PFD report

Stephen Paul Myers · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Apr 2015•County Durham and Darlington

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure to include required CLP hazard statements
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards
  2. Hazardous inhalation and swallowing of isopropyl nitrite vapour or liquid
  3. Failure to use CLP-standard hazard pictograms
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Send the coroner’s report and recommendations to Darlington Trading Standards for investigation of the product’s labelling.

    Stated by Department for Business, Innovation & SkillsStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 April 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Darlington Trading Standards is responsible for investigating compliance with CHIP/CLP labelling requirements and deciding enforcement action.

    Stated by Department for Business, Innovation & SkillsRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to include required CLP hazard statements

Wider context from the report

“(1) Isopropyl nitrite is sold as a liquid in a small (25ml) bottle as “English Room Odoriser”. It is known that some inhale the vapour which is thought to cause a short-lived “rush” / euphoria. The label on the bottle says “do not inhale”. It is classified in accordance with 67/548/EEC: R 23: toxic by inhalation R28: very toxic if swallowed. (2) I have received a report from West Yorkshire Analytical Services which states “The labelling was examined with respect to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP) and the Regulation Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures 2008 (CLP) with the following observations:- Need upgrading for CLP to include the signal word “danger”. Pictograms need updating to CLP standard. Need to include the hazard statements suggested H225 Highly Flammable Liquid and Vapour, H301 Toxic if Swallowed, H331 Toxic if Inhaled. Precautionary statements suggested P210 Keep Away From Heat/Sparks/Open Flames/Hot Surfaces – No smoking, P261 Avoid breathing Vapours, P301 and P310 IF SWALLOWED : Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or Doctor/Physician. The container requires a tactile warning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Hazardous inhalation and swallowing of isopropyl nitrite vapour or liquid

Wider context from the report

“(1) Isopropyl nitrite is sold as a liquid in a small (25ml) bottle as “English Room Odoriser”. It is known that some inhale the vapour which is thought to cause a short-lived “rush” / euphoria. The label on the bottle says “do not inhale”. It is classified in accordance with 67/548/EEC: R 23: toxic by inhalation R28: very toxic if swallowed. (2) I have received a report from West Yorkshire Analytical Services which states “The labelling was examined with respect to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP) and the Regulation Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures 2008 (CLP) with the following observations:- Need upgrading for CLP to include the signal word “danger”. Pictograms need updating to CLP standard. Need to include the hazard statements suggested H225 Highly Flammable Liquid and Vapour, H301 Toxic if Swallowed, H331 Toxic if Inhaled. Precautionary statements suggested P210 Keep Away From Heat/Sparks/Open Flames/Hot Surfaces – No smoking, P261 Avoid breathing Vapours, P301 and P310 IF SWALLOWED : Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or Doctor/Physician. The container requires a tactile warning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to use CLP-standard hazard pictograms

Wider context from the report

“(1) Isopropyl nitrite is sold as a liquid in a small (25ml) bottle as “English Room Odoriser”. It is known that some inhale the vapour which is thought to cause a short-lived “rush” / euphoria. The label on the bottle says “do not inhale”. It is classified in accordance with 67/548/EEC: R 23: toxic by inhalation R28: very toxic if swallowed. (2) I have received a report from West Yorkshire Analytical Services which states “The labelling was examined with respect to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP) and the Regulation Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures 2008 (CLP) with the following observations:- Need upgrading for CLP to include the signal word “danger”. Pictograms need updating to CLP standard. Need to include the hazard statements suggested H225 Highly Flammable Liquid and Vapour, H301 Toxic if Swallowed, H331 Toxic if Inhaled. Precautionary statements suggested P210 Keep Away From Heat/Sparks/Open Flames/Hot Surfaces – No smoking, P261 Avoid breathing Vapours, P301 and P310 IF SWALLOWED : Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or Doctor/Physician. The container requires a tactile warning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to include the CLP signal word “danger”

Wider context from the report

“(1) Isopropyl nitrite is sold as a liquid in a small (25ml) bottle as “English Room Odoriser”. It is known that some inhale the vapour which is thought to cause a short-lived “rush” / euphoria. The label on the bottle says “do not inhale”. It is classified in accordance with 67/548/EEC: R 23: toxic by inhalation R28: very toxic if swallowed. (2) I have received a report from West Yorkshire Analytical Services which states “The labelling was examined with respect to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP) and the Regulation Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures 2008 (CLP) with the following observations:