How the British Furniture Confederation is lying about the dangers of flame retardants
October 2019 - from the BFC's Activity Report Q3:
"Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988
"The BFC welcomed the publication of the Government’s response to the consultation on upgrading the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 on 18 July 2019.
"The BFC continues to believe the furniture industry is fully in support of the need to identify and reduce the use of hazardous fire-retardant chemicals while still maintaining a high degree of fire safety."
This needs little comment from me. First, it's difficult to see why the BFC would welcome a government response which ensures that a) the current unfit regulations will remain unchanged for many years to come and b) furniture producers will be forced to continue making flammable, toxic products putting all their customers' lives at risk. Well, the only reason they can say possibly say this is because the current regime ensures big fat profits for the UK furniture industry.
As for flame retardants, the industry has done absolutely nothing to prevent their widespread use in furniture products. Instead, it's done everything it can to ensure they remain in place with their administrative organ, FIRA, the biggest culprit. In fact, with its increasing focus on cheaper, mass-produced and disposable furniture the levels of flame retardants in UK homes has hugely increased in recent years.
As for maintaining fire safety, the BFC is well aware that current UK furniture is flammable when it isn't supposed to be, with FIRA playing a large role in proving that's the case! (They trapped themselves here in that they insisted on repeating the research the government had already done that proved UK furniture is not fire-safe. It's possible they actually believed that wasn't the case but their own research just proved it was. Never mind, FIRA has ever since ignored its own findings and simply tells everyone now that the Regulations provide fire safety after all.)
So let's be clear: the BFC is an organisation that is knowingly poisoning its customers in their own homes. For example, its members put large volumes of organophosphates in children's mattresses, the same chemicals that were banned from sheep-dip because they're so toxic. The BFC also knows that when furniture catches fire it is actually far more toxic than non-chemically treated furniture in the EU. It cannot say it doesn't know this: at the very least it read about it in the Environmental Audit Committee's report a few months before it made the above statement.
I'll leave the reader to find a word for people who knowingly profit from poisoning/killing people.
December 2017 - BFC press release
The press release below (with my comments in italics) was prompted by Newsnight's piece on 13 December, which featured me talking about how the current FFRs are failing, and Professor Richard Hull talking about his paper in Chemosphere which proves that current UK sofas are less safe than their EU counterparts. Make no mistake, the BFC is well and truly worried about what this may do to its members, i.e. because the BFC was/is instrumental in preventing changes to the FFRs match test going ahead, with the result that UK sofas remain flammable when they aren't supposed to be and contain far higher levels of toxins than they would under the proposed new test.
by BFC | Dec 18, 2017 | BFC News
In recent days in the media, concerns have been aired about the effectiveness of the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (safety) Regulations 1988, as amended (FFFSR) – and also regarding flame retardant chemicals used in upholstered furniture and beds.
The British Furniture Confederation (BFC) has always said that the industry’s first and foremost concern is for people’s safety and has long been pressing government for reforms to the current legislation and standards, in order to simplify testing, iron out anomalies and improve compliance, while also helping to reduce the amount of fire retardant chemicals needed for compliance.
It might have always said this but its actions show the direct opposite: all it is concerned about is profit. Yes, it has long been pressing the government for reforms to the FFRs but only if the FFRs essentially stay the same, thereby maintaining the profitable barrier to trade to the rest of the world so beloved by BFC members. The last statement here is staggeringly hypocritical, given that they are playing a primary role in ensuring that FR levels in UK furniture remain the highest in the world.
It is extremely disappointing that no progress has been made in over a year, after the government announced it needed time to consider the many conflicting responses to its proposed changes to the current standards.
Agreed. But as said, the BFC's idea of 'progress' is to make sure the current match test remains in place. As for 'conflicting responses' to BEIS's proposed changes to the test, these exist only in terms of opinion-driven-by-greed. There has been no conflict at all where facts and scientific proof are concerned, i.e. that the current match test fails and the new one would put the failures right while also hugely reducing FRs.
