"SAFE FROM THE START!"
For the past fifteen years I have worked with RoSPA helping to reduce accidents caused by unsafe consumer products and there is still much to do. Having appeared in court many times, in a professional capacity I hasten to add, I feel that prosecutions, civil cases and coroners' inquests, although they play an essential part in regulating unfair business activities, obtaining justice for those that have been injured and enquiring into what went wrong, they do represent a failure in "the product safety system". We therefore need to examine where the weaknesses lie and try to address the root causes. Hence the title of my presentation today - SAFE FROM THE START!
I shall deal with consumer products, but not food or vehicles. Manufacturers do not set out to make dangerous products but such goods frequently end up in people's homes where they contribute to, and sometimes cause, accidents. The relationship between unsafe products and injuries is unclear. I suggest that the proportion could be as high as one in four of all home accidents1 are caused by faulty products. This would account for as many as three-quarters of a million people needing medical treatment each year. Government has recognised the need to quantify the causal relationship and has sponsored research by Nottingham University2 with which RoSPA is cooperating.
We therefore need to tackle the issue of product safety from the start, that is at the design stage3, and take into account in particular, the needs of the young and other vulnerable users.
Starting Point
A Product Safety Management System4 needs to be integrated with all other manufacturers' procedures, including their environmental protection and worker safety obligations5. Although designers' training courses feature safety, for example "products must satisfy the legal safety requirements", there is no comprehensive risk-based approach being applied across the board, as there should be.
I have made many presentations to students and found them very responsive to safety, particularly to the examples of product failures, where serious injury and even death has resulted from bad design.
Safety regulations and standards rightly concentrate on children's products, but standards for domestic appliances which children regularly use, such as microwave ovens, regularly exclude consideration of their use by children. The British Standards Consumer Policy Committee and the European Consumers Standards body ANEC6 are now addressing this issue and it is hoped that more manufacturers will accept that standards need to deal with all reasonably foreseeable conditions of use and all types of user.
Is there a Problem?
There are many unsafe products on the market but we need to quantify the problem. HASS7 accident data can be misleading. Relatively few accidents are caused directly by unsafe toys for example. This does not mean that controls should be relaxed. It means that the law, backed up by the standard, has been effective.
A recent survey carried out by the Suffolk TSD8 found around 10% of the imported products they checked were unsafe9. Further work is to be carried out into the methods used by enforcement authorities. Surveillance work should be statistically based and coordinated nationally, for example through regions or via LACOTS10. Independent Quality Assurance Schemes such as the BEAB11 mark and the British Standards Kitemark also play an important part in monitoring consumer products for safety.
Consumer complaints
Trading standards deal with over 850,000 complaints each year12. This doesn't mean just logging them, but sorting out the problems to the satisfaction of consumers and traders alike. Occasionally, further action has to be taken by way of prosecution or formal caution.
Although complaints about unsafe products represent only 4% of the total, they still number around 30,000 each year that are dealt with by trading standards departments. Consumers are encouraged to complain to the shop where they bought the product, so the complaints recorded may only be the tip of the iceberg. TSDs have increased in number from around 165 to over 200 units following local government reorganisation.
Defective and substandard goods and services account for half the 850,000 complaints and selling methods for just over a quarter. A third of the complaints involve household goods and appliances and the remainder, second hand cars, car repairs and servicing. The data are passed to the Office of Fair Trading who publish national statistics quarterly. Frequencies and trends reveal where problems exist calling for closer scrutiny.
Recalls
The number of recalls is another indication of how many unsafe products there are on the market. RoSPA has collected recall data for over 12 years starting with an article in its journal Care in the Home (now Staying Alive)13. Recalls should be better controlled when the General Product Safety Regulations are amended. There is a clear need to warn the public about unsafe products and how they can limit their exposure to risk. In certain cases it will be appropriate for such products to be taken off the market immediately, for which special powers exist in the form of Suspension Notices and Notices to Warn. The Trading Standards Institute has sponsored research into product recalls14 and the government has also published a guidance document for businesses on the subject15.
The current frequency exceeds one product recall a week in the UK. The decision to instigate a Recall is not taken lightly, it is an expensive procedure, sometimes costing millions of pounds. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the products involved represent a significant risk to users which could result in litigation. RoSPA's recalls database only includes non-food products, other than physical contamination such as broken glass or metal fragments, and it doesn't include vehicles.
