Berkley: CPSC, AHFA wrong to push new furniture FR standard
By Furniture Today Staff -- Furniture Today, April 20, 2008
As chair of the Upholstery Fabrics Committee of the National Textile Assn., I want to address the furniture flammability standard proposed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission covered in the March 10 edition of Furniture/Today.
The issue of furniture flammability has been the subject of nearly three decades of research, testing and discussion, yet the CPSC has chosen to discard everything we have learned, right up to a stakeholder consensus proposal of about two years ago, in favor of a proposal that surprised even CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore. They have chosen to make this specific proposal based on very limited small-scale testing and absolutely no full-scale testing, and then provided virtually no time to do the needed testing. The fabric test is so new and the comment period is so short that there has been virtually no time to generate test data to even start to evaluate the test procedure.
The fabrics that are the most likely to fail are heavy weight cellulosics (i.e. cotton, rayon etc.) that would include some fabrics with high cotton and/or rayon chenille content. However, demographic analysis performed over many years shows that these fabrics are rarely present in homes where such fires are most common. So, this standard is the most effective against fabrics in homes where there is virtually no risk. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Additionally, the proposed standard greatly minimizes the rapid growth of the reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarette that is being legally mandated in more and more states and that has been adopted by at least one major cigarette maker for all its cigarettes. The official test cigarette is a non-filter tipped Pall Mall. These cigarettes are no longer being produced. Exactly how predictive of actual performance is a test dependent upon a cigarette that can't be purchased?
While (American Home Furnishings Alliance CEO) Andy Counts' statement that chemical treatments are not required by the standard to bring fabrics into compliance is correct, it's unknown how many fabrics there may be in the market that cannot pass the test without chemical treatments. The CPSC standard has ignored research and testing that indicates that the use of non-slickened polyester batting and/or fire retardant foam could pretty much eliminate the problem.
Finally, Counts' comment that, "They have found a resolution that makes sense from both the technical end and the cost points," is premature and potentially bogus. While making the fabric carry the weight of protecting the furniture may appear attractive to the narrow-minded and uninformed, the elimination of a whole category of covers from the market will damage the furniture business and kill the small businesses that are the remaining U.S. fabric weavers. Of course some foreign competitors are ethically challenged and will guarantee anything you want to hear in order to get the sale. Are furniture manufacturers prepared for the product liability suits that will result`
What we need are deliberate speed, thoughtful consideration and scientific evaluation of the test protocols, not an intemperate rush to regulate by the CPSC and premature statements by AHFA officials.
Roger Berkley, chair, Upholstery Fabric Subcommittee, National Textile Assn. and president, Weave Corp.
CPSC's FR enforcement record not impressive
06/30/2009Letters to the Editor
06/12/2004Letters to the editor
08/18/2007
