Watchdog - fancy dress costume flammability standards.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

I was appalled to learn, from BBC's Watchdog programme, that children's fancy dress costumes are classified as toys, not clothes, and as a result, do not have to conform to the higher fire-safety standards that clothes do.

Claudia Winkelman described how her daughter caught fire, wearing a Halloween costume, and how she suffered severe burns as a result - it was heartbreaking to hear her describe her daughter on fire, and her and another parent trying to beat the flames out with their bare hands.

I am old enough to remember one of the TV consumer programmes campaigning to make children's nightclothes safer, because they used not to be fire-safe, and children were being severely injured when their pyjamas or nighties caught fire - and I thought we had moved on, but I was wrong.

If fancy dress costumes were classified as clothes, they would have to have three times more stringent fire safety standards than toys (ie. they have to burn three times more slowly than a toy) - and surely this is only logical - if a toy catches fire, a child can put it down - if clothing catches fire, it doesn't matter if it is play clothing or ordinary clothing, the child can't get away from it/throw it away - it is burning all around them - and may be melting and sticking to them.

Watchdog are starting a campaign to get fancy dress costumes reclassified as clothing, so they have to conform to the higher standards - and I think MN should support this.

Signed and shared. And sending best wishes to Claudia Winkelman's daughter that she makes a full recovery.

This might actually be one for making a DOTD, Olivia - or copying/moving (with SDTG's permission) to a more-travelled board? There seem to be a good many people on this thread who had no idea that standards were any different for these costumes than for ordinary clothes so the more people that find that out, the better surely - even if the number of signatures achieved wouldn't actually force a Private Members' Bill.

It was very moving to hear Claudia talk about what such a terrible accident. However, the solution is not quite as clear as it might seem. The balance to be found with fire and clothing is between restricting the flammability of clothing on the one hand but not having to treat clothes with chemicals to make them fire resistant on the other.

Watchdog highlighted that the UK has flammability tests for children's nightwear. This is true but that doesn't mean children's nightwear won't burn. Nightdresses must be flame-resistant, which is why most children's nightdresses are made from polyester (like fancy dress). Polyester burns more quickly than cotton so if it catches fire, a child is less likely to die; but they will still be burnt badly (as with fancy dress).

The flame-resistance of pyjamas under the UK's nightwear laws is optional. In practice most suppliers make them from cotton, because it's thought that parents wouldn't want only polyester pyjamas. But this means if your child's pyjamas catch fire, and the flames aren't put out, they could suffer a fatal accident.

There are no flammability requirements for children's day wear. If you take a standard polyester/cotton mix school shirt, that will actually burn more quickly than polyester fancy dress outfits. But if you bring in rules to make all children's clothing flame-resistant, the result will be a huge increase in the use of flame retardant chemicals. These, increasingly, are found to cause damage to health and the environment.

Sorry, I realise something I said was misleading. Children's nightdresses must either be flame resistant, which means in effect made from cotton that has been treated with chemicals, or made of a fabric like polyester that melts away quickly.

Looking over the messages , there is something that you all have missed.
Fancy dress is actually tested to a higher standard than Children's clothing.
To explain this as a fancy dress item is classed as a role play item so it gets various levels of testing under the en71 CE standards which includes a fire testing on the materials and is law.
Currently Children's clothing is not required to have this test so it's not tested by law.
Not many people now this , a generic party dress is actually more dangerous than a fancy dress outfit.

For you doubters out there i have industry knowledge so to say get it changed to clothing standards is madness as it's actually worse.

It is the flammability standards that are the issue here, Thol. If Watchdog's reporting is correct, clothing has to burn three times more slowly than a toy.

That's what their reports actually said - backed up by a Fire Safety Officer - are you saying that this is incorrect, and clothing will burn faster than a toy or a fancy dress costume?

Pressed Post too soon:

The report showed how fast the fancy dress costumes burned, especially the floaty dresses, made of a number of different fabrics.

If it is true that fancy dress costumes (the sort sold in supermarkets), have higher flammability standards than ordinary party dresses, surely this is an argument for improving the flammability standards of the party dresses - it is not an argument that proves that fancy dress costumes are safe.

If Watchdog's tests are correct, fancy dress costumes burn too fast - and that cannot continue, surely? Children - real children - are suffering real and life-changing injuries due to these costumes, and that must stop. Whether the flammability standards of these costumes are higher or lower than those for an ordinary party dress, the fact surely remains that they are not high enough and MUST improve.

It is also interesting to note that this is Thol00's first and only post on Mumsnet.

That raises the suspicion that they have joined the site only to join this discussion - not a problem in itself - as long as their motivation is clear.

Are you a parent who happens to have an interest in this subject, or are you an industry professional who has joined the site to argue against changes that might make fancy dress more expensive (and thus impact profits), regardless of the interests of child safety?

I have industry knowledge too - used to work for a major children's clothing retailer and have been a member of various standards groups.

The fact is that most children's clothing is flammable, much of it highly flammable. As I mentioned before, a standard polycotton school shirt will burn more quickly than polyester. It isn't possible to make clothing that is non-flammable (practically at least). What flammability standards seek to do is restrict the damage when clothing catches fire.