A list of retailers and manufacturers who have recalled their products reads like a Who's Who of the business world. However it doesn't appear to have damaged their reputations, indeed there are indications that they may have been enhanced because people feel they are taking safety seriously, and of course recall notices unfortunately still read more like advertisements!
Many of the recalls could have been avoided, saving businesses millions of pounds and removing the risk to thousands of people. Our records show that the number of consumer products recalled from the UK market increased by 50% from 1997 and continues at a rate of 65 a year. There is no apparent reason for this trend other than perhaps a gradual recognition by companies of the risk of legal consequences, both criminal and civil, if appropriate action is not taken to mitigate the danger to the public presented by their unsafe products.
Prosecutions
4,793 prosecution cases were brought under the safety provisions by trading standards authorities during the ten year period ending 31st March 1998 as reported to Parliament16. 95% of these cases were successful and fines imposed during the last five year period averaged just over £600. A decline of nearly 50% in prosecution cases during the second five year period should be noted. During the period many Suspension Notices were also issued preventing the supply of suspect products, and Forfeiture Orders were obtained through the courts, allowing dangerous products to be disposed of.
No interim national records of prosecutions are kept by the authorities and these will not be collected until nearer the deadline for the next five-yearly report to Parliament, that is for the period ending 31st March 2003. There is no national database of civil product liability cases either. Of the nearly five thousand prosecutions taken by Trading Standards Departments over the ten year period, the main categories were identified as electrical equipment, toys and furniture. "Other" includes products subject to their own specific safety regulations such as cosmetic products, gas appliances and fireworks. The introduction of the General Product Safety Regulations meant17 that all consumer products deemed unsafe are now subject to prosecution action.
Statements
The number of cases TSOs have asked me for statements for has fallen from an average of 25 a year to 8 last year. This suggests that either products are getting safer or alternative action, such as issuing cautions, is being taken. Or perhaps less surveillance work is being carried out. Although my statements represent only a small proportion of cases taken throughout the country, they probably indicate a reduction in the time officers are able to give to product safety matters.
A leading testing body18 withdrew its services from TSDs recently for financial reasons, suggesting that resources available for safety work may not be adequate. Many local authority product safety budgets appear to be very low19. There is no evidence that the number of unsafe products on the market is declining and the data indicate that trading standards are unable to give as much attention to product safety as they did prior to 1994.
Unsafe products
I will illustrate some of the safety problems encountered with ten examples of everyday consumer products that demonstrate deficiencies in design. Some of these products caused serious injuries and three were involved in fatal accidents. Only one, the gas fire, was the subject of a public warning and safety modification, although there are over 350 other examples of unsafe products that have been recalled from the market.
Gas fire
An elderly gentleman had this gas fire installed, correctly by a CORGI registered fitter, but died from carbon monoxide poisoning soon afterwards. The fault did not lie with the installation but in a defect in the design of the fire itself. After using his new fire for some days, he found it easier to operate it by pulling the plug out of its socket to close the fire down at night. This stopped the electric fan extracting combustion products along a horizontal pipe to an outside wall, a novel design. This in turn should have activated a "cut-out" valve to turn the gas supply off.
Unfortunately, the valve failed to close properly and the fire continued to burn after he had gone to bed. This used up all the air and produced the CO which killed him. I gave evidence in the prosecution case Lancashire Trading Standards brought against the manufacturers. The Magistrates convicted the company and accepted that the valve should not have been used as a fail-safe device. I said that it was a foreseeable condition of use that the plug would be pulled out to turn the fire off. The manufacturers should have anticipated this and incorporated a backup means to ensure that in the event of valve failure, the gas fire was rendered safe. A recall notice was published and modifications carried out to all the fires already sold.
Gas cooker pan supports
You may have had personal experience of this long-standing problem. Saucepan sizes and pan supports are not standardised, which can lead to pans tipping their contents of hot liquids causing injuries. Although the regulations and standards are said to have addressed this issue, more clearly needs to be done to provide a safer design for pan supports and other fittings.
Child-appealing lamp
Products designed for children, as in this case, must ensure they can be used safely. The lighting industry has accepted that such lamps should operate at a reduced voltage, 24V rather than 240V but they should also consider all likely conditions of use and ensure that the lamp is also stable for example. Also, there is an increased risk that the lamp may overheat because a child may not realise the implications of covering the top of the shade and the use of an over-temperature cut-out should at least be considered.
