Changes to the Furniture & Furnishing Fire Safety Regulations are in danger of increasing rather than reducing the risk to consumers. Manufacturers and representative trade bodies have been urging the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) not to rush through amendments.
The industry fully supports the aim behind the proposed amendments to reduce the amount of fire retardants used in furniture, so improving consumer safety and reducing costs. However, they say any changes, if not properly thought out, could have a significant negative impact on the furniture industry as a result of confusion and increased costs, and in fact potentially increase the safety risk for consumers, rather than reduce it.
The warning comes hot on the heels of the news that the planned amendments are due to be put out to public consultation within the next four weeks, despite these concerns. “We feel these amendments are being too hastily introduced so we have been urging manufacturers and retailers who share our concerns to contact their local MPs,” says Paul von der Heyde, chairman of the British Furniture Confederation, the organisation which represents the furniture industry’s main trade associations in their dealings with government. .
The fear is that the tests proposed (alternative cigarette and match tests using FR compliant CM foam) currently lack sufficient technical detail and have not been robustly trialled. “There is simply not enough detail in the documents to assess whether the changes would have a positive impact on safety and costs,” says Mr von der Heyde,
“The industry has, for the past two years, been working closely with BIS over proposed amendments to the current regulations and we are disappointed at this piecemeal approach, which focuses on making this one amendment now, with other revisions addressed at a later date, “ he adds
“We are also concerned that other issues that have a significant impact on the industry have not been addressed. They include the definition of seat pads and scatter cushions, the classification of outdoor furniture and the confusion around headboards and bed bases. We would much prefer a full and well considered revision of the regulations so the industry only has to take on board changes once and consumer safety is increased by eliminating current areas of confusion or weaknesses in levels of protection. The recent media attention from programmes such as Fake Britain and Watchdog on upholstery and beds which fail flammability tests emphasise the need for everyone to work together to ensure our regulations are consistently effective and more easily enforceable.”
Meanwhile, on behalf of the industry, FIRA has been rushing through trials of the proposed new tests and is this week hosting a joint BFM/FIRA meeting of manufacturers, foam suppliers, retailers and BIS at which the proposed revision will be discussed.
Anyone wanting to write to their MP should contact the NBF, BFM, FIRA or LOFA for further details.
Ends
Notes to editors: further details of the industry’s concerns.
Evidence
There appears to be no evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed change. Has any research been carried out into the effectiveness and impact of the proposed changes? If so, can this be shared with industry.
Detail
It is difficult to comment on whether these changes will be effective as there is no detail of the tests being proposed. Specifically, what is the specification of the new fillings? What is the test being proposed for the materials within 40 mm of the cover fabric? Without this information it is very difficult to respond to the enquiry as there is no way to assess the impact.
Test foam
It is agreed that testing over combustion modified foam will better reflect the actual situation in the UK market today. However, there are many different formulations of CM foam on the market, using different fire retardants (and levels of fire retardant). This may mean that test foams will behave differently in the test environment. This difference in specification may cause variation in test results. This could mean that fabrics pass in one laboratory using one type of foam, but fail in another, using different foam. This would be unacceptable – any change to the FFFSR must look at adding more consistency to test results, not less.
Test fibre
Similar to the issues with foam, the test fibre must be very tightly specified in terms of fibre sizes, density and thickness. If the specification is not detailed enough there may be variation in test results. This could mean that fabrics pass in one laboratory using one type of foam/fibre combination, but fail in another using a different foam/fibre combination. This would be unacceptable – any change to the FFFSR must look at adding more consistency to test results, not less.
Other materials
It is understood that reduction in the fire resistance of a cover fabric affected by the proposed amendment may reduce the safety of a product, and therefore explain why the requirement for having additional compliance of materials within 40 mm of the cover fabric has been added. However, this gives some cause for concern. Specifically:
- What is the test – the severity of the test will affect the effect this will have? There is no detail that allows the evaluation of this.
- What will be the effect on current materials used in furniture products? Has any research been undertaken on whether materials currently used in furniture will comply?
- If materials need to change to meet the amended requirements this will incur additional cost and affect the competitiveness of the UK industry.
- Regardless of this we would expect that such a requirement will add considerable cost to furniture products as now all materials will have to be tested and additional due diligence systems will need to be introduced and implemented.
- How will such a system be enforced? Currently it is difficult to enforce the Regulations as the requirements are very much written around virgin materials. When final products are tested, by stripping out components, there can be significant levels of contamination that may affect test results, from the manufacturing, storage and delivery stages. This will only be exaggerated when looking at additional materials within a product.
Cost
It is welcomed that, in some instances, the changes may result in the use of less fire retardants, and therefore reduce cost. However, it is anticipated that not all fabrics will need less fire retardants. In addition, with other materials being proposed to come into scope of the Regulations, there may be an increase in fire retardants elsewhere (especially components made from materials such as plastic). Have these issues been included in the cost calculations/impact assessm