Flammable Halloween Costumes - Claudia Winkleman Mislead Everyone

Introduction

Every year around this time of October, I receive social media reminders of my responses to the half baked story that Claudia Winkleman was spewing back in 2015. The “life changing” and “horrific” accident where she blamed the flammability of Halloween Costumes for her daughter being engulfed in flames whilst trick or treating. Her call was that all Halloween costumes and fancy dress should comply to the “nightwear standard”. But that is not the whole story, which targetted an industry with unfounded and non researched confirmation bias. It still annoys me today that Claudia’s was able to pedal her inaccurate accusations on BBC TV Watchdog and from that date, I have never trusted the media and will always research stories to conclude my own option.

For those who did not know, back in 2015 when this story broke, I owned an online fancy dress and Halloween costume company. We had been trading for over 12 years. The business was online retailer, wholesaler, importer and manufacturer of adult and child costumes. That company was sold in 2017 and now out of any confidentiality contacts, I can again share my views again. The following article comes from memories and records that I wrote at the time.

Keira-Leigh Garland

Before we move on, I want to set the scene with a tragic story of a little girl called Keira-Leigh Garland. As reported in the Liverpool Echo at the time and aged just only six years old, Keira-Leigh died after accidentally setting herself on fire while playing with a cigarette lighter. An inquest heard that Keira-Leigh suffered more than 66% burns to her body after her “flimsy cotton dress” caught fire. Neighbour Samantha Wilkinson, described being alerted by a scream and that Keira-Leigh’s cotton dress had gone up in flames after the youngster had played with the lighter she found. The coroner, giving a verdict of accidental death, warned about the dangers of children coming into contact with lighters and other smoking equipment.

A Flimsy Cotton Dress

Liverpool coroner Andre Rebello said it was the responsibility of anyone who buys or holds a lighter to ‘keep children safe’ from the potential dangers after the tragedy. Let’s be quite clear that maybe a jolly good idea, but let me pick up on the point that Keira-Leigh was wearing a cotton dress. One of the more flammable fabrics for which as a dress, there is no flammability standard for a cotton dress or indeed, any other item of child clothing.

Claudia's Watchdog Story

During Halloween 2014, the daughter of TV presenter Claudia Winkleman was injured due to the ignition of her witch Halloween Fancy Dress costume on a pumpkin, illuminated with a naked flame tea light and setting her tights alight too. Subsequent, a BBC TV Watchdog transmission was aired in May 2015 which stated that there was a “loophole” in law that as a toy, a child fancy dress costume is less safe than clothes. This was a catalyst to further viral media reporting including, within social media, together with an online petition which became a springboard for continued consumer confusion.

With empathy for Claudia and her family, there are still unanswered questions from the BBC TV Watchdog reporting of the tragedy. There is still confusion as demonstrated in this article from The Sun in 2018 stating “A quirk in EU safety regulations means children’s costumes are classed as toys, rather than clothing. This means they are not subject to the strict flammability standards that regular nightwear or clothing is.”

There is no quirk. This is bollocks! There is no flammability standards to clothing, other than nightwear!

Unqualified, regurgitated journalistic reporting in the media together with social media plagiarism, continued to spew duff information and cause consumer confusion. I recall the Daily Mail published a misleading article, inaccurately reporting that “fancy dress costumes are classed as toys, which means they can be tested to a lower flammability standard than kids’ clothes”. It seemed that everyone was setting costumes on fire with their own exclusive expose of one brand or another, maker or supermarket chain. Picking on Sainsbury’s yesterday, ASDA today, Tesco tomorrow in some sort of viral clickbait frenzy. Here’s the same The Sun report from as recent as 2018 as the paper states that “experts slam retailers for their lack of action to improve the safety of products“. These so called experts seemingly having a gigantic mouthful of confirmation bias to backup such story telling.

The Standards

Let’s talk about standards shall we and there are four of them. There are four standards of Regulation and Directive that we need to understand.

First, EN71 is a European Directive that specifies safety requirements for toys. Compliance with the standard is legally required for all toys sold in the European Union and is split into 13 parts. These 13 parts address aspects of toy safety including mechanical and physical properties such as strangulation and asphyxiation, use of chemical compounds including carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic substances and of course, flammability as addressed in part 2 of the Directive. Part 2 will address flammability in play tents, plush characters including dolls and of course, fancy dress costumes.