Child-appealing lighters
These novelty LPG lighters look like toys and if left lying around will attract the attention of young children with disastrous results. The USA's Consumer Product Safety Commission made it illegal to sell lighters that were not child-resistant. Research has shown that this has resulted in a significant reduction in house fires caused by children playing with lighters20.
Jug kettle
The designer of this jug kettle omitted to check what would happen when the it was being poured. The lid fell off! An elderly gentleman in North Wales scalded himself when this happened the first time he used his new kettle. He took it back to Asda the retailer who dismissed the complaint saying that all their products passed the safety standards. It did, but unfortunately there was no requirement in the standard to ensure the lid would remain in place when the kettle was being poured.
Giving evidence at the trial I said the kettle failed two of the three safety requirements in the regulations, it was not "safe" as defined in the Act21 and it did not satisfy the safety objectives22. The only requirement it met was that it satisfied the kettle standard which was defective in this respect. The defence expert kept one hand on the lid when he demonstrated pouring it and sadly the court accepted that the defendant had acted reasonably! RoSPA contacted BSI and the standard now has a test for kettle lid security.
Although the case did not succeed it provides a good example of where the designer and manufacturer's responsibilities lie and how far a standard has to go to ensure that products that satisfy the specification are legally "safe".
Washing machine
In addition to the fire hazard, nearly 2,000 fires started in washing machines in UK homes in 199923, and the electrocution hazard, mechanical hazards must be considered too.
The TV programme "We can work it out" featured the Merloni washing machine. We were told that several doors had been opened in mid-cycle by young children, trying to retrieve their soft toys and favourite clothes, resulting in serious injuries. The information was passed to trading standards and with their agreement to a TV researcher. Callers to the programme revealed that this wasn't an isolated incident and that the problem had been known to the company for some considerable time. A recall warning was eventually published by them and a working group set up by BSI to look at the requirement for washing machine door interlocks.
You may recall that it was a fatal electrocution caused by a faulty plug on a washing machine that helped RoSPA's successful campaign to have plugs fitted to all electrical appliances before they were sold to the public.
Electric toaster
This toaster purchased 18 years ago is still available. Its sidewalls reach such temperatures that contact for just one second is sufficient to cause a burn. RoSPA has campaigned for many years to have non-working surface temperatures reduced to safer levels for toasters and other appliances.
The Consumers' Association recently held a seminar where the issue was discussed at length and the European standards bodies have now been instructed by the Commission to address the issue. Although temperatures are unlikely to come down to an acceptable level in the near future, 90 degrees Celsius above ambient is still far too high, at least manufacturers are now fully aware of the problem and will be obliged to deal with it, either by using heat resistant materials or improving the insulation. It is likely however that the standards committees will permit the use of warnings on the appliance and in the instructions.
You may also have noted, and again may have personal experience of, the poor design of the bread slots in this and other toasters. The top edge of the bread can easily be caught in the toaster encouraging the use of knives to extricate it, with potentially serious results.
Anorak cords
This anorak was involved in a fatal accident when a nine-year-old schoolgirl caught the cord in a 'bus door. Despite the efforts of her mother and brother she was dragged under the 'bus wheels and killed.
The family's solicitor asked for a report and provided me with the defendant company's records. This information revealed that their user trials had found that cords had been trapped in bicycle wheels and were too long.
The court awarded the mother substantial damages but she still hasn't come to terms with her daughter's death in such a harrowing and yet simple way. There have been at least three similar fatal accidents.
RoSPA proposed to BSI that such mechanical hazards should be addressed in a standard to provide guidance to clothing manufacturers and this has now been published24. We have also been consulted by Arcadia the large retail store group over the safety of their products.
Child's chair
The 3-inch metal rod that attaches the seat to its frame protrudes downwards presenting only a minimal risk normally. However, this is a child's chair and a young boy fell onto the metal rod when playing with the chair upside down. Fortunately his father applied pressure to the wound in his neck and the child survived the experience following hospital treatment.
This is a good example of how designers must consider the foreseeable conditions in which a product may be used, particularly by children. The manufacturer recognised the danger and modified all subsequent products but claimed there was no way he could have anticipated such an accident.
