me via the Contact page on this site.
Bottom line, despite the OPSS's lies to the contrary, there will in effect be no changes to the current regulations until at the very earliest 2028 (which internally British Standards are claiming) and even then it is unlikely that the changes will produce fire-safe furniture with any significant reduction in flame retardants.
ELEPHANT ONE: THE CURRENT REGS ARE INEFFECTIVE
This site is full of the evidence to support this assertion; in short that:
1. The government's own evidence that the regs are ineffective, contained in the papers (still online) supporting its 2014 consultation on a new match/open flame test that would have been effective.
2. The Environmental Audit Commission's final report in 2019 (into toxic chemicals in everyday life) which confirmed that the regs are ineffective and recommended the government drop the open flame and fillings test immediately. 5 years on and it has no intention of doing so.
3. The USA dropped its open flame test a few years back because it has no effect on preventing furniture fires. And the rest of Europe does not utilise the EU open flame standards.
4. There is no evidence that the current tests have ever saved any lives from fire.
In support of its proposal to retain the 3-test system in its 2023 consultation on the furniture regs, the OPSS cites the National Fire Chiefs Council as apparently insisting the open flame test is retained. Several people have asked them to provide names and papers accordingly from the NFCC but the OPSS just ignores them.
However, in its response to the 2023 consultation the NFCC says this:
"Although the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 have significantly reduced deaths by fire, NFCC agree that a new approach is needed to ensure that domestic upholstered furniture continues to be fire safe and to ensure high levels of consumer protection in the modern home."
Once again, no evidence is offered in support of these claims. The fact is there is no evidence at all that the FFRs have "significantly reduced deaths by fire". The UK's reduction in fire deaths is pretty much the same as other countries including those, like New Zealand, that do not have any fire safety requirements for furniture. The NFCC wants our furniture to continue to be fire safe, except of course it isn't. It is also suspiciously in line with the OPSS's major contradiction over the so-called new approach, i.e. if the regs are providing fire safety, why do we need new standards?
ELEPHANT TWO: WEAR
This is probably the biggest elephant and as such is rarely if ever mentioned outside of industry and government. Flame retardants – as Professor Stuart Harrad has been demonstrating in his research for many years – wear off of furniture pretty much as soon as the first person sits or sleeps on it.
In short, everyone inside the furniture business knows that soon after you purchase a piece of furniture, and even if it has been treated properly with flame retardants (an increasingly big "if" especially when industry knows that Trading Standards have for many years not been enforcing the regulations), it's not long before that piece no longer complies with the regs. Which makes a mockery of the OPSS's new proposals that include second-hand furniture.
This subject was raised recently in the British Standards Institute's working group, FW/6, which has been commissioned by the OPSS to come up with new furniture standards. It was universally accepted as a key issue and there was talk of undertaking wear tests which would almost certainly show, said a leading test house expert, that the regulations are "redundant". An awkward silence followed him and a resounding silence has followed ever since, with no such work undertaken.
ELEPHANT THREE: THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS HUGELY PROFITABLE
At a rough estimate, the furniture regulations are worth around £4 billion a year, split between these industries: the furniture makers (who profit from the trade barrier the regs represent), flame retardant producers, the chemical treatment industry (that would probably go out of business if the regs were made safe and FR-free), the mighty foam industry, and the test house industry.
If the EAC's recommendations in 2019 were put into effect, all that profit would disappear overnight. Hence, all the hard work by the OPSS and industry to make sure they aren't. Not to mention:
SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH
The British Standards Committee, FW/6, that was charged with developing new standards for the new furniture regulations has, as reported, not even started work on any new standards some five years after being commissioned. This blog has reported on the reasons why, not least the "impasse" (word used by at least two Chairs of FW/6) created by the OPSS on the one hand saying it needs new standards, while on the other a) not giving any useful indication of what that means and b) failing to explain why it is also simultaneously claiming that the existing standards offer the "gold standard" for furniture flammability that is the envy of the rest of the world.
Although several people on FW/6 have complained about this and other contradictions in the process, I was the only one who called out the bottom line, specifically when I told the committee that I appeared to be the only one on it who cared more about public health than industry profit. Following which there was a resounding silence. Later, I was thrown off the committee, because, apparently, two committee members (unnamed of course) later complained to BSI later that what I'd said was "inappropriate".