The BFC opposed the government’s proposals for amending the standards because it felt that they would fail to deliver the desired result of maintaining fire safety levels while also minimising the use of flame retardant chemicals. In an effort to kickstart the process of much needed reform, the BFC submitted its own proposals in July, after consulting widely. To date we have had only a standard response acknowledging their receipt.
'Felt' is the operative word here. FIRA - the secretariat for the BFC - actually did the research that proves the opposite of this statement, i.e. that the current test means fire safety is severely compromised and the new test would hugely reduce FRs.
Yes, the BFC submitted its own proposed regulations to BEIS - although 'consulting widely' is questionable, especially when no one outside the furniture industry appears to have seen them. In any case, this was simply a ruse to show everyone that they were 'doing something'. Their draft measures actually proposed the current match test should stay in place and failed to deal with other contentious amendments to the regs that BEIS had placed in its 2016 consultation, i.e. the BFC knew all too well that their measures would never be, and could not be, implemented.
Having said that, it's appalling that BEIS officials have taken to ignoring just about everybody who questions them as to why they continue to delay on responding to the 2016 consultation.
We will be reiterating our call to BEIS to address this increasingly contentious issue, especially in the light of more recent claims questioning the overall effectiveness of the standards and potential harm to health of FR chemicals.
Nice bit of double-talk here! I would say the 'contentious issue' is actually the question of why the BFC continues to ignore the fact its members are knowingly selling flammable products that poison us. And questions over the effectiveness of the match test are not 'recent' - they were proved nearly four years ago. More hypocrisy when they say 'potential harm' of FRs, a) because the harm is well proven and b) because the BFC is instrumental in keeping levels of them much higher in UK furniture than needs to be.
The Government urgently needs to call a halt to escalating scare mongering by announcing a fresh programme of robust research and evaluation into these claims. Everyone affected – the furniture industry, fire officers, consumers – needs and deserves proper clarity and effective, enforceable regulations and standards which protect people from the potential dangers caused by both fire and harmful chemicals.
'Scare mongering'? All that I and Richard Hull have been saying is rooted in facts and evidence. Nothing the BFC is saying in opposition is backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Calling for a 'fresh programme and robust research and evaluation into these claims' shows the true colours of the BFC. First, as they well know, this research has already been undertaken, with the results on BEIS's website. And neither the BFC nor anyone else has ever provided counter evidence against these findings. As for the need for enforceable regulations, the BFC has knowingly been ensuring the match test remains unenforceable! It knows only too well that Trading Standards have been telling everyone that the current match test is not enforceable because BIES proved it does not reflect finished furniture products. The BFC has never shown any indication whatsoever that it is addressing this problem. Instead, it keeps claiming that the problem doesn't exist.
Meanwhile the industry will continue to obey UK law by meeting the current UK regulations on flammability and following the requirements of REACH regulations regarding use of any chemicals to meet those standards
Very nice of the BFC! It doesn't of course have any choice in complying with regulations. However, what it could do, but refuses to, is address the proven point that the current match test is putting the entire country at risk. It also continues to completely dodge the massive problem of the millions of sofas in the UK that still contain DecaBDE - an FR now banned just about everywhere.
On April 9th 2017 the Sunday Times published an article about how the Stockholm Convention is set to rule that items containing the brominated flame retardant, DecaBDE, will need to be disposed of safely by incineration at end-life, instead of being thrown into landfill sites or recycled as at present. You can access the article here:
You may not be able to read it all because the Times Online is a fee-paying service. However, after the article appeared I was contacted by the Daily Mail, the Mirror, and the Sun, who all ran articles based on the Times' (the Express, too, although they didn't contact me). You can read a couple of these at:
In effect, the Times pointed out that while the UK furniture industry stopped using DecaBDE a few years ago, there are still millions of sofas and mattresses in UK homes right now that contain it. And these will need to be properly (and expensively) disposed of at end-life, even if their owners don't demand their removal before that.
They also point out that the industry and Ministers knew about all this in 2013 but failed to act.
The British Furniture Confederation has just issued a press release on this subject, reproduced below. I've added my interpretation of it in italics, in the text.
* * *
THE BFC PRESS RELEASE OF 11 APRIL 2017
UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE AND FIRE RETARDANTS
The British Furniture Confederation (BFC) has responded to claims made by the national press this week with regards to the safety of fire retardant chemicals used in upholstery fabrics.
