This paper reviews safety concerns for bunk beds and evaluates options for addressing the high rate of child injury related to use of the product.
Commonwealth, state and territory consumer affairs agencies are aware that for a number of years bunk beds have been associated with a significant level of child injuries.
Bunk beds were included in a study of the safety of nursery furniture commissioned in 1997, and subsequently became part of the Nursery Furniture Injury Prevention Program undertaken by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. Accordingly, the safety issues were examined by the Consumer Products Advisory Committee, which led to development of the present paper.
Section 65E of the Trade Practices Act provides for the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation to declare that a standard or part of a standard prepared or approved by the Standards Association of Australia is a mandatory consumer product safety standard. Also, under s. 172 of the Act, the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing consumer product safety standards.
It has been estimated that at least 2100 bunk bed injuries to children under 15 are treated each year in Australian hospital emergency rooms. Approximately half of the injuries occur to children between the ages of five and nine.1 Around 390 of all cases result in admittance to hospital.
A report on childhood injuries associated with bunk beds published by the South Australian Health Commission in 19902 revealed that children between two and 12 years of age who are injured while using the top bunk are five times more likely to require hospital treatment than children injured in conventional beds. This risk is increased to 13 times for children between two and four years old who use bunk beds.
A paper titled `Environmental Health in the Home' produced by the South Australian Health Commission in 1996 indicated that hazards associated with bunk beds scaled 7th in a list of recognisably preventable hazards in the home.3
Similar injury data surveillance outcomes apply in Queensland:
In the South Brisbane Health Region (an urban population area of around 600 000 people) between 1995 and 1996, 110 cases were recorded where bunk beds were associated with injuries to children of 14 years and under.4
Thirty-four of the 110 presentations (31%) occurred when the activity was listed as sleeping.
Although placing a very young child in the top bunk is recognised as a dangerous activity, 45 out of the 110 presentations (41%) of children suffering an injury associated with bunk beds were under 5 years of age.
Around 50% of the injuries were the result of play activity.
Approximately 90% of injuries to children are the result of falls.
The major injury mechanisms associated with bunk beds are:
falling (from the top bunk)
head and limb entrapment
hanging by protrusions in the vicinity of the top bunk.
With the majority of injuries resulting from falls from the top bunk, particularly for young children, a lack of roll-out protection around the top bunk is a major safety hazard. Suitable guard rails can greatly reduce this hazard and are recommended safety equipment for all bunk beds.
A major concern is the hanging hazard that results from gaps in the guard rails (or any area in the bed structure above 600mm from the floor) that allow a child's body to slip through but not allow the head to go through. In terms of risk, entrapment hazards are more serious than falling from the top bunk in that if a child's body slipped through a gap of between 75 and 230mm and the head became trapped then this can result in death by asphyxiation. As would be expected, younger children (under 3 years of age) are at greatest risk of head entrapment.5 There are documented cases of this occurring resulting in deaths both in Australia and overseas. In the US, for example, between 1990 to 1995 it was reported that 26 children died in this manner. In the last ten years at least two children in Australia have died as a result of being trapped by the head. Furthermore, it was this type of hazard resulting in deaths that prompted the British government to regulate in 1987 to eliminate this type of gap in bunk beds.
Reports of entrapment deaths in the US include cases where children have slipped between the side of the top bunk and an adjacent wall and been hung by the neck. These incidents demonstrate the need to fit guard rails to all sides of the top bunk, irrespective of the intended position of the bed.
The issue of bunk bed safety was included in a study of nursery furniture on behalf of the Commonwealth government by the Monash University Accident Research Centre in July 19976. This report indicated that available injury data suggests that major causes of injury associated with bunk beds are falls and entrapment, which account for between 70 per cent and 94 per cent of all bunk bed related injuries.
The injury data show that the deaths and the majority of injuries associated with bunk beds occur to young children, who are not the intended users of the product. Child safety and consumer affairs authorities have for a number of years promoted awareness of the danger of young children using bunk beds. It is a specific topic in the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs guide to nursery furniture, and is the subject of a Queensland Fair Trading information leaflet. Also, some bunk beds carry a warning that the product is not suitable for young children. Unfortunately, this guidance on the use of the product has not overcome the injury problem.
The reported bunk bed falls and entrapment relate to the height of the upper bunk from the floor, the lack of guard rails and the design of the guard rails, which might be considered inherent hazards for young children. On the other hand, these factors are not a serious risk to older children and adults using the product. Accordingly, the product is not necessarily unsafe if used appropriately, and in general does not meet the criteria for a product ban or recall under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act.
It is widely recognised by child safety specialists, the furniture industry and consumer affairs authorities that the problem of child deaths and injury associated with bunk beds can only be addressed by provision of certain key safety features in the product.
Government consumer protection policy includes the objective of ensuring that consumer products are safe. The Trade Practices Act includes provisions to support this objective through the establishment of mandatory consumer product safety standards, recalls of unsafe products and issue of product safety notices.
In the case of bunk beds, the current rate of injury and deaths to children associated with use of the product is considered unacceptable. Accordingly, the government's aim is to develop a strategy to significantly reduce the risk of death and significantly reduce the rate of injury to children associated with bunk beds, in the most cost-effective way.