With my removal, guess what? The OPSS started to attend meetings of FW/6 again. They were well over the permitted absence levels under BSI rules and should therefore have been removed from the committee. They'd also claimed that the reason they weren't attending was because I was on the committee! Which if nothing else shows where BSI's priorities regarding protecting their committee members lie. (Just to remind you, when the OPSS heard that BSI had invited me to join this committee, they demanded BSI attend an emergency meeting where they ordered my removal, claiming that I'd been "physically violent" with their staff. My lawyer challenged this and the OPSS then claimed they had not made this accusation, but with BSI contradicting them by informing me what was actually said by the OPSS.)
The fact is that no one on FW/6 has complained about my treatment, which kind of supports my contention. Every single one of them is essentially putting profit before health or, as is the case with the "greens", putting their continuing presence on the committee before actually challenging the government. "We must keep our feet under the table," as one of them told me.
All of them, therefore, support the continuing use of high levels of flame retardants in UK furniture for many years to come. And with this guaranteed continuance of fire safety laws that do not work, there is of course a very lucrative market also remaining in place. Both for flame retardants and any "alternatives" that people might be working on.
And there's one group of snouts in the trough that has become quite prominent. These are scientists, fire experts and even cancer prevention people, who have recently issued a batch of papers – some even paid for by the OPSS! – that focus heavily on reducing flame retardants while not changing the current requirements of the regs (which would be the fastest and most effective way to eliminate FRs). One of these is a leading fire toxicology expert I worked with for many years. He is well aware of the ineffectiveness of the fire regs and indeed pointed it out in one of his earlier papers. He is also very well aware of the massively increased toxicity of fires in furniture that contains flame retardants. He no longer mentions that the regs don't actually prevent fires; nor that their continuing existence (while all sorts of delays remain in place) means that hundreds if not thousands of adults, children and firefighters are suffering cancers and other illnesses. Instead he strongly implies that they would work if they had the right resistance measures in place. He is working with a leading foam manufacturer to develop FR-free foam fillings, while at the same time developing FR-free interliners that can pass the open flame test. He doesn't appear to be aware that, even if they develop such things, the extra cost entailed will almost certainly mean furniture manufacturers continue to use flame retardants instead. Maybe he's hoping public opinion will eventually work against FRs sufficiently for the industry to have to shell out for alternatives. He's built a gang of similar scientists with profit gleams in the eye which the OPSS is only too pleased to back.
Is their behaviour worse than that of the FR industry? Well, you decide. Without me on FW/6 no one else is going to challenge them.
edit.
I will for now keep this state of play report to headline points. If anyone wants more information, you can reach me via the Contact page on this site.
Bottom line, despite the OPSS's lies to the contrary, there will in effect be no changes to the current regulations until at the very earliest 2028 (which internally British Standards are claiming) and even then it is unlikely that the changes will produce fire-safe furniture with any significant reduction in flame retardants.
ELEPHANT ONE: THE CURRENT REGS ARE INEFFECTIVE
This site is full of the evidence to support this assertion; in short that:
1. The government's own evidence that the regs are ineffective, contained in the papers (still online) supporting its 2014 consultation on a new match/open flame test that would have been effective.
2. The Environmental Audit Commission's final report in 2019 (into toxic chemicals in everyday life) which confirmed that the regs are ineffective and recommended the government drop the open flame and fillings test immediately. 5 years on and it has no intention of doing so.
3. The USA dropped its open flame test a few years back because it has no effect on preventing furniture fires. And the rest of Europe does not utilise the EU open flame standards.
4. There is no evidence that the current tests have ever saved any lives from fire.
In support of its proposal to retain the 3-test system in its 2023 consultation on the furniture regs, the OPSS cites the National Fire Chiefs Council as apparently insisting the open flame test is retained. Several people have asked them to provide names and papers accordingly from the NFCC but the OPSS just ignores them.
However, in its response to the 2023 consultation the NFCC says this:
"Although the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 have significantly reduced deaths by fire, NFCC agree that a new approach is needed to ensure that domestic upholstered furniture continues to be fire safe and to ensure high levels of consumer protection in the modern home."
Once again, no evidence is offered in support of these claims. The fact is there is no evidence at all that the FFRs have "significantly reduced deaths by fire". The UK's reduction in fire deaths is pretty much the same as other countries including those, like New Zealand, that do not have any fire safety requirements for furniture. The NFCC wants our furniture to continue to be fire safe, except of course it isn't. It is also suspiciously in line with the OPSS's major contradiction over the so-called new approach, i.e. if the regs are providing fire safety, why do we need new standards?
ELEPHANT TWO: WEAR
This is probably the biggest elephant and as such is rarely if ever mentioned outside of industry and government. Flame retardants – as Professor Stuart Harrad has been demonstrating in his research for many years – wear off of furniture pretty much as soon as the first person sits or sleeps on it.