The UK’s Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations were introduced in 1988 to safeguard consumers against the devastating effect of toxic fumes and rapid burning associated with foam fillings. The regulations have been shown to save many 100s of lives and thousands of injuries over the years. Consequently, The British Furniture Confederation (BFC) fully supports them.
The BFC makes no mention of the fact that the toxic fumes given off by flame retardants when they burn are far worse than before the Regulations were introduced. Crucially, it is also ignoring the fact that the government proved in 2014 that the match test for cover fabrics doesn't work in most cases. This of course brings into question the number of lives it's claimed the Regulations save (which were always estimates to begin with). The drop in fire deaths since the 1980s could just as easily be down to the massive increase in smoke alarms since then, and the reduction in smoking at home. There is also emerging evidence that the levels of carbon monoxide produced in house fires may be higher with the presence of flame retardants, thereby shortening the time to flash-over.
In addition, we recognise the importance of, and fully support, the EU’s REACH Regulations, which ensure that any chemical that is found to cause harm to human health or the environment is effectively controlled, or removed from use.
What the BFC fails to mention is that REACH is always a long way behind the vast numbers of chemicals released by the industry on to the market. The pattern so far has been that the flame retardant industry releases a new brominated flame retardant, claims it's safe then waits for someone else, at great expense of time and money, to prove it's not. Then they remove it and immediately substitute a near-identical equivalent. So what the BFC really means by fully supporting REACH is that it has no moral compunction to act on this pattern which has caused thousands of cancers and other illnesses; it's just going to wait, like the FR industry, until REACH has the time and money to prove the case against whichever FRs they are currently enjoying huge profits from.
Of the chemicals listed as of concern, DecaBDE, which historically was used as a back coating for upholstery fabrics, is already listed as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) under the REACH regulations. This means its use is severely restricted. As far as we are aware it is no longer used as a fire retardant for furniture fabrics in the UK, and hasn’t been for a number of years. New legislation - https://www.fira.co.uk/news/article/decabde-flame-retardant-restrictions - will prevent nearly all use of this chemical.
There are two issues here that the BFC doesn't want you to consider. First, while it's true that DecaBDE is no longer used in UK furniture (by the way 'number of years' is somewhat misleading here, in that Deca has only been left out of our furniture for about three years), it is still in the millions of sofas that people purchased before it was disused. This is exactly what the BFC is most frightened of: that they may have to stump up the bill for disposal. They even went begging to the European Commission a few years back, pointing out that the UK has a 'mountain' of old sofas to dispose of. "Tough," said the Commission; "that's the UK's problem."
Second, they aren't telling you that the FR industry simply replaced DecaBDE with a new BFR which almost certainly will eventually be found to be poisonous too. And the BFC is happy for its members to use it.
It is our belief that the combination of these two Regulations ensures that the upholstered furniture on sale in the UK is the safest in the world with regard to fire performance; and reflects the latest knowledge
This is an outright lie. The BFC is well aware that the current match test doesn't work and therefore millions of our sofas are ignitable when they aren't supposed to be. No one, including the BFC and FIRA, has ever provided proof that this isn't true; in fact, back in 2014 they admitted that it is. Now, in the absence of anyone at BEIS who knows different, they are simply touting the untrue line that the UK's regs are the safest in the world on the basis that if you express opinion-as-fact often enough, people will believe it. As for 'reflects the latest knowledge' . . . again, REACH cannot possibly catch up with the thousands of chemicals it has to assess. Therefore 'latest knowledge' is very misleading.
The BFC has long campaigned to have the Regulations revised to reflect modern materials and manufacturing processes, as well as addressing a number of areas in the Regulations that needed added clarity. We welcomed the decision by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to launch a full revision of the Regulations and fully supported its stated aim to reduce the use of fire retardant chemicals.
