
Toxic sofas are a secret scandal - montalbano
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/26/toxic-sofa-eu-red-tape-flame-retardants
======
sofarfromhome
I'm the civil servant who was leading on the UK regs until 2015 when I was
pushed out of the job for taking out a whistle-blower case. George Monbiot has
done a good job overall and he asked me to clear the final draft. It's an
immensely complicated mass of issues, with the hugely powerful flame retardant
industry pulling the strings. They played a big part in setting up these
Regulations in the first place; just like they did in the US. It's not going
to get any better unless action is taken. Just yesterday, I met the civil
servants currently responsible and under questioning, admitted they aren't
going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Any recommendations on how to more rapidly move the needle? Your work is
appreciated!

~~~
sofarfromhome
For a long time I was written off by government and industry as a lone
maverick with a chip on his shoulder. But things have changed a lot over the
last year, first with the report by the Environmental Audit Committee in July
which agreed with my findings and bollocked the Department for Business to get
on with changing things. Second - and having massive effects behind the scenes
but coming more into play - was the formation of a contaminants group in the
FBU. The two guys behind it were outraged to discover only recently (and much
of it from my website) that for 30 years they've been exposed to massively
toxic fires without even been told about it by their management. Part of the
problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame
retardant industry.

So in a short space of time, we've had people running for cover, resigning
from committees and being axed from their jobs for corruption.

What else will move things on? Get your MP to write to the Department for
Business. I met them yesterday and while they're crapping themselves about the
attention that's now on them, they admitted that in effect they're not going
to make any changes to these Regulations for another 9-12 years. I spelled out
to them that that means we're going to continue poisoning our children as they
sleep but these people have segmented minds and somehow avoid taking any
responsiblity, concerned only about their careers and pension.

~~~
easytiger
> Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the
> flame retardant industry.

What's the evidence for this claim?

~~~
sofarfromhome
I provided some above. The names are well known within the fire sector and
they've not denied it. There are two ex-firefighters on record (BBC interview,
online records) who were heavily funded by the flame retardant industry to
push for more of their chemicals in furniture and other products. One of them
still operates: Mike Hagen. Both claim that they were not funded while in
service but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before
retiring. Another still in service is Paul Fuller - who regularly pushes for
flame retardants in children's clothing. Then there's Sir Ken Knight who
played a major role in blocking safety changes to the Furniture Regs that
would have hugely reduced flame retardants. The same Sir Ken who signed off
the Grenfell cladding as safe; and the same Sir Ken who was appointed Chair of
the Grenfell independent experts panel and refused to even look at the role
the faile furniture regs played in the fire.

~~~
easytiger
I find your language extremely troubling. If I'm honest I'm struggling to take
you seriously and it seems you are on a particularly self appointed mission.
Which is fine. But things like

> but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring.

Logic had little to do with it I fear. Secondly the UK tabloidesque
vilification of public servants who leverage their expertise when their career
is over is tiresome. That is not evidence of "corruption".

~~~
sofarfromhome
It really doesn't matter if you're struggling to take this seriously because
key people do. I'm also not sure what exactly you mean be 'evidence', above
what I've been reporting. People who are bribed are hardly likely to keep
written records of the fact. But how about this: Matt Wrack, head of the FBU,
told Prof. Anna Stec (who is reporting to the FBU on cancers in firefighters)
that he'd sacked Dave Sibert for "colluding with the flame retardant
industry". My mission is far from self-appointed: it's been appointed by many
including a government select committee and the contaminants group in the FBU
who I'm advisor to.

------
moltar
The worst part is that application of fire retardants was not a science based
solution.

It was cigarette companies who lobbied pro fire retardants. People were
setting furniture on fire while falling asleep with cig in hand. And instead
of taking blame, they shifted focus and made the laws pass.