Current responses to bunk bed injuries
Australia and New Zealand
An Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS 4220:1994 Bunk beds) for bunk beds was published in June 1994. The rationale behind development of this standard was concern raised by a number of health professionals over the number and severity of injuries to children where a bunk bed was a contributing factor.7 The standard was based on the then British Standard (BS 6998), the draft International Standards (ISO 9098-1 and 9098-2) as well as other Australian Standards related to child safety.
AS/NZS 4220 is a comprehensive document with specific safety requirements that are capable of addressing the three key safety problems of:
falls from the top bunk
head entrapments
hanging hazards.
The standard contains design requirements capable of minimising safety risk. For example:
Bunk beds must have guard rails on all four sides of the upper bunk that are at least 160mm above the top of the mattress (the maximum height of the mattress should be marked on the safety rail).
Gaps that are 600mm or more from the floor or standing surface should not be between 5-12mm (finger traps), 30-60mm (limb traps) and 75-230mm (head traps)
There should be no protrusions more than 8mm in the bed structure that might snag clothing.
Compliance with this standard remains voluntary. Over the last two years the Furnishing Industry Association of Australia has promoted furniture safety under its Furniture Quality Program code of practice, including compliance with relevant standards. To date under this program it is understood that two furniture retailers have decided to supply only bunk beds that comply with the Australian Standard.
The Infant and Nursery Products Association is also establishing industry codes to address safety of nursery furniture, but this does not include bunk beds as they are not classed as an item of nursery furniture.
Evidence suggests that the overall rate of compliance with the standard remains low, even on key safety criteria such as safe gaps, provision of guardrails and protrusion hazards.
A number of overseas standards have also been developed that aim to eliminate the three identified key hazards.
Europe
Compliance with the European Standards EN 747-1 and EN 747-2 is voluntary and there are no specific safety directives for bunk beds set down by the European Commission. The British Standard for bunk beds (BS 6998:1998) has been superseded by BS/EN 747.
These standards are developed around the International Standards ISO 9098-1 and 9098-2 Bunk beds for domestic use-safety requirements and test methods. It is unclear at this point as to the level of voluntary compliance with EN 747, although anecdotal feedback indicates that compliance has historically been very low.
The UK differs from continental Europe in having specific safety regulations which have been in force since 1987. These regulations (titled The bunk beds (entrapment hazards)(safety) regulations, 1987), might be considered to provide a minimal safety standard as they address only one safety hazard. The regulations aim to minimise the risk to children under the age of six from becoming trapped in any unsafe gaps in the top bunk. Essentially, the requirement is that gaps in the sleeping surface must not exceed 75mm and only gaps of between 60 and 75mm are permitted elsewhere in the bed structure, thus minimising the most severe hazard of head entrapment.8 This regulation was introduced as a result of serious concerns in the 1980's in the UK over bunk bed safety where at least two children died because of unsafe gaps in top bunks. This approach appears to have been successful in reducing incidence of serious entrapment injuries.
United States
Injury data collected by the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) indicate that between January 1990 and September 1997 there were 85 bunk bed related deaths to children under 15. Sixty-four percent of these injuries resulted from an entrapment incident. The data collected to that point showed that bunk bed related deaths had not decreased in recent years even though a voluntary US Standard had been introduced, and the majority of fatalities were the result of entrapment. The CPSC further reported that, almost without exception, incidents involving fatal entrapments in the bunk bed occurred in parts of the bed that appeared not to comply with the entrapment provisions in the voluntary standard.
Common areas of entrapment reported were under the safety rail and within the end structures of the top bunk. In addressing this hazard, between November 1994 and January 1998 the CPSC ordered recalls of over 500 000 bunk beds that did not comply with the voluntary standard.9 The CPSC concern with the apparent lack of voluntary compliance led the agency to declare a notice of Proposed Rule Making for bunk bed safety in 1998, which resulted in declaration of a mandatory safety standard in January 2000.
The CPSC mandatory safety standard for bunk beds is supported by a comprehensive analysis of bunk bed injuries in the US and specifies provision of guardrails on the elevated bed and elimination of entrapment gaps to address injury problems.10 The standard adopts key elements of the US ASTM standard.
The ASTM standard for bunk beds specifies a comprehensive range of requirements and covers essential safety features such as safe gap requirements (less than 3.5 inches or 89mm when tested), safety rail height and safety labelling.
International Standard
The ISO Standard (ISO 9098-1 Bunk beds for domestic use-safety requirements and tests, part 1: safety requirements and part 2: test methods) does not appear to have been widely adopted in total, although some key elements are common to various national standards. Some commentators have suggested the standard is design restrictive and may not adequately address some minimum safety requirements11.
There are no official statistics available on the number of bunk beds supplied in the Australian market, but one industry estimate puts the annual supply total at 60 000 for domestic use and 10 000 for commercial use eg: backpacker, armed forces accommodation etc. There is substantial local production, but it is believed that the majority of bunk beds are imported.
As a result of ongoing concern related to bunk bed safety, the Queensland Office of Fair Trading conducted a market survey in February 1997 of 12 suppliers that either made or sold bunk beds. It is estimated that 70 per cent of available new bunk and elevated beds were assessed in the greater Brisbane metropolitan region. Five manufacturers and 2 suppliers were visited. The remaining visits were to retailers.
In all, 27 different bunk bed configurations were examined in terms of compliance with the major safety components of AS/NZS 4220:1994, namely entrapment hazards, height, protrusions, and the provision of such safety features such as guardrails and ladders.