The first part of this is actually true! The BFC has long campaigned to get the Regulations updated. However, this was when they believed the basic status quo wouldn't change, i.e. that the flammability tests would still lead to the use of tons of FRs. As I've pointed out elsewhere on this site, there is a very close relationship between the chemical industry and the BFC, FIRA, the National Bed Federation, FRETWORK, Clarkson Textiles, etc. I leave it to the reader to speculate as to why this would be so. Incidentally, the statement 'full revision' is also misleading. The BFC is well aware that BEIS's latest consultation included only partial and contentious amendments alongside the new match test. This was designed to ensure the consultation would not be implemented. The BFC is wary of stating this, however, since it actually doesn't want anything to come out of the consultation, thereby preserving the FRs status quo. By implying that these other amendments were complete/full, it can lead on lying that the proposed match test is not going to do what it says it will do.
The last statement is also a lie. The BFC has actually tried to block the government's aims to reduce FRs. As it does so in this very statement, by lying that the Regulations provide fire safety, then implying that the proposed new match test will not reduce FRs (see below).
But while the recent consultation on proposed changes to the Regulations had a number of positive features, the BFC were unable to support BEIS’ proposals as we do not believe that the changes will satisfy BEIS own targets of reducing the use of fire retardant chemicals, while maintaining the current levels of fire safety for both consumers and the fire service.
Phil Reynolds of FIRA didn't quite put it like this to me recently, when we bumped into each other at the NEC. He said industry couldn't support the recent consultation because it was so badly put together. I agree. As for the second part of this sentence, it is an out-and-out lie by reversal. FIRA's own research - as published in the 2014 consultation document - proved that the new match test will hugely reduce FRs. As for maintaining the current levels of fire safety, this could I suppose bizarrely be a true statement in that the BFC may actually be suggesting that it wants to maintain the current unsafe levels of fire safety.
Regarding the safety of fire fighters . . . a survey undertaken by a leading UK fire service a few years ago produced shocking results: 60% of their fire fighters were dying of cancer within 10 years of retiring, and retirement age is 55. This is way above the national average. Similar findings inspired US firefighters to join the movement to remove FRs from US furniture, which was achieved there in 2014.
So let's be clear about this: the BFC is fully aware that the current match test doesn't work in most cases and that this means huge amounts of very toxic FR fumes are being produced in house fires unnecessarily, not to mention poisoning us as they wear off into house dust. It also knows that the volume of such fumes is greater than it should be because cover fabrics are ignitable when they shouldn't be. It is also aware that very soon after cover fabrics ignite, hydrogen cyanide is produced - one of the most deadly toxins, as used by the Nazis in the gas chambers. Hydrogen cyanide is persistent too: it stays in our systems for many years and can therefore produce serious health problems at any time.
The BFC's real fears are two-fold: 1) that it may have to stump up the bill for disposal of furniture containing FRs (not just DecaBDE), and 2) that its members could face massive costs via recalls or law suits once the public is fully aware of the facts. This is compounded of course by the fact that the BFC has known the truth for at least three years but has not done anything about it other than lie.
We hope that BEIS will take account of the views of the furniture Industry when it publishes its response to the consultation in the coming weeks.
Well, Phil Reynolds told FIRA's industry members that in his view nothing will come out of this consultation, a view which I also share. Apart from the fact there is now no one at BEIS with the knowledge to understand let alone process the consultation returns, it is not in their interests to go ahead with the new match test. Apart from angering the chemical industry, they would also have to explain why they didn't implement the new test in 2014, thereby keeping the public at risk from fatal fires and FR poisoning.
We are also aware of the potential waste disposal issue if DecaBDE is listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant and we will work with the various authorities to address it.
I arranged a talk for the furniture industry in 2013 at which an official from the Environment Agency gave a presentation about how very soon it will be necessary to dispose of FR-laden products safely at end-life. He explained how expensive it would be. As said, that got the industry's attention. However, while the BFC is now saying it will work with the various authorities to address the problem, the question is why has it done nothing at all about the problem since it first found out about it in 2013; indeed, why it has continued to endorse its members putting more FRs in its furniture than was necessary in the intervening period. Again, it is also silent on Deca's BFR replacement, not to mention the cocktail of other FRs in the average UK sofa/mattress that will also no doubt be banned eventually and added to the safe-disposal list.