London – The UK Department for Business Innovations and Skills (BIS) consultation on furniture fire safety aims to tackle a growing health concern around flame retardants and drive chemical innovation in industry.
That was the overall message from BIS policy manager Terry Edge as industry representatives attended a department conference to discuss proposed changes to fire standards in furniture production.
This week’s meeting was part of the Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Schedule 5 – The Match Test – and Schedule 4 – The Cigarette Test of The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988.
In short, the proposal changes the test filling material from the current non-combustion modified foam to combustion modified foam. It also exempts fabrics that passes the match test from the cigarette test and removes the current cigarette test requirement for invisible linings.
Furthermore, new standards are proposed for certain lining fabrics located directly behind the visible cover and currently unregulated materials within 40mm of the surface will have to be tested against a modified version of the match test.
Edge spoke of the “battle” around the potential toxicity of flame retardants, particularly brominated, saying that an International Association of Fire Fighters statement “recognised that there are a large number of cancers appearing in firefighters which they believe are partly due to the presence of flame retardants in products.” Edge added that the association is in “support of any state that wishes to legislate against that.”
He also said it was likely the consultation’s findings would have a significant bearing on how EU policy would be shaped in the future. He said: “If we go back to Europe with a match test requirement of testing over foam that does not appear in the final product, I think we are going to get a lot of grief.”
A key driver, he said, was evidence that the current testing raised the potential for a fabric/foam combination that, although it would pass the laboratory testing, would not provide sufficient protection against a fire in reality.
Edge said: “Many products have failed [in reality] even though the foam passed” the test.
And Edge added that Trading Standards investigations had uncovered evidence of the “undertreating” of fabric with flame retardants, which posed a huge risk to consumers.
On the growing levels of health concerns around furniture flame retardants, he said: “I think that perception is growing in the UK, retailers are getting calls asking what is in the furniture.”
Edge added: “If we can provide fire safety without the use of chemicals then why not? This is why BIS is keen on barrier technology,” he said. He said it is the department’s aim to encourage newer and greener technology in UK industry.
Current UK legislation, said Edge, differs from Europe’s only because, back in the late 80s when the standards were formed, the UK proved its case based on a distinct set of safety concerns and was excused from EU standards in favour of its own based on those particular concerns.
Edge said the BIS estimated that the changes had potential to save the industry up to £50m a year and cut flame retardants in furniture by 50%.
He said: “We cannot introduce anything that is going to cost the industry money. Ideally, it should save the industry money but it cannot cost it more. If the consultation comes back and says that it is going to cost the industry money then we are in trouble.”
“If enough people respond to the consultation saying this is going to cost more it maybe that ministers have to decide," he added – an assertion which attracted accusations from the floor that the new regulations is a “done deal.”
Government officials and industry professionals conflicted during the meeting and the contention stemmed largely from the £50m savings claim, an estimate many attendees felt was an exaggeration.
Martin Mapplebeck, md at Wellbeck House, disputed the BIS estimation that a sofa contains 17 metres of fabric – a key element in the calculation leading to the savings claim – adding that the average fabric content amounted to eight metres per item.
Complaints of a rushed job also were also raised from the floor as the meeting progressed.
Peter Wragg, a director at the flame retardant textiles network Fretwork, criticised the timing of the consultation over the holiday period.
He also said there was danger the industry would “default to the simplest approach to worst-case scenarios” which, paradoxically, might increase the amount of flame retardants in a product to ensure it passes the test initially.
But Edge maintained that the process was at its consultation stage and BIS welcomed responses from industry in order to shape the future. But, Edge said, the change aims to tackle issues BIS knows to exist.
Wragg’s assertion was supported by retailer Next’s representative at the meeting Dave Winsor, who said he felt the savings estimate was 40% too high. Explaining how Next’s furniture offering included thousands of permutations of fabric and inner foam compositions, he said: “We are pressured by customers to offer more choice and that has ended up with us offering every cover with all base materials.”
He said the worst-case scenario approach might prompt an increase in the use of flame retardants as manufacturers and retailers strive to cover all contingencies.
Meanwhile, the British Retail Consortium’s policy advisor consumer products, Linda Crane told the meeting she felt the proposal was encroaching on areas for which it is unqualified.
“If we want to regulate chemicals then we have REACH to do it,” adding that while the changes might reduce flame retardant use, “…we should concentrate on making a better test for flammability.”
The implementation of new regulations stemming from the consultation would be no sooner than April and would include a significant lead time.
The c. 100-capacity conference room at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was well over half full for the duration of the event.
The consultation can be found here. BIS intends to add more details to the consultation papers following the meeting.
+++Update+++
A UK furniture maker, that wished to comment anonymously, issued this statement following Tuesday's consultation meeting: "The consultation to regulation amendments have been introduced at a time when the industry as a whole is on annual shutdowns and the supply chains that fed them from Europe are also on extended leave, giving little time to react by the October 6th deadline.
"The implications of the changes are slowly filtering through but the fact that there has not been a specific test for items that are now included within the regulations again gives no real time to respond correctly on a factual basis.
"The cost savings that are being muted are, on our calculations, completely flawed as the FR savings appear to be based on both the FR process and application of FR chemicals. The process still has to take place irrespective of the volume of chemical being applied. From our quickly assembled data from our suppliers, the savings would be approximately be a third of the stated amounts. This will then be completely wiped out by the additional cost of using treated sub components.
"We are definitely in favour of ensuring that the FR is a priority in the Uk market and we conform to all legislation and are strategic partners with Trading Standards who have commented that we perform at a level well above the legislated requirements. What we are not in favour of are the assumptions being made and the methods being employed to force a highly politically motivated issue through before the next Election.
"It appears that this standard will state what you cannot do but has not had the forethought to come up with any solutions. We are concerned that this will make the situation worse rather than the stated aim of improvement," it concluded.