~~~
Ghjklov
This sounds a bit weird to me. Why do cigarette companies take blame for
people who smoke and cause fires while falling asleep during it? Do we blame
knife manufacturers when a cook cuts himself?

~~~
pessimizer
The cigarette companies use paper that doesn't stop burning when a drag hasn't
been taken in a while, because it probably allows them to sell 5% more
cigarettes (due to inattentive smokers.)

Note that I'm not saying here that they simply fail to use some technology or
chemical that would cause a cigarette to burn out. They are doing the
opposite; a hand-rolled cigarette burns out on its own.

Cigarette fires are usually caused when a smoker falls asleep while holding a
cigarette.

~~~
carapace
Little rings of gunpowder in the paper to make it act like a fuse, that's
nothing.

At one point tobacco companies developed _non-addictive_ cigarettes and kept
it a secret.

Source: A long time back a friend of mine's brother was part of a faux-jury
assembled by tobacco company lawyers to do like a focus group to research how
real juries in some real trial might think/feel. They revealed all kinds of
stuff to these folks. They made them sign NDAs, of course, but he told us
everything anyway. That was one of the things I remember: they made non-
addictive cigs and kept it a secret.

~~~
kiterunner2346
carapace says> _" Little rings of gunpowder in the paper to make it act like a
fuse..."_

There is no gunpowder in cigarettes:

[https://www.verywellmind.com/big-tobaccos-list-
of-599-cigare...](https://www.verywellmind.com/big-tobaccos-list-
of-599-cigarette-additives-2824422)

[https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=27857](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=27857)

A non-addictive cigarette would have to have no nicotine b/c nicotine is
addictive:

[https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
reports/toba...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
reports/tobacco-nicotine-e-cigarettes/nicotine-addictive)

"Source: A long time back a friend of mine's brother was part of a faux-jury
assembled by tobacco company lawyers to do like a focus group to research how
real juries in some real trial might think/feel."

Ycombinator post<\--carapace<\--friend<\--brother<\--faux-
jury<\--lawyers<\--tobacco company

Even facts get changed when they're nested >5 levels deep in human networks.

~~~
guitarbill
especially if it had no nicotine, it could help people to stop smoking who
miss the fidgeting or social aspect. e-cigarettes/vaping is really good for
this, because you can taper down to 0mg liquid, keep vaping until you've
kicked the nicotine, and then maybe months later try to stop all together

------
Someone1234
The title is too clickbaity for such an interesting article otherwise. The
fire retardants (and their problems/limitations) themselves are more
interesting of a topic than the whole Brexit/EU spin that the title is trying
to bait with.

It is like someone tried to write an interesting article then someone else
came along and said "How can be mix Brexit into this?" Particularly as this
issue has been well known for over ten years, long before Brexit was a
realistic thing and the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it
had wanted.

~~~
namdnay
Much as I like the Guardian, it seems that every single article they publish
now has to mention Brexit in some way shape or form.

~~~
pergadad
But it is connected. Dropping EU standards means the UK has to decide afresh
on many such issues.

------
Aloha
I think this comment from the original article sums things up nicely:

"The 1988 regs are a total mess. They work for no one except the chemicals
manufacturers and the most slapdash furniture manufacturers. They could be
described as either over-regulation or under-regulation. In either case, it's
the wrong regulation. But because they have created a certain kind of
industry, that industry, with its sunk costs and established interests, wants
them to stay as they are. And despite years of handwaving and consultations
that go nowhere, governments have obliged."

------
aazaa
This article does a terrible job of explaining the specific threat. A few
paragraphs in, buried, is this:

> ... It took until last year for mattresses and furniture containing the
> highly toxic retardant deca-BDE to be banned, under European law, from sale.
> ...

If that's the threat, then Wikipedia has a long way to catch up:

> In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of
> PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from
> studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial
> decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing
> lower brominated PBDEs. Because of its very different toxicity, decaBDE is
> expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."[5] Based
> on animal studies, the possible health effects of decaBDE in humans involve
> the liver, thyroid, reproductive/developmental effects, and neurological
> effects.[25]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether)

~~~
busterarm
I mean, look at how they framed the article...that this is a scandal because
of Brexit...because Brexit is designed to hide corruption.

Even though the wheels started turning on all of this a few years ago. Even
though the EU themselves only banned things in the last year.

Rather than jumping into the actual story, they used it to push an entirely
unrelated political narrative. Worse still, a lot of folks are going to see
those first two paragraphs and not read the rest of the article.