Prices of the products surveyed ranged from around $200 to $1000.
The major outcomes of the survey were:
Although there were some bunk beds that did comply well with the standard in the area of gaps, hanging hazards and roll-out protection, most did not. Most metal bunks have a safety rail only on one side and several had unsafe gaps on the bed ends that were above 600mm from the floor and therefore could become either head entrapment or hanging hazards. Generally, these bunks were the least expensive and included products that were imported and made in Australia.
The bunk beds that had a high level of compliance with the standard are sold as 'safety bunks'. All the elevated beds over a child's play or desk area also had a high level of compliance. However, these products tend to be up to twice as expensive as bunk bed combinations that do not have essential safety features (i.e. total safety rail protection and free from entrapment hazards).
Consumers would also have to seek out these products, as they are not always carried by the mass merchandisers. Industry feedback indicates that consumers steer clear of the safety bunks because of their price and box like appearance, with some remaining unsold on the retail floor for two years. It is noted that since this survey at least one chain of retail stores has adopted the policy of selling bunk beds that comply with the Australian Standard.
Some industry members suggested that if the voluntary Australian Standard was mandated it would be difficult for local industry to compete with imports. However, such a standard would apply to both imported and locally made bunks and there was evidence to suggest that locally made safety bunks, although having a small sales volume, compete well with imported products that have similar features.
The most popular products appeared to be bunks supplied with guardrails and ladders as optional extras. Many bunk bed combinations are designed to be separated at a later date into two beds, which tends to limit design in terms of safety. For example, one particular combination had clear snagging hazards on the top bunk's four extended corner posts. These protrusions are contrary to the standard but are in place so that when the beds are laid side by side they are exactly alike.
Retailers indicate that consumers are reluctant to purchase guardrails separately which can sell for an extra $40. When it is considered that some bunk bed combinations can be bought for around $200 this would be a large outlay. In any event, most guardrails that were not built in to the bunk appeared to be a design afterthought, in that some were not overly secure and were often generic in design, clearly intended for a range of products. Some add-on guardrails only provided roll out protection for under half the length of the top bunk for one side only.
Many suppliers appear to provide little safety information. At the retail level the prime concern is to move stock, and safety is commonly seen as the responsibility of the parent or caregiver. In defence of some mass merchandisers, some bunk beds are supplied with a safety rail and ladder as compulsory items (ie: there would be no discount if the consumer elected not to take the safety rail or ladder).
Consultation with Queensland manufacturers and suppliers has shown there is a high level of awareness of availability of the Australian Standard as a safety and quality benchmark. Most were of the view that when the standard was published in 1994 it would be made mandatory by some government authority. Since this has not occurred they have shown reluctance to make bunks beds that comply with the standard in its entirety as they were in direct competition with imported products that did not have the same additional safety features and thus would be cheaper for the consumer. Bunk beds could be considered to be a very price sensitive item of bedroom furniture. There is no information readily at hand on what premium consumers would be prepared to pay for a safer bunk bed.
Few bunks had any marking indicating maximum height of the mattress. Consumers could use a mattress that was so high as to reduce any protection the guard rail may provide.
All bunk beds examined complied with the height requirement in the standard but many did have entrapment gaps of between 75 and 230mm at the bed ends and sides. This is a significant problem and, as already outlined, has been the cause of some concern to consumer safety agencies worldwide.
Introduction of a mandatory safety standard would affect consumers, business and government.
Impact of these options is assessed as follows.
Option 1: No market intervention by government
Implications
Consumers
Consumers will be left to assess the safety of bunk beds in an unregulated environment.
Indications are that consumers will continue to buy bunk beds without key safety features.
The community would continue to bear the burden of 2100 child injuries per year and the loss of life associated with the use of bunk beds.
Industry
Current market forces would be the main determinant in supply of bunk beds. There is strong competition in the market among suppliers of cheaper bunk beds without key safety features.
Some suppliers provide bunk beds that comply with the key safety features of the standard.
Industry indicates that under present arrangements, bunk beds without key safety features would continue to be supplied.
Government
Government does not currently have the power to remove from the market bunk beds that do not have the desired safety features. Such products only present a serious hazard to young children who are not the intended users. Accordingly a recall or ban could not be required under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act.
Comment
Despite some manufacturers complying with the voluntary standard, injuries to children associated with bunk beds appear to remain very high and the 'do nothing' option offers no prospect for reducing the number of injuries associated with bunk beds. This is confirmed by the industry view that under present arrangements bunk beds without key safety features will continue to be supplied.
Option 2: Industry self-regulation
A voluntary agreement by relevant industry groups that they will only supply bunk beds that include key safety features.
Implications
Consumers
Effective self-regulation which achieves universal voluntary compliance with the key safety features of the standard would eliminate unsafe bunk beds from the market and provide the required protection for consumers.
Historically, consumer groups have been sceptical about industry ability to self regulate when it concerns product safety matters.12
Industry
For self-regulation to be effective it is considered that an industry association with a membership of approximately 75% of an industry is required.
The Furnishing Industry Association of Australia is active in setting rigorous codes of practice both for the supplier and manufacturer.13
While the industry is developing some self regulation capability, for nowthere is no indication this will eliminate unsafe bunk beds from the market.
The relevant industry associations have indicated that self regulation is not expected to eliminate unsafe bunk beds from the market in the foreseeable future.
