Chemical flame retardants are substances added to a range of products, including electronics, building construction materials and upholstered furniture, with the aim of preventing or delaying the growth of fire in order to save lives. However, the excessive use of chemical flame retardants (CFRs) in UK upholstered furniture is a threat to human and environmental health. Furthermore, these chemicals have been shown to increase smoke toxicity in the event of a fire, posing major acute health risks to firefighters and fire victims. In this blog we explore how the use of certain CFRs in UK furniture can exacerbate smoke toxicity, the health impacts to firefighters and fire victims, and how the UK’s current furniture fire safety regulations must be updated to provide safe and sustainable fire safety.
The ongoing issue: reliance on chemical flame retardants
The UK’s Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) regulations (FFRs) are some of the most prescriptive in the world 1. Although these regulations do not mandate the use of flame retardants, they currently represent the most cost-effective way for manufacturers to comply with the FFRs. As a consequence, many furniture and mattress manufacturers rely on the use of high levels of flame retardants in their products to meet these regulatory requirements.
This high usage has resulted in CFRs, accounting for 2-30% by weight of UK upholstered furniture items, and has led to the UK having one of the highest CFR consumption levels in the world, with an estimated annual total consumption of up to 820,000 tonnes2–4.
The health risks associated with CFRs are well established. A large and growing body of evidence has identified the detrimental impacts of exposure to certain CFRs on human and environmental health, including endocrine disruption, neurotoxic effects and reproductive impacts, with many CFRs proven or suspected to be carcinogenic5, 6.
Furthermore, many previously commonly used CFRs have been classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm convention, with more expected to receive POPs classifications in the future7. For example, the now banned polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs) were classified as POPs and waste furniture and electronics containing these legacy CFRs must now be incinerated8.
Halogenated flame retardants (containing bromine and/or chlorine) that are still currently used in UK furniture have also been found to exacerbate fire smoke toxicity and smoke production in the event of fire9–11.
Flame retardants and fire smoke toxicity
Fires release products of complete combustion (heat, carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour (H2O) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) and incomplete combustion (carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), oxygenated organics including organoirritants, such as formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), soot and particulate matter)10–12. When furniture containing flame retardants burn, the retardants present interfere with the fire chemistry, slowing the burning of flammable materials. This interference and slowing results in incomplete combustion and can lead to higher yields of thick smoke and toxic gases HCN and CO during fires compared to non-FR treated furniture fires. Alongside increased exposure to complex mixtures of toxic substances in fire smoke, evidence also indicates potential for firefighters to be exposed directly to other harmful groups of chemicals including CFRs and PFAS when responding to residential fires13–15.
Impacts of increased smoke toxicity on firefighters and fire victims
Exacerbated fire smoke toxicity and opaque dense smoke production increases exposure of fire victims and firefighters to toxic gases and reduces visibility, impeding victims’ ability to escape fires and hindering firefighters’ efforts to safely evacuate victims and extinguish fires11. In the UK, dwelling fires account for the majority of fire deaths, with most dwelling fire fatalities occurring in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. These rooms commonly contain flame retardant treated furniture9, 16. Asphyxiation due to inhalation of toxic smoke is the leading cause of fire deaths and injury in the UK and evidence suggests that the UK’s use of CFRs in furniture is exacerbating the production of the major asphyxiants carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) during fires, increasing risks of injury or death to fire victims and firefighters10, 11, 17.
The long-term health impacts on firefighters exposed to toxic fire smoke is of great concern. UK firefighters have been found to suffer from elevated rates of cancers, with cancer rates reported to be up to 323% higher in 35-39 year olds than those found in the general population. It has also been reported that US firefighters have up to twice the line-of-duty death rate due to cancer than the general population17, 18. The long-term impact of exposure to toxic substances found in fire smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), is of major concern in relation to firefighters’ health and these substances can also contaminate firefighting equipment and be carried back to fire stations, resulting in the further spread of contaminants after an incident has concluded11, 19, 20.
The UK’s current FFRs are ineffective
The UK’s current FFRs are ineffective in providing fire safety as they present hidden dangers to fire victims and firefighters. There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate a clear and causal link between reduced fire fatality rates and furniture flammability testing requirements under the current UK FFRs. Robust research has shown that UK fire deaths have remained comparable with many other countries, including European nations and New Zealand, all of which have less stringent or no regulations relating to furniture flammability testing and have seen fire deaths fall at a similar rate as the UK’s between 1990 and 201910, 16. Furthermore, multiple case studies have demonstrated countries achieving effective furniture fire safety using alternative approaches16.