Table-mounted chairs, known as hook-on chairs in the USA, have also caused concern. At least there is a standard now so there is less risk of a child falling and being injured, but the design is still flawed in our view.
Table-mounted chairs, baby walkers and bath seats are three products RoSPA continues to warn the public not to use.
Child-resistant closures (CRC)
A two-year-old died when he gained access to the methadone in this bottle prescribed for his father, a heroin addict. The official report on the CRC described it as "child-proof". I had to point out that such containers were only "resistant" to being opened by children.
It is important to correct such a widespread misunderstanding so that the valuable contribution CRCs have made to reducing childhood poisonings, is not compromised and people are made aware of their limitations.
RoSPA has advised that all products that require CRC packaging be placed out of reach and out of sight of children at all times. It isn't generally recognised that when assessing the effectiveness of CRCs a proportion of the test panel of children are allowed to open the containers.
Lessons
There are many examples of unsafe consumer products on the market as evidenced by the number of recalls, prosecutions and complaints.
- We feel that the product safety system itself must be better managed.
- Greater attention needs to be paid at the design stage to ensure that products are safe and companies should integrate product safety within their management system.
- Manufacturers are more likely to ensure their products are safe if they see others penalised for putting dangerous products on the market.
- More effective market surveillance needs to be employed therefore and valid product liability claims need to be better supported.
- With limited resources available to both manufacturers and the enforcement authorities, choices have to be made and priorities set. Risk assessment techniques should be more widely used to assist in this process.
- The primary objective for designers must be to eliminate the hazards that are identified and only after the risks have been reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), should they consider the use of warnings and protective equipment.
Conclusion
The safety of consumer products is inextricably bound up with their design and the product safety system itself needs to be better managed so that an integrated approach, including risk assessment, can be used to assist the design, distribution, use and eventual disposal of safer consumer products.
David Jenkins
Product Safety Adviser
RoSPA
Email: help@rospa.com
1 Home Accident Surveillance System (HASS), 1999 data, dti, London
2 Designing safety into products, Beverley Norris and John R Wilson,University of Nottingham, October 1997, ISBN 0 9522571 2 2
3 Product Design Trends, DTI, London, 1989
- Succcessful health and safety management, HSG65, HSE books, 1998 ISBN 0 7176 1276 7
4 BS 8800 1996, Guide to occupational health and safety management systems, BSI
5 European Association for Consumers in Standardization
-
Home Accident Surveillance System
6 Trading Standards Department
7 Operation Front Line at Felixstowe, David Baker, Trading Standards Review, October 2000, p.17
8 The Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards
-
British Electrotechnical Approvals Board
9 Based on Trends in consumer complaints 52 OFT London - complaints from Q2/1994 to Q4/2000
10 Planning that recall, David Jenkins, Care in the Home, RoSPA, September, 1988
11 Product Safety Recalls, Ian Simpson, ITSA, 1998 , ISBN 0 901340 57X
12 Consumer Product Recall, DTI, 1999 URN 99/1172
13 Consumer Safety Report, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 1 April 1988 - 31 March 1993 and 1April 1993 - 31 March 1998, DTI, London.
14 General Product Safety Regulations 1994 SI 1994 No.2328
15 Institute for Consumer Ergonomics, Loughborough
16 Trading Standards Statistics 2000, Statistical Information Service, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, Statistical Information Service, Ref. 67.01
17 Fires Caused by Children Playing with Lighters, Linda E. Smith et.al., US Consumer Product Safety Commission, September, 2000
18 Section 19, Consumer Protection Act 1987
19 Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 SI 1994 No. 3260, Schedule 3
20 Fire Statistics, United Kingdom, 1999, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 20/00, 8 November 2000.
21 BS 7907:1997 Code of practice for the design and manufacture of children's clothing to promote mechanical safety
22 Electrical Equipment(Safety) Regulations 1994 SI 1994 No. 3260, Schedule 3
23 Fire Statistics, United Kingdom, 1999, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 20/00, 8 November 2000.
24 S 7907:1997 Code of practice for the design and manufacture of children's clothing to promote mechanical safety
|
RoSPA is a registered charity: Registered Charity No: 207823 Patron: Her Majesty the Queen RoSPA Head Office: Edgbaston Park, 353 Bristol Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B5 7ST, UK |
 |