Government
An effective self-regulation regime such as through an industry-validated code of practice is a preferred method of marketplace control in the Commonwealth sphere.14
However, while there are encouraging developments towards an industry self regulation capability, the present market failure on safety of bunk beds shows the mechanism has not advanced to be a viable means of control for this product, and there are no indications this can be achieved in the near future.
The industry association supports the need for government regulation of the market.
Comment
The voluntary standard has been in place since 1994 and, although there are some manufacturers who comply with the safety related parts of it, most suppliers do not comply. While it should be acknowledged that associations have made efforts in setting rigorous codes of practice, this has not eliminated unsafe bunk beds from the market.
There is no indication that self-regulation will be effective in ensuring that all bunk beds in the market are safe.
Option 3: Consumer education strategies
An education strategy would include media releases, publication of information leaflets and possibly media advertising to raise community awareness of bunk bed safety hazards.
Implications
Consumers
A well-educated consumer can make a more informed choice and dictate the terms on which products are supplied.
However, it is often an unrealistic expectation for consumers to be able to make informed purchasing decisions that take account of various product safety issues. In the case of bunk beds, some safety requirements are quite technical and would not be readily recognised or understood by the average consumer. A key factor in incidence of bunk bed injuries is inappropriate use of the beds for young children.
Consumer information on bunk bed safety, particularly related to young children, has been circulated in the community since 1998 in the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs publication A guide to nursery furniture and in a Queensland consumer fact sheet, but this has not resulted in a significant shift in consumer demand for safer bunks in the market.
Industry
Industry education has been an ongoing component of the Commonwealth and state consumer affairs strategies for improving the safety of bunk beds. The concept of 'safety sells' is well known and the fear of product liability litigation has prompted a number of bunk bed suppliers to consider safety. However, to be effective this would have to apply to all marketplace sectors and not be limited to a handful of responsible suppliers. Given the price sensitive nature of the bunk bed market and consumer demand for cheaper products, it is considered unlikely this approach would eliminate from the market popular bunk beds without key safety features.
Government
Consumer education is a key component of the government's repertoire of consumer protection strategies. However, it is recognised that on its own, consumer education is not likely to be successful in providing a comprehensive understanding of the importance of key safety issues that would allow consumers to assess the safety of bunk beds.
Education is considered an effective strategy for generating a general awareness of product safety issues.
Comment
While consumer education is a useful tool in the product safety area, it is unlikely that on its own it would be sufficient to eliminate unsafe bunk beds from the marketplace. Advice on the hazards of bunk beds has been included in a number of product safety publications over recent years, but this has not resulted in the elimination from the market of products without key safety features.
However, consumer education provides a means of raising awareness of safety issues in relation to large number of bunk beds that are already in use in the community.
Option 4: Basic mandatory safety standard based on the UK regulations
A basic safety requirement to eliminate the head entrapment hazard as specified in the UK regulation.
Implications
Consumers
This option would ensure supply of bunk beds that eliminate the major cause of deaths associated with the product: head entrapment.
However, this option does not require the fitting of guard rails and therefore does not address the cause of most injuries: falls from the upper bunk. Also it does not eliminate the problem of entrapment between the upper bed and adjacent wall.
Compliance with this basic safety standard may therefore mislead parents into thinking the product is essentially safe, whereas only one hazard has been eliminated.
Industry
This regulation seeks to address only the most serious hazard associated with bunk beds: head entrapment.
For some suppliers there would be some costs associated with introducing this regulation as they would need to modify their bunk bed designs to eliminate the entrapment gaps.
A negotiated lead in time would minimise immediate negative impact on industry.
This option is not favoured by industry as its effect on overall safety is considered too limited.
Government
The policy objective of reducing the injury risk to children associated with unsafe gaps in bunk beds would be partly met by eliminating the risk of head entrapment. However, this regulation does not require the fitting of guard rails and would therefore not address falls, the major cause of injuries.
There would be some minor costs associated with enforcing the regulation and educating industry on requirements of the standard. Enforcement authorities could readily verify compliance with this regulation through visual checks of the product on the market.
Comment
Although this regulation appears to have been successful in eliminating the most serious entrapment hazard in the UK, it does not address safety issues associated with lack of safety rails.
Safety specialists recommend that safety regulations should address other serious hazards, eg: falls from the top bunk. The point is agreed that if a product meets a mandatory safety standard, consumers would assume it is safe, whereas in the case of this regulation the majority of bunk bed safety hazards might still exist.
Option 5: Adoption of the entire Australian Standard AS/NZS 4220 as a mandatory safety standard
The Australian Standard for bunk beds prescribes comprehensive safety requirements. Implementation of the mandatory standard would be publicised though media releases and information leaflets.
Implications
Consumers
This option would ensure a high level of product safety.
A benchmark of this nature would allow consumers to purchase a safe bunk bed without the need to undertake complicated comparisons between products or analyse technical details.
However, compliance with the whole standard will result in a significant increase in the cost of most products, and may eliminate from the market a number of imported bunk beds currently made to overseas standards, which would reduce the choice of product and level of competition.
The significant increased cost has the potential to cause hardship to lower income families that need to use bunk beds because of their limited domestic accommodation.