Cotton, untreated, will burn more slowly than polyester but it's more likely to be fatal (if not put out in time). Polyester is less likely to be fatal because it burns so quickly; however, as Watchdog pointed out, it can leave horrific burns. Mixtures of polyester and cotton unfortunately tend to combine the worst burning properties of both.

The UK's nightwear laws contain the toughest flammability requirements for children's clothing in the EU, but they don't produce fire-safe clothing. In essence, what they require is that free-flowing items, like nightdresses, must meet the quoted flammability standard; the requirement is optional for items like pyjamas, which are not free-flowing. You can probably guess the history behind this - that nightdresses would catch light more easily from open fires than pyjamas (and candles today). In practice, a lot of UK children's nightdresses are made out of polyester because it is allowed under the Regulations. To use cotton, you would have to treat the fabric with flame retardant chemicals for it to pass the standard. You can buy treated nightdresses but there is some dispute about how effective the treatment is, and about the potential harmful side-effects of the chemicals. In practice, lots of children's pyjamas are made of cotton because the flammability requirement is optional; but this of course means most pyjamas are not flame-resistant. There have been some terrible accidents from pyjamas catching fire. These sometimes get into the news and for a while there is a clamour to have the flame-resistant requirement for pyjamas made compulsory. But, again, that would effectively rule out cotton pyjamas. Like much in safety issues, it's a question of getting the balance right rather than solving a problem for which there is no simple solution.

In short, to make all children's clothing flame-resistant would involve a huge increase in the use of flame retardant chemicals. Something that would no doubt please the producers of such chemicals. But there is increasing evidence to show that flame retardants can be very harmful to human health. Green flame retardant chemicals are being produced but it would need industry's will and possibly government intervention to develop them to the point where they can be used in clothing (without, for example, washing out); that and parents being willing to pay more as a consequence.

My motivation for joining this discussion, by the way, is to try to provide a bit of balance for what is a very emotive subject.

Wolf to answer above

Yes I am a Parent and yes I do work within the industry , so that gives me more experience than most on this subject.

I have posted as to change to children's clothing testing would not improve the situation as there is no current law in the EU that children's clothing has to have a flammability test.
Example School uniform is not tested
were as there is on Fancy dress.
being in the industry it will not impact on profits as a majority of Fancy dress that I see would pass the new testing anyway.
for me it will enable to get the cheap end of the market squashed as some costumes out there I would never buy at a low price point.

testing costs between 50c-$1 per costume currently then you add to it the cost of Material , add in labour , shipping , storage, marketing ,packaging, delivery , manufacturers cost , sellers cost , finish up at a retail price that should be well over £10,00-£30,000 dependant on design.

even with a new test its would still not be 100% fireproof as everything burns , but what it would do is make it burn slower.

the other issue that is also overlooked is that the chemicals that are used to make things flame proof are also not good to let them come in contact with skin as can cause reactions and rashes.

I am fully for a change , but they also need to look at children's clothing as its far worse.

you are correct that pricing would go up and for the poorer part of society fancy dress would be come an expensive commodity.

To show how big this is one manufacturer would sell over 170 million costumes in a year and there are over 100 of these.

This a worldwide issue not just a UK one and something of this scale is not an over night change and will take years.

if its decided that they want an instant change then their would be a major issue as all companies are already committed for this year and would destroy business that has been around for years and years and book week would also fail to exist.

the problem with people today is that they believe all what they see on TV is true and really is only half the story , as even last night why had not watch dog actually talked to the manufacturers as the big boys do not make the costumes themselves.

its the law that's the issue and has to change and also to avoid tragedy common sense is needed and this is what is lacked in a high percentage of people in the UK.

The Biggest market in the world is the US and their laws are even less strict than us.

"there is no current law in the EU that children's clothing has to have a flammability test"

This isn't entirely true. There is an EU flammability standard for children's nightwear that applies under the General Product Safety laws: BS EN 14878. Overall, it is weaker than the UK's nightwear standards. It differs from the UK too, in that the requirement for pyjamas is compulsory, not optional. Having said that, it is a much weaker requirement meaning that the vast majority of cotton pyjamas will pass it without treatment.

My Dad was a Fire Prevention Officer. He said that he'd seen things that he could never get out of his brain. As a result, I never wore a nightie - always pyjamas - we never had a mirror above the (open) fireplace, he never allowed candles in the house, all matches had to be dropped into a cup of water and not just blown out, and I never stood outside to watch fireworks - always sat in the house while Dad set them off in the garden.

Did I feel deprived? No, because I had a great childhood, and knew that I was being protected - I was encouraged to climb trees, play out with my friends in the park, make dens, learn to swim - just nothing connected with fire...
I'm still quite careful around naked flames, and support this campaign on the grounds that if it prevents even one child from suffering by raising the awareness of parents and helping them to see how dangerous the combination of naked flames and floaty, easily-inflammable clothing really is, then it is worthwhile.

I totally agree about raising public awareness. The problem with there being some laws about flammability is that people tend to think it means all products are fire-safe, when that is very far from the case. There are children's duvets, for example, on sale from reputable retailers and perfectly legal that will burst into a raging inferno after just a second or two of exposure to a flame source.