In short, everyone inside the furniture business knows that soon after you purchase a piece of furniture, and even if it has been treated properly with flame retardants (an increasingly big "if" especially when industry knows that Trading Standards have for many years not been enforcing the regulations), it's not long before that piece no longer complies with the regs. Which makes a mockery of the OPSS's new proposals that include second-hand furniture.
This subject was raised recently in the British Standards Institute's working group, FW/6, which has been commissioned by the OPSS to come up with new furniture standards. It was universally accepted as a key issue and there was talk of undertaking wear tests which would almost certainly show, said a leading test house expert, that the regulations are "redundant". An awkward silence followed him and a resounding silence has followed ever since, with no such work undertaken.
ELEPHANT THREE: THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS HUGELY PROFITABLE
At a rough estimate, the furniture regulations are worth around £4 billion a year, split between these industries: the furniture makers (who profit from the trade barrier the regs represent), flame retardant producers, the chemical treatment industry (that would probably go out of business if the regs were made safe and FR-free), the mighty foam industry, and the test house industry.
If the EAC's recommendations in 2019 were put into effect, all that profit would disappear overnight. Hence, all the hard work by the OPSS and industry to make sure they aren't. Not to mention:
SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH
The British Standards Committee, FW/6, that was charged with developing new standards for the new furniture regulations has, as reported, not even started work on any new standards some five years after being commissioned. This blog has reported on the reasons why, not least the "impasse" (word used by at least two Chairs of FW/6) created by the OPSS on the one hand saying it needs new standards, while on the other a) not giving any useful indication of what that means and b) failing to explain why it is also simultaneously claiming that the existing standards offer the "gold standard" for furniture flammability that is the envy of the rest of the world.
Although several people on FW/6 have complained about this and other contradictions in the process, I was the only one who called out the bottom line, specifically when I told the committee that I appeared to be the only one on it who cared more about public health than industry profit. Following which there was a resounding silence. Later, I was thrown off the committee, because, apparently, two committee members (unnamed of course) later complained to BSI later that what I'd said was "inappropriate".
With my removal, guess what? The OPSS started to attend meetings of FW/6 again. They were well over the permitted absence levels under BSI rules and should therefore have been removed from the committee. They'd also claimed that the reason they weren't attending was because I was on the committee! Which if nothing else shows where BSI's priorities regarding protecting their committee members lie. (Just to remind you, when the OPSS heard that BSI had invited me to join this committee, they demanded BSI attend an emergency meeting where they ordered my removal, claiming that I'd been "physically violent" with their staff. My lawyer challenged this and the OPSS then claimed they had not made this accusation, but with BSI contradicting them by informing me what was actually said by the OPSS.)
The fact is that no one on FW/6 has complained about my treatment, which kind of supports my contention. Every single one of them is essentially putting profit before health or, as is the case with the "greens", putting their continuing presence on the committee before actually challenging the government. "We must keep our feet under the table," as one of them told me.
All of them, therefore, support the continuing use of high levels of flame retardants in UK furniture for many years to come. And with this guaranteed continuance of fire safety laws that do not work, there is of course a very lucrative market also remaining in place. Both for flame retardants and any "alternatives" that people might be working on.
And there's one group of snouts in the trough that has become quite prominent. These are scientists, fire experts and even cancer prevention people, who have recently issued a batch of papers – some even paid for by the OPSS! – that focus heavily on reducing flame retardants while not changing the current requirements of the regs (which would be the fastest and most effective way to eliminate FRs). One of these is a leading fire toxicology expert I worked with for many years. He is well aware of the ineffectiveness of the fire regs and indeed pointed it out in one of his earlier papers. He is also very well aware of the massively increased toxicity of fires in furniture that contains flame retardants. He no longer mentions that the regs don't actually prevent fires; nor that their continuing existence (while all sorts of delays remain in place) means that hundreds if not thousands of adults, children and firefighters are suffering cancers and other illnesses. Instead he strongly implies that they would work if they had the right resistance measures in place. He is working with a leading foam manufacturer to develop FR-free foam fillings, while at the same time developing FR-free interliners that can pass the open flame test. He doesn't appear to be aware that, even if they develop such things, the extra cost entailed will almost certainly mean furniture manufacturers continue to use flame retardants instead. Maybe he's hoping public opinion will eventually work against FRs sufficiently for the industry to have to shell out for alternatives. He's built a gang of similar scientists with profit gleams in the eye which the OPSS is only too pleased to back.
Is their behaviour worse than that of the FR industry? Well, you decide. Without me on FW/6 no one else is going to challenge them.
edit.
RSS Feed