Industry
Sectors of the bunk bed industry where there is a low level of compliance with the current Australian Standard will be subject to significant costs to redesign their products. However, the standard would give industry a quality benchmark that could enhance its credibility in the community.
The cost of laboratory testing of a bunk bed to the full requirements of the Australian Standard is quoted at $1800, to which would be added other product development costs.
As the detail of the Australian Standard differs from other standards, product would need to be designed specifically for the (relatively small) Australian market. Therefore, the introduction of the standard in its entirety may unnecessarily restrict business activity, and eliminate some suppliers from the market.
Government
The government's consumer safety objective would be met by this mandatory safety standard. However, the standard may be an unnecessary barrier to trade as it could prevent supply of bunk beds that comply with overseas standards and have the desired key safety features.
The cost to consumer product regulators of checking compliance of bunk beds with the entire Australian Standard would be significant, requiring laboratory testing of the product.
The ACCC estimates the cost of producing and publishing 3000 copies of information booklets to be $2000, and the cost of compliance checking by 2 offices to be $4500 per annum.
The nation-wide demand for information booklets is likely to be 10 000 per annum, at a cost of $5500, and compliance checking by all ACCC offices and state Fair Trading offices may result in total enforcement costs of about $45 000 pa.
Comment
Mandating the entire Australian Standard may have the potential to maximise the safety of the product. However, compliance with such a level of detail would also be unnecessarily restrictive on industry, requiring products to be designed specifically for the Australian market. Product made to overseas standards would generally not comply with the Australian Standard.
This restriction on the market would be expected to eliminate some products from the market, reducing competition and increasing the cost of the product unnecessarily.
Enforcement of such a detailed standard would also raise enforcement difficulties and costs as determination of compliance would require laboratory testing.
Option 6: Adoption of key parts of Australian Standard AS/NZS 4220 as a mandatory safety standard
This option makes mandatory only the key safety requirements of the standard AS/NZS 4220, ie: the provision of guardrails to the upper bunk and the elimination of head entrapment and hanging hazards. The mandatory requirements will be varied to make them compatible with a number of other standards. Implementation of the mandatory standard would be publicised though media releases and information leaflets.
Implications
Consumers
Compliance with these requirements has the potential to eliminate the majority of child injuries associated with bunk beds, including the most serious entrapments, thereby providing a major improvement in product safety.
The provision of key safety features would increase the cost of bunk beds at the lower end of the market. It is estimated that increased cost to consumers would be $50 per unit, raising the cost of a cheap bunk bed from $200 to $250. This is based on the add-on cost for provision of guard rails.
This cost will be offset by reduction in the estimated 2100 child injuries a year associated with bunk beds.
Industry
There will be costs for industry where bunk beds need to be redesigned in order to comply with new requirements.
However, costs will be lower than for option 5 because it is proposed to adopt only key parts of the standard. The cost of laboratory testing is quoted at about $1100, and product development costs would also be correspondingly lower.
Further, the proposal is to adopt requirements compatible with relevant UK regulations and proposed new Australian/New Zealand, International and US ASTM standards for bunk beds. This would allow suppliers to source bunk beds locally or from overseas, provided there is compliance with the key safety features.
This option would be attractive to local industry as it includes key safety requirements of the Australian/New Zealand Standard, which industry may view as best practice.
Industry favours this option.
Government
The government's consumer safety objective would be met by mandating a safety standard that addresses the key safety hazards.
As in option 5, the cost to government includes the production of educational materials and the cost of enforcement. In this case the cost of enforcement would be much lower because compliance with the short list of requirements can be verified by visual checks and measurements rather than laboratory testing.
It is estimated that the cost of national enforcement of the standard would be about $25 000 p.a.
Comment
This option is recommended by Consumer Affairs/Fair Trading agencies because it applies a minimum of regulation while effectively addressing the key product safety issues.
In making only the key parts of the Australian Standard mandatory, cost of enforcement would be kept low. Surveying the market for compliance would be reasonably straightforward and could be done at supply outlets with appropriate measuring instruments.
The regulation would specify only those requirements necessary to address the key hazards, essentially provision of guardrails for all sides of the top bunk and design of guardrails to eliminate head entrapment gaps.
This option specifies requirements based on the Australian Standard that are also compatible with other major standards - ie: the US and European standards.
The above options 1, 2, 3 and 4 as the primary strategy are assessed as not capable of bringing about the required reduction in levels of child injuries and deaths associated with bunk beds.
Option 1
Maintenance of the status quo, will not achieve the desired outcome. The case has been made that due to a lack safety features many of the products on the market are contributing to the high level of injuries associated with bunk beds. It is apparent this situation is unlikely to change without some form of market intervention.
Option 2
Industry self regulation, is considered to have potential for addressing the problems in the longer term. However, for the present, industry lacks the coordination to take the unified action necessary to bring about a general improvement in product safety. Market pressures centred on demand for cheap bunk beds are expected to ensure continued supply of products that do not have key safety features.
Option 3
Consumer education, would be expected to have some effect on the market, but past experience indicates that education alone would not overcome the injury problem. To achieve a total market shift to safer products would require universal recognition by consumers of the injury risk. Advice from the industry is that given the broad consumer preference for cheaper bunk beds, such an outcome is unlikely. Also, it would not be feasible to educate consumers about technical requirements of guardrails to enable identification of rails that do not constitute an entrapment hazard.
Option 4
Introduction of a mandatory standard based on the UK regulation, would eliminate a known head entrapment hazard. However, the regulation does not require the fitting of guardrails, and hence will not address the most common cause of injuries: falls from the top bunk.
Options 5 and 6
Would both meet the objective to significantly reduce the risk to children of death and injury associated with bunk beds . They specify that all or part of the Australian Standard be made mandatory. However, the options differ greatly in cost of implementation and level of restriction on the market.
Option 5
Makes mandatory the whole Australian Standard for bunk beds. This would specify a wide range of requirements and might be expected to have the greatest effect in reducing injuries. However, while the total standard might be considered best practice for safe bunk bed design, not all requirements of the standard are associated with common or serious injuries. Also, much of the detail of the Australian Standard differs from other major bunk bed standards and its adoption would prevent sale in Australia of many products which meet other standards and are considered essentially safe products. This option therefore has potential to act as a barrier to international trade, reducing the range of bunk beds available in the market and increasing prices unnecessarily.
Option 6
Is widely supported as the best option. It makes mandatory only the key parts of the Australian Standard that have potential to reduce common or serious injuries. This option therefore meets the objective of addressing major injury factors, while imposing minimum control on the product. This form of standard therefore avoids unnecessary prescription.
The key parts of the Australian Standard proposed for the mandatory requirements are common to a number of overseas standards, which will allow supply of bunk beds in Australia that comply with those standards. Where bunk beds are made for the Australian market they can be designed in accordance with other compatible standards or the key parts of the Australian standard. This provides for supply of a wide variety of bunk beds in the Australian market and will help maintain strong competition among suppliers, giving consumers the benefit of competitive prices.
Mandatory safety standards apply to supply of both new and second hand products. The safety standard will therefore have an impact on the second hand market because it will be illegal to sell second hand bunk beds that do not have guardrails on the top bunk, and guardrails must meet the safe gap requirements of the standard. In such cases, it may be feasible for dealers to make the product comply by fitting add-on guard rails.
Specifying the proposed minimum requirements would also minimise cost of compliance testing by authorities. Authorities can readily check compliance with the specified short list of requirements by visual inspection, using a test probe or measure to check for entrapment gaps.
The proposed mandatory safety standard is a control on supply of bunk beds, both new and second-hand. Accordingly, it will have little direct impact on safety of the thousands of bunk beds already in use in the community.
The recall of bunk beds in the community is possible where it can be shown that the product is hazardous to the extent that it will or may cause injury. While many bunk beds already supplied may lack the desired safety features, there are no currently known cases where products have been identified as hazardous and warranting recall.
The only mechanism for addressing safety of bunk beds in the community at large is an education campaign to promote awareness of safety hazards associated with the product. Experience with introduction of the mandatory safety standard for children's household cots in 1998 demonstrated that publicity associated with introduction of the mandatory standard, supported by distribution of information leaflets, can generate considerable interest in safety of the product. A similar information campaign will support introduction of mandatory safety requirements for bunk beds.
It is proposed to introduce mandatory safety requirements for all bunk beds and elevated single beds that have a mattress base higher than 800mm. This would encompass all elevated beds commonly used by children, such as standard pattern bunk beds and bed over desk combinations.
The threshold height of 800mm is recommended by the Standards Australia technical committee for bunk beds to capture common elevated beds used by children, while eliminating from the standard other high beds such as antique beds.
It is proposed the mandatory standard include the provision of guardrails and bed ends to the top bunk, and the elimination of head entrapment gaps in the bunk bed structure higher than 600mm above the floor. These provisions are included in the Australian/New Zealand, European, ISO and ATSM standards, and the intention is to make mandatory specifications sufficiently broad to allow supply of bunk beds that comply with all these standards.
Also, the Australian/New Zealand Standard is in the final stages of revision, and it is considered that the mandatory standard should allow supply of bunk beds that comply with both existing and new versions of the standard. It is therefore proposed to base mandatory safety requirements on the existing standard, AS/NZS 4220:1994, and to vary the standard to make the requirements consistent with both the current and new AS/NZS, the European, ISO and ASTM standards.
Accordingly, it is proposed to adopt from AS/NZS 4220:1994 only what are considered essential safety requirements.
Further, these requirements will be amended to provide compatibility with the proposed new version of AS/NZS and the US ASTM standards. The amendments include the option of higher guardrails that are a minimum of 360mm above the mattress base where no recommended mattress height marking is provided, and allowance of larger gaps in guardrails of up to 95mm. The Standards Australia technical committee recommends these specifications for the new AS/NZS standard.
The mandatory requirements based on AS/NZS 4220:1994 will be:
6.4.1 provides a general requirement that guardrails or bed ends be fitted to upper bunks to provide roll out protection on all sides
6.4.2 (a) guardrails to be firmly attached
6.4.2 (b) guardrails shall be smooth and free of snag points
6.4.2 (c),(d) guard rail height will be at least 360mm above the mattress base or 160mm above the indicated maximum mattress height
6.4.2 (e) specification of access opening dimensions
6.4.2 (f) specification of allowable gaps
6.4.3 allowance for large openings such as between the lower and upper bunks
6.8 (b) elimination of protrusions that could snag clothing and cause a hanging hazard
7.1 (a),(b) elimination of head entrapment gaps, to be tested with a 95mm probe and
9(a), 9(b), 9(c) guard rail marking and supplier identification for regulation enforcement.
Attached is a draft of the proposed product safety standard.
The mandatory requirements will be structurally compatible with current and proposed new AS/NZS, US ASTM, European and ISO standards. Imported bunk beds will need some additional marking to identify the importer, and some will need marking of the recommended mattress height.
The Queensland Office of Fair Trading consulted with manufacturers and suppliers in formulation of a paper establishing a case for regulation of bunk bed safety.
A draft regulation impact statement (RIS) was prepared by the Commonwealth and distributed for consideration by state/territory Consumer Affairs/Fair Trading authorities, manufacturers, suppliers, testing authorities, child injury specialists and consumer groups. A list of industry and community contacts consulted on the RIS is attached.
Consultation with industry has revealed general support for introduction of mandatory safety requirements based on the Australian/New Zealand Standard. However, industry pointed out that requirements must apply equally to all sectors of the business community, including domestic manufacturers and importers. Industry representatives expressed concern that a non-regulatory approach would not solve the safety problem as some suppliers would continue to supply bunk beds based on price as opposed to safety. There was also recognition that any mandatory requirements should be performance based and cover only the key safety issues of falling, entrapment and hanging.
Comment was received that the mandatory standard should reference requirements of the proposed new Australian/New Zealand Standard for bunk beds rather than the existing 1994 version. A difficulty with the proposal is that some requirements of the new Standard are more restrictive, and bunk beds complying with the 1994 Standard would not necessarily comply with the new version. Advice has been received that a number of bunk beds are currently made to comply with the 1994 Standard, and they are considered safe and therefore should not be excluded from the market by regulation.
A recommendation was also received that the present proposal for a mandatory standard that references and amends parts of the Australian/New Zealand Standard should be replaced by an alternative regulation that simply lists mandatory requirements. While such an alternate regulation has merit in that requirements could be listed in one document and would therefore be easy to access, the referenced material is the property of Standards Australia, not the Commonwealth.
As a technical document, the mandatory safety standard will be used by suppliers of bunk beds rather than by consumers. For consumers, the requirements would be outlined in information leaflets. For suppliers, interpretation of the requirements would be a one-off task and the long term effect of the form of the mandatory requirements will be minimal. Also, the mandatory requirements reference a substantial number of clauses, sub clauses and diagrams of the standard, and these would be better read in context of the original standard technical document.
Option 6, a mandatory safety standard which includes only the key safety features of Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4220:1994, is the recommended option. This option will make products on the market safer for children by ensuring they include safety features that will eliminate entrapment deaths and greatly reduce the number injuries resulting from falls.
Costs and benefits for the community
The proposed mandatory safety standard for bunk beds will remove from the market the main hazards that contribute to child injuries in bunk beds. It will require provision of guardrails to reduce the high incidence of falls from the top bunk, the guard rails will be designed to eliminate the entrapment hazard that results in asphyxiation, and hanging hazard protrusions will be eliminated.
In relation to deaths associated with bunk beds, it is an onerous task to determine cost to the community of premature loss of life. The willingness-to-pay approach to estimating the cost is considered by many economists to be an appropriate measure of overall costs, and using this method, a conservative estimate of the total indirect costs for loss of a life is $2.4m.15
The community will benefit in that consumers will be able to buy bunk beds in the knowledge that they comply with at least minimum safety standards.
The introduction of a mandatory safety standard will make bunk beds more expensive for consumers. It has been estimated the added cost could be $50 per unit for the cheapest bunk beds, mainly for the provision of appropriate guard rails. Using an industry estimate of 70 000 bunk beds supplied annually, and estimating that up to 40 000 of these might lack suitable guard rails, annual cost to the community of mandatory requirements could be up to $2 million per annum. However, consultation has indicated that for individual consumers this would be a minor impediment, being a once only cost for a relatively long life product.
Retooling costs for industry to alter the design to meet requirements of the proposed regulation. For some suppliers, depending on the extent of the regulation, this cost will be substantial.
Importers who supply bunk beds that do not comply with the standard could be disadvantaged in the short term. Although it has proven difficult to obtain clear-cut data, industry has suggested this would only be a short term disadvantage. Importers claim it is difficult to get overseas factories to retool for specific Australian requirements. The proposed safety standard seeks to minimise the impact on local and imported products by specifying minimum requirements that are consistent with key overseas standards. Industry sources have suggested that up to 90 per cent of bunk beds sold in Australia are imported.
Manufacturers may also need to have their bunk beds tested for compliance with the standard. It is customary for retail groups to request some form of proof of compliance from their suppliers for products that are subject to mandatory standards. The cost of laboratory testing a bunk bed to full requirements of the Australian Standard is quoted by Furntech at approximately $1800 The cost of testing to proposed minimum requirements for guardrails only is quoted at approximately $1100.
The issue of testing is a matter of concern to some Queensland manufacturers. There is only one accredited laboratory in Australia that can test for full compliance with the AS/NZS 4220. This laboratory is in Tasmania. There would, however, be no legal requirement on suppliers to show certification of compliance with the Standard and in real terms the onus would be on the prosecuting agency to prove non-compliance in any legal proceedings. The scope of the mandatory requirements could allow for certain variations from AS/NZS 4220 so that third party testing can be kept to a minimum. This would allow manufacturers to assess general safety of products in-house during product development.
The major benefits to industry are:
Industry would be able to use the standard as a safety and quality benchmark that will apply to all players in the marketplace.
The furniture industry could gain credibility by being able to market products that can show compliance with the key safety components of a recognised safety standard. There may also be benefits in terms of product liability risk reduction if a product can be shown to be manufactured to a recognised safety standard.
The costs to governments are considered relatively minor. Based on Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) estimates, the cost of mandatory standard enforcement using visual compliance checks and measurements of the product in the marketplace, is about $25 000 per annum.
Introduction of the proposed safety standard would be supported by an awareness campaign. Based on ACCC estimates and previous experience in promoting awareness of the mandatory safety standard for children's household cots, the demand for information brochures on bunk bed safety might total 10 000 copies per year at an estimated cost of $5500. The cost of adding the information to Departmental web sites would be minimal. The overall cost to government for national enforcement of the proposed standard and the supporting education campaign is estimated to be $30 500 per year.
The benefits to government would be a reduction in demand for medical services for treatment of injuries associated with bunk beds, reduction in the investigation of serious bunk bed related injuries, and recognition by the community that product safety is being addressed. The well-being of the community in general and especially those most vulnerable, such as young children, is a keystone of government policy.
A qualitative cost benefit analysis, using the model developed by the Queensland Department of State Development expressly for this purpose, has been undertaken. This analysis was undertaken on the option that favoured the introduction of the Australian/New Zealand Standard in its entirety (Option 5), so in some respects it could be viewed as a worst case scenario for the business community. It should be noted that the analysis reveals that for industry the impact is negative and for the community and government the impact is slightly positive.
This analysis of bunk bed injuries to children and available options for addressing the incidence of product related injuries concludes the most cost effective option is introduction of a mandatory standard to establish minimum performance criteria for a safer bunk bed. Consultation with the Australian bunk bed industry has shown the favoured industry option is some form of national mandatory standard that would apply to all products but, at the same time, would not be restrictive in terms of design or their ability to source overseas products.
The recommended option is the introduction of a mandatory Trade Practices Act consumer product safety standard that requires bunk beds supplied in Australia to comply with key safety features based on AS/NZS 4220:1994.
It is proposed that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation will declare a mandatory consumer product safety standard for bunk beds, as drafted in the attachment, as soon as possible.
A lead time for implementation of the mandatory standard will be necessary so that industry can adjust production to supply bunk beds that include the required safety features.
Where current bunk bed designs do not include the required safety features, suppliers will need to develop new designs and clear existing stock. Industry has indicated that at least nine months should be allowed for this upgrade and accordingly it is proposed to declare the new standard for implementation from May 2002.
The introduction of the bunk bed safety standard would be publicised to raise community awareness of the new safety requirements and to highlight to parents and child carers the hazards of using bunk beds, particularly the hazards of allowing young children to use an upper bunk.
The safety standard will ensure that products on the market provide a reasonable level of protection for children using the product, but in relation to the many bunk beds in use in the community, a product safety awareness campaign will provide the key mechanism for improving safe use.
The awareness campaign would comprise publication of information on product safety web sites and in brochures for distribution to bunk bed suppliers, supplier organisations, child care organisations, child safety organisations and agencies responsible for consumer product safety. Previous experience in product safety awareness campaigns is that some suppliers assist by voluntarily promoting safe use of their products.
It is government policy to review product regulations each five years to ensure they remain relevant. The term of the mandatory standard will accordingly be set at five years, after which time it will automatically lapse. A review of the standard will be undertaken about 12 months before the expiry date to assess whether the standard should continue in its current or a revised form, and, if necessary, it would then be renewed for a further period.
Commonwealth of Australia Trade Practices Act 1974 Consumer Protection Notice No. of 2001
I, Joseph Benedict Hockey, Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, pursuant to section 65E of the Trade Practices Act 1974, hereby declare that:
(a) in respect of goods of a kind specified in Division 1 of the Schedule to this Notice, the standard approved by Standards Australia specified in Division 2 of the Schedule, as varied by Division 3 of the Schedule, is a consumer product safety standard for purposes of s. 65C of the Trade Practices Act 1974,
(b) this Notice and the consumer product safety standard prescribed by this Notice will cease to have effect on 1 May 2007.
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4220:1994, Bunk beds.
Division 3: variations
Delete the following clauses, sub-clauses and items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9, 7.1(c), 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 8, 9(b)(i) and 9(d), and appendices B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J.
Delete the text in sub-clause 3.1 and replace with the following text:
'Bunk Bed- (a) A set of components that are assembled or are ready for assembly into single beds or double/single combination beds which will be stacked one over the other; or
(b) Any single bed, other than a hospital bed, where the upper surface of the mattress base is at least 800mm above the floor surface.'
In Sub-clause 7.1(b) replace the dimension '75mm' with the dimension '95mm'.
In sub-clause 9(c) add to the beginning of the paragraph the following words: 'For the upper bed, where the height of the guard rails is less than 360 mm above the mattress base:'
In Appendix A, part A3(a)(iv) replace the spherical probe diameter dimension '75 + or - 0.5mm' with the dimension '95 + or - 0.5mm', and in parts A5(e), A6(c) replace the dimension '75mm' with the dimension '95 mm'.
In Appendix A, delete part A3(b).
In Appendix A, part A5(a), delete the words 'Place a mattress on each of the mattress bases of the bunk bed.'