This comparable reduction in fire death rates over time has been attributed to factors such as changing smoking habits, increased fire safety awareness and smoke detector installation, rather than flame retardant use10. It seems likely that the higher toxicity of smoke from UK furniture fires counteracts any benefits of the UK’s FFRs9.
Flame retardants in building construction materials
Upholstered furniture items are not the only household products where flame retardant contents contribute to increased fire smoke toxicity risks. Building construction materials such as insulation and timbers are also treated with CFRs and represent another important driver of increased fire smoke toxicity. The use of materials such as highly flammable polyurethane foam in modern buildings (and furniture) is a key contributor to fire incidents and fire smoke toxicity (exacerbated further through the addition of certain CFRs). A study of insulation materials found that polyisocyanurate and polyurethane foams doubled hydrogen cyanide (HCN) production during fires 21. The government must support the production of innovative building construction products that utilise naturally fire resistant materials like wool and hempcrete and facilitate their use in mainstream building construction22.
Further chemical exposure risks to firefighters from PFAS
Firefighters are exposed to a range of harmful chemicals, including PFAS ‘Forever chemicals’. PFAS are present in firefighting foams and turnout gear, and are linked to serious health effects including cancers, immune system disorders and fertility issues in humans23–26. The UK government has proposed restrictions on the use of PFAS in UK firefighting foams, currently under consultation, with the restriction dossier proposing to ban all PFAS as a group in these foams23. Fidra supports this group-wide restriction, as firefighting foams are a major source of PFAS pollution in the UK environment and a potential route of exposure for firefighters. The restriction of PFAS in firefighting foams is a crucial step toward reducing firefighter exposure to PFAS.
However, firefighting foams aren’t the only route of exposure to PFAS for fire fighters. Firefighters can be exposure to PFAS via the textiles used in firefighter turnout gear23. Fortunately, there are viable alternatives that exist to using PFAS in turnout gear which are just as effective. For example, firefighting groups in California have fully transitioned to PFAS free gear27.
Learn more about Fidra’s work on PFAS
Solutions for safe and sustainable fire safety
Action to reduce the exposure of firefighters and fire victims to harmful chemicals and exacerbated fire smoke toxicity must be taken. The outdated UK FFRs must be revised to reduce the use of CFRs in furniture products by moving away from current prescriptive flammability testing standards and unrealistic flaming ignition sources. Revised modernised regulations must enable sustainable and innovative fire safety without the use of CFRs and bring smoke toxicity within scope of the new regulations proposed ‘essential safety requirements’.
Revising the UK FFRs to provide more effective fire safety will not only enable the use of safer alternatives to CFRs by furniture manufacturers for consumer and wider environmental safety. It will also reduce consumers risks of exposure to more toxic smoke in the event of a fire.
Read Fidra’s full consultation response to the London Assembly regarding fire fighter exposure to contaminants, including flame retardants and PFAS.
References
1. UK Government (1988) The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved online from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/1324/contents.
2. Stapleton HM, Klosterhaus S, Eagle S, Fuh J, Meeker JD, Blum A, & Webster TF (2009) Detection of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in Furniture Foam and U.S. House Dust Environ Sci Technol 43(19) 7490–7495, https://doi.org/10.1021/es9014019.
3. Leisewitz A, Kruse H, & Schramm E (2001) Substituting Environmentally Relevant Flame Retardants: Assessment Fundamentals Federal Environmental Agency . Retrieved online from: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/1988.pdf.
4. Environment Agency (2025) Flame retardant scoping review Chief Scientist’s Group report Retrieved online from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flame-retardant-scoping-review.
5. Page J, Whaley P, Bellingham M, Birnbaum LS, Cavoski A, Fetherston Dilke D, Garside R, Harrad S, Kelly F, Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Stec A, & Woolley T (2023) A new consensus on reconciling fire safety with environmental & health impacts of chemical flame retardants Environ Int, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107782.
6. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs (2023) Occupational exposure as a firefighter Retrieved online from: https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/iarc-monographs-volume-132-occupational-exposure-as-a-firefighter/.
7. Fidra (2023) The Impacts & Solutions for Chemical Flame Retardant Use in UK Mattresses: Evidence Review Retrieved online from: https://www.fidra.org.uk/download/the-impacts-and-solutions-for-chemical-flame-retardant-use-in-uk-mattresses-evidence-review/#:~:text=Fidra%E2%80%99s%20Evidence%20Review%20investigates%20the%20role%20of%20effective,%28CFR%29%20use%20in%20mattresses%20as%20a%20case%20study.
8. Stockholm Convention (2024) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Retrieved online from: https://www.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/3351/Default.aspx.
9. McKenna ST, Birtles R, Dickens K, Walker RG, Spearpoint MJ, Stec AA, & Hull TR (2018) Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate Chemosphere 196 429–439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.12.017.
10. Lane JA, & Hull RT (2024) Variation of flammability and smoke toxicity of upholstered furniture composites with fire retardant treatment J Mater Sci Technol, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2024.02.034.
11. Stec AA (2017) Fire toxicity–The elephant in the room? Fire Saf J 91 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.05.003.
12. Edwardes G (2023) Furniture and fire Fire Protection Association. Retrieved online from: https://www.thefpa.co.uk/news/furniture-and-fire.
13. Mayer AC, Fent KW, Chen I-C, Sammons D, Toennis C, Robertson S, Kerber S, Horn GP, Smith DL, & Calafat AM (2021) Characterizing exposures to flame retardants, dioxins, and furans among firefighters responding to controlled residential fires Int J Hyg Environ Health 236 113782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113782.
14. Levasseur JL, Hoffman K, Herkert NJ, Cooper E, Hay D, & Stapleton HM (2022) Characterizing firefighter’s exposure to over 130 SVOCs using silicone wristbands: A pilot study comparing on-duty and off-duty exposures Science of the Total Environment 834 155237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155237.
15. Fent KW, LaGuardia M, Luellen D, McCormick S, Mayer A, Chen I-C, Kerber S, Smith D, & Horn GP (2020) Flame retardants, dioxins, and furans in air and on firefighters’ protective ensembles during controlled residential firefighting Environ Int 140 105756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105756.
16. Office for Product Safety & Standards (2023) Fire Risks of Upholstered Products Retrieved online from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/642e8b80fbe620000c17ddb5/fire-risks-of-uphostered-products-main-report.pdf.
17. (2019) Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life – Environmental Audit Committee – House of Commons Retrieved online from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1805/180502.htm.
18. Wolffe TAM, Robinson A, Dickens K, Turrell L, Clinton A, Maritan-Thomson D, Joshi M, & Stec AA (2022) Cancer incidence amongst UK firefighters Sci Rep 12(1) 22072. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24410-3.
19. Stec AA, Dickens KE, Salden M, Hewitt FE, Watts DP, Houldsworth PE, & Martin FL (2018) Occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and elevated cancer incidence in firefighters Sci Rep 8(1) 2476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20616-6.
20. Fire Brigades Union (2025) DECON To Prevent and Protect Retrieved online from: https://www.fbu.org.uk/campaigns/decon-fire-contaminants.
21. Stec AA, & Hull TR (2011) Assessment of the fire toxicity of building insulation materials Energy Build 43(2–3) 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.10.015.
22. Wilcox M (2025) In the wake of devastating fires, California architects and developers turn to natural materials Trellis. Retrieved online from: https://trellis.net/article/devastating-fires-california-architects-developers-natural-materials/.
23. HSE (2025) Annex 15 Restriction Report Proposal for a restriction/ Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams .
24. Vieira VM, Hoffman K, Shin HM, Weinberg JM, Webster TF, & Fletcher T (2013) Perfluorooctanoic acid exposure and cancer outcomes in a contaminated community: a geographic analysis Environ Health Perspect 121(3) 318–323, https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP.1205829.
25. Phelps DW, Connors AM, Ferrero G, DeWitt JC, & Yoder JA (2024) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances alter innate immune function: evidence and data gaps J Immunotoxicol, https://doi.org/10.1080/1547691X.2024.2343362.
26. Wang W, Hong X, Zhao F, Wu J, & Wang B (2023) The effects of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances on female fertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis Environ Res, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114718.
27. Parr C (2025) SDDC Pioneers Army Adoption of PFAS-Free Firefighting Gear U.S. Army. Retrieved online from: https://www.army.mil/article/287849/sddc_pioneers_army_adoption_of_pfas_free_firefighting_gear.