Secondly, BS 5722 which forms part of The Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985. Within these Regulations, manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers will find it an offence to “supply, offer to supply, agree to supply, expose for supply, or possess for supply” nightwear which does not meet the requirements. Items excluded from the Regulations include second hand nightwear, nightwear intended for export, nightwear for children under 3 months of age or over 13 years, together with pyjamas and cotton terry towelling bath robes.

Thirdly, BS EN 14878 which addresses that age restricted attire, pyjamas and cotton terry towelling bath robe garments excluded from BS 5722. In the UK Nightwear Regulations of 1985 both pyjamas and cotton terry bathrobes did not require mandatory flammability testing although they had to be labelled according to the Regulations. The main differences are that children’s pyjamas and cotton terry bathrobes now have to pass flammability requirements as described in BS EN 14878.

Lastly, the General Product Safety Regulations, a 2005 Statutory Instrument of Parliament that demands that “No producer shall supply or place a consumer product on the market unless the product is a safe product”. This is the general regulation that all other child apparel will fall, should the garment not be deemed a toy or nightwear.

Testing and Labelling

Within EN71-2, costume fabrics that either self extinguish or burn at less than 10mm per second, do not need to carry a flammability warning label on care label or packaging. Costume fabrics with a flame rate burn of between 10mm and 30mm per second must be labelled “WARNING, KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE”. Costume fabrics that burn at a greater rate of 30mm per second will fail and cannot be sold.

Under BS 5722, nightwear which does not meet the flammability performance requirements must carry a label with the words “KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE” in red letters. Nightwear which meets the flammability performance requirements must carry a label with one of the following forms of words “LOW FLAMMABILITY TO BS 5722” in black letters or “LOW FLAMMABILITY TO BS 5722” in black letters and “KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE” in red letters or “KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE”. Children’s night dresses and dressing gowns which must meet the flammability performance requirements do not need to carry a label. However, suppliers may choose to confirm compliance using one of the above forms of words. Further, any nightwear which is treated with flame retardant chemicals must carry a label with the words “DO NOT WASH AT MORE THAN 50°C. CHECK SUITABILITY OF WASHING AGENT” in black letters.

BS EN 14878. This article does not need to consider labelling requirements in respect of BS EN 14878 as costumes are neither designed as pyjamas or manufactured as cotton terry bathrobes.

Back To Keira-Leigh Garland

Contrary to media reporting, it is important to acknowledge that there is no obligation to test any child garment or item of apparel under these General Product Safety Regulations, 2005. That means, there is no British or European Standard for any other child garment that needs to be met. Neither school uniforms, gym kits, sportswear, blouses, dresses, trousers, skirts and tee shirts or other daywear need comply to either EN71 or BS 5722. This is the most important fact that has been unfairly suppressed from media reporting and the basis of my grievance. My grievance is that it is unfair to criticise costumes for being a toy, while their EN71-2 compliance does indeed make them safer that the cotton dress that Keira-Leigh Garland was wearing.

More so, it would be my opinion that the coroner Andre Rebello in the Keira-Leigh Garland inquest, failed to address the issue of clothing flammability alongside cigarette lighters and smoking products. As a betting man, I would gamble that Keira-Leigh’s cotton dress would have no flammability warnings whatsoever. This is a travesty and one that the Claudia Winkleman failed to recognise before she jumped onto her high horse.

The BBC Programme

Quite rightly, the BBC TV Watchdog consumer affairs show brought to the public attention the potential issues of flammability within child costumes, but has failed to present an unbiased view. There are unanswered questions from the show and having written to the programme at that time in 2015 with no reply, we also requested a response from the The Information Policy & Compliance Team at the BBC’s Freedom of Information department. We asked to learn why such reporting does not include the name of the supermarket where Claudia purchased the child witch costume for just £5.00. We asked whether the show’s investigative journalists did acquire the EN71 certificate for this costume. As we are unable to find the source of the two girl costumes set alight on the 14th May show, we have asked the BBC to disclose where these costumes were purchased and again, whether EN71 certification documents have been obtained. We received no answers to our questions as such information is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature”. Again, what a load of bollocks and I feel, some cover arse response.

What Our Experts Said

Malcolm Horner, Toy Technical Consultant at Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services did write within recent industry press. In his Spotlight, Malcolm writes that due to the seriousness nature of the incident and the media coverage, the UK toy and clothing industries together with the BSI are reviewing the situation. He explained that in 1978 when the first edition of EN71-2 was published, toy disguise costumes were constructed of relatively flat materials, such as a nurse or cowboy and made of one or two simple fabrics. Still today however, costumes can consist of multi layered fabrics or fabric assemblies with frills, net underskirts, trims and attachments and that some modern costumes do not lend themselves to the test method employed within EN71-2. He continues that since 1978 it has not been suggested that the flammability requirements for toy disguise costumes are not sufficiently stringent and maybe EN71-2 may need to evolve to reflect this?

Commenting to media requests that toy disguise costumes should be classified as clothing, Malcolm states “If this was to happen, it must be noted that with the exception of certain specialised applications such as personal protective equipment, there is no flammability requirements whatsoever for daywear clothing. Indeed, it is worth noting that a child’s party dress for example is not subject to any flammability requirements at all. An everyday cotton party dress, unless treated with flame retardant chemicals, is likely to burn with a high rate spread of flame. Reclassification of toy disguise to daywear apparel wouldn’t happen easily. Toys are regulated by the EU Toy Safety Directive and a reclassification would need an amendment to the Directive and the agreement of every EU member state.

“It has also been suggested by the media that toy disguise costumes should meet the very onerous requirements of the UK Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which is probably unrealistic. For this to happen, the UK Government would have to create new Regulations for a product that is already regulated by the EU. While the UK does have some autonomous regulations for products that are subject to EU Directives and Regulations, this is usually because the UK already had regulations in force prior to the EU Directive.”

Malcolm continues that there are “still some unanswered questions regarding the Halloween incident last year and also with respect to the costumes that were subjected to indicative tests during a television programme. Once the questions have been fully answered and the facts investigated, the BSI will, if deemed appropriate, put forward the review request.

“It is of course absolutely essential that the industry investigates any incidents where children have been injured and reacts appropriately. However, it is always necessary to obtain the full facts surrounding the incident to make appropriate decisions. Flammability is not as simple as using an appropriate material. Multiple layers of fabric, with air channels between the fabrics can also have a significant effect on the burning behaviour. This is a complex issue, but all interested parties within the party, toy and clothing industries are committed to investigating the situation and coming up with a workable solution”.

Flame Retardants

Different materials and fabrics behave in different ways when subjected to an ignition source. By example, natural fibres such as cotton burn quickly with large flame while man-made synthetic fabrics such as polyester tend to shrink away from a small flame and burn more slowly. That said, when synthetic fabrics do burn, they tend to melt, drip and stick to the skin. Flame retardants can be added to natural fabrics such as cotton, but some traditional flame retardants have been banned. The addition, use of chemical flame retardants is increasingly frowned upon as they may be toxic to human health and the environment. Some but not all flame retardants can wash off when the garment is cleaned. This latter important point is consistent with the “DO NOT WASH AT MORE THAN 50°C. CHECK SUITABILITY OF WASHING AGENT” warning that must apply within BS 5722 The Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985.

Cheap And Counterfeit Costumes

At that time and when he was Business Secretary, Sajid Javid stated that Trading Standards officials are to carry out spot checks on cheap costumes for sale across the UK on the run up to Halloween. Both we and our supply chain welcomed the initiative as there were a plethora of fake and counterfeit costumes on the marketplaces like Amazon and eBay. We hoped these measures would help the industry crack down on unsafe, cheap and counterfeit imports that were penetrating the UK market, specifically sold from smaller independent or sole trader retailers within well known and popular online marketplaces and auction websites. I remember buying one as a test purchase and I bet today, I would still find one.

What Did We Do?

The problem was that Claudia had already made mention in her interviews that Matilda was also wearing tights. She said “Her tights had melted into her skin.” What we all now know, tights will not fall under any toy or nightwear standard. What Claudia also failed to mention in her interviews was wear the costume was purchased? We had zero response from the BBC to our questions and yet everyone was saying that costumes need to meet the “nightwear standard”. Never mind that for the moment, but surely there should be a call that all children’s clothing should adhere to some flammability standard or another as for sure, there is none!