~~~
sofarfromhome
There is probably some truth though that government is to a degree hoping that
Brexit will sort out the mess that is the UK's furniture regulations, i.e.
that the officials concerned can cover their backs by allowing industry to
replace the regs with codes of practice that will they hope keep flame
retardant levels up - something that would have been harder to do in the EU.

~~~
busterarm
I could see that being the case, but that's not a conjecture that I would lead
my story with.

That kind of journalism is really divisive and irresponsible, IMO.

------
gnicholas
So where can people buy sofas and beds without these chemicals? I recently
asked about this at Restoration Hardware (an expensive furniture store), and
they had no idea about it.

~~~
amluto
In California, most furniture now appears to have a label that indicates
whether flame retardants were used. Sadly, this is quite recent, and CA more
or less required flame retardants until a couple years ago.

~~~
lostlogin
I wonder if they are still labeled with some form of “known by the state of
California to contain carcinogens”? Those are more than a touch concerning as
a visitor, although you soon notice that they are on everything.

~~~
surewhynat
Yeah, as someone who recently began spending more time in California, those
signs are inadequate and completely ignored by everyone. It should be
specific, which carcinogen in which part of the product is used, and why.

------
jimbob45
"According to parliament’s environmental audit committee (EAC), mothers in the
UK and the US have the world’s highest recorded concentrations of a toxic
class of flame retardants in their breastmilk"

So this is a US thing too or what? I couldn't find anything else in the
article mentioning the US.

~~~
Someone1234
It has been widely reported in the US for years e.g.

\- [https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-
co...](https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-cost-us-
public-270-million-iq-points-over-15-years/4011087.article)

\- [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-
chemical-...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-chemical-was-
cast-aside-its-replacement-might-be-making-cats-sick)

\-
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.htm)

\-
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.htm)

------
tompccs
This is an interesting and important topic buried under George Monbiot's usual
political posturing and making any and every issue about Brexit.

An example of where EU hasn't regulated properly is somehow supposed to
automatically be made worse leaving the EU?

He claims that the government is using Brexit as a distraction from this issue
but then links to a parliamentary report as one of his primary sources. (I
know parliament is not the same as the current government, but come on, this
is not some kind of top-down conspiracy)

Regulations frequently butt up against eachother. Making something non-
flammable and non-toxic is obviously not trivial. I would love to understand
more about this because there is almost certainly something worth
investigating here but can we please give this to anyone but George Monbiot to
write about.

------
ptah
is there a way to get a list of flame retardant chemicals on a product?

------
aaron695
This article is mostly FUD

This is particularly funny - "Edge contends that many of the deaths at
Grenfell Tower were likely to have been caused by toxic emissions from
furnishings"

But there are issues around this, and the way forward I think it getting
pollution meters into peoples houses.

We need to reduce PM 2.5 but VOCs also seem important, allow people to measure
these.

Start with the upper class and clean air, bottled water shows this is
possible, make it cool.

------
jhallenworld
Urethane foam, aka "solidified hydrocarbons" should probably be banned...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8)

[https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam-
fails-2-unaccepta...](https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam-
fails-2-unacceptable-fire-hazard/)

------
Ancalagon
Side note, what about carpets? Admittedly I haven't read the article fully
yet, but does my apartment's carpet also contain flame-retardants?

------
opinologo
Any information about the usage of these chemicals in Australia?

~~~
opinologo
[https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/](https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/)

------
musicale
Haven't flame retardants in clothing been banned?

------
CivBase
I gave up on this article right away after the first paragraph hamfistedly
tried to make it a brexit issue. I don't even have an opinion on brexit, but I
have no faith in journalism that leads with something like that.