As you can also imagine, we were inundated with Customer Service phone calls and emails, many consumers wanting to return product after seeing Claudia’s comments. We were therefore left with no other alternative than to conduct our own flammability tests on our own costumes and other child clothing to show our customers that our costumes were safer than the clothing children would wear to school or clubs. We purchased a number of child garments from various retailers and set them alight alongside our own Halloween costumes. We found that items like a Brownie sweatshirt and a Cub Scout polo shirt were extremely flammable and most worrying, these children could easily be dancing and singing Ging Gang Goolie around a camp fire!

Our Informal Tests

I opened this article promising to provide a better understanding of the present safety standards and how to keep your child safe at Halloween. At the time, I also challenged media reporting and alongside an industry expert, have explained the differences between everyday clothing, nightwear and fancy dress costumes test requirements. Following are some of the clothing we tested to demonstrate the flammability of a variety of child garments in a similar fashion to theatrical media reporting.

Setting the scene, as we were unable to find a fire training establishment to help, our facility therefore is a back garden one summers’ day. Granted not laboratory conditions, but a continuity of conditions where we could evaluate and judge. We randomly selected and purchased child clothing garments from various apparel retailers in the UK including major High Street stores together with niche retailers for specialised school and club uniforms. We took these every day garments and set them alight along with our own branded child fancy dress costumes. We noted the country of origin, fabrication and fire safety warnings along with manufacturer details. Here are the results:

Nurse Costume

A simple garment of one primary man made polyester fabric with hem finishing will ignite with difficulty and burn at a slow rate. Although the breeze looks to extinguish the flame, this is typical of a slow burn rate and how all fancy dress costumes should burn and self extinguish.

Manufacturer: Own label
Age: 4 to 6 Years
Fabrication: 100% Polyester
Made In: China
EN71-2 Certified: Yes
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: Yes

Fairy Costume

From ignition, the flame moves rapidly through the tulle netting and gives the impression of a fast burn rate as the flame jumps from one strand to another and looks shocking. When the flame reaches the bodice, the speed of burn reduces and self extinguishes while the tulle still spreads. This test testifies the comments from the expert that the initial 1978 “first edition” of the EN71-2 standards need to “evolve”.

Manufacturer: Own label
Age: 4 to 6 Years
Fabrication: 100% Polyester
Made In: China
EN71-2 Certified: Yes
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: Yes

Vampire Costume

Similar to the Nurse Costume, the construction of this costume consists of three separate 100% polyester man made fabrics with slow burn rates which makes this a very safe costume. Once ignited, the fabric burns slowly and eventually self extinguishes.

Manufacturer: Own label
Age: 7 to 9 Years
Fabrication: 100% Polyester
Made In: China
EN71-2 Certified: Yes
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: Yes

Denim Dress - Mothercare

At 11 seconds, the flame has spread nearly half way up the garment. Between the 15 and 20 second time markers, the burn rate leaves a dark scorch mark approximately 21 centimetres. It is easy to calculate this burn rate far exceeds the EN71-2 standard of and this garment would fail the toy test.

Retailer: Mothercare
Age: 3 to 4 Years
Fabrication: 100% Cotton
Made In: India
EN71-2 Certified: No Requirement
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: No

Girl's Grey Box Pleat Skirt

Similar to polyester costumes, the ignition rate is slower but the flame appears more fierce as it spreads. As a costume tested under EN71-2, this garment would undoubtedly been labeled ‘WARNING, KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE’, which it was not.

Retailer: Uniform Direct
Age: 5 to 6 Years
Fabrication: 100% Polyester
Made In: UK
EN71-2 Certified: No Requirement
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: No

Red School Uniform Cardigan

Difficult to ignite with a tea light due to the heavier weight of the elasticated waistband, a propane lighter was used. Once the flame caught and moved to the main fabrication of the garment at 20 seconds, the flame engulfs the front of the cardigan in the next 20 seconds. This garment would fail EN71-2 if it were classified a toy fancy dress costume. There is no flammability warning on the packaging or care label.

Retailer: Uniform Direct
Age: Size 26” Chest
Fabrication: 45% Acrylic, 30% Cotton, 15% Polyester, 10% Mixed Fibres
Made In: Unknown
EN71-2 Certified: No Requirement
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: No

Brownies Long Sleeve T-Shirt

From ignition, the flame spread from the hem to the neckline in 30 seconds. Without a doubt this would fail the EN71-2 if this garment were classified as a toy and we are amazed that as open fire is part of Guiding activities that there was no flammability warning on the packaging or care label of this garment.

Retailer: Cladish Sports
Age: To Fit 28” Chest
Fabrication: 58% Cotton, 37% Polyester, 5% Elastane
Made In: China
EN71-2 Certified: No Requirement
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: No

Cub Scout Polo Shirt

A slow ignition due to the heavy weight of fabric overlapped at the waistline. The flame traverses quickly inside of the garment, spreading vertically and horizontally around the 30 second timestamp, falling apart by 40 seconds. This garment would fail if tested to EN71-2 as a toy. There was no flammability warnings on packaging or care labels.

Retailer: Cladish Sports
Age: To Fit 30” Chest
Fabrication: 35% Cotton, 65% Polyester
Made In: Unknown
EN71-2 Certified: No Requirement
BS 5722 Tested: No Requirement
Flammability Label: No

Summary and Conclusion

Flammability tests should be conducted on all items of child clothing and not just costumes and nightwear. There is more risk today of a little boy or little girl dancing or playing around a camp fire in a Scout or Brownie costume than any child at night with a central heating radiator. There is more risk as we have read with little Keira-Leigh Garland in a cotton dress than a fancy dress costume as a toy.

As I wrote at the time. “We have seen, flammability is a complicated science that spans all types of child apparel. Yes, the costume industry may need to review EN71-2 Regulations and Directives, but together with obeying flammability warnings, adults need to keep children away from naked flame and fire, be the garment costume disguise or daywear dress, jumper, shirt, skirt or uniform. As a business, we welcome the intervention of Trading Standards and have already met with our local office. We sincerely hope that they will act swiftly on any retailer who does sell counterfeit and fake child costumes that fail to adhere to the EN71-2 toy flammability Directive.

“We have seen that man made fabrics such as polyester tend to burn slowly and ideally, self extinguish. In contrast, we have witnessed that polypropylene can have disastrous effects when used in a tulle and organza style designs. Without a doubt, the complexity of costume design is also paramount in the speed of flame spread and with the complications that fancy dress costumes have become more in tune with fashion this past decade, perhaps the 1978 toy flammability standard needs to be reappraised. More worrying however are the other ordinary child daywear garments that are outside of either EN71-2 or BS 5722 that are not tested at all.

“As responsible adults, we need to be aware that all clothing will ignite and burn to different degrees and we need to adhere to the warnings on care labels and packaging. However, in a global economy where fake and counterfeit goods are easily available, we should also look to buy from reputable channels, such as bonafide UK based established retailers. Buying “cheap” can be foolhardy in that corners are cut and safety compromised. Consumers purchasing and directly importing garments from international channels may not meet UK and EU Regulations and Directives. We have first hand examples of costumes purchased from marketplaces like eBay where independent, smaller retailers are importing cheap costumes perpetrating to be and mimicking the real McCoy.”

In more positive news and what I will say, I did speak with ITV news and had an in-depth conversation with Chris Choi. Although he did not want to interview me on air, he did pull his evening report, knowing that this Winkleman story is not as rock solid as reporters were making out.

Top Halloween Costume Safety Tips

Steer toward simple fabrication and shorter designed costumes, such as trousers rather than a cape or long flowing skirt.
Choose man made fibres such as 100% Polyester instead of natural fibres such as cotton or cotton/poly mixes.
Be aware of tulle or organza, especially when made of Polypropylene.
If making your own costume, be aware of your choice of fabric used, staying away from crepe paper and bin liners especially.
Similarly, do not try to adapt any purchased costume by adding third party materials.
For girls, be aware that tights or leggings may fall outside of EN71-2 testing if not purchased with the costume.
Purchase from reputable UK channels, resisting the desire to buy cheap.
Keep children away from naked flames and maybe avoid houses with lit lanterns.
If Trick or Treating with a naked flame, maintain an orderly queue at the door rather than bunch as a group.
Ultimately, promote the National Fire Protection Association’s STOP, DROP and ROLL education programme.
Most importantly, hold your child’s hand and enjoy the Halloween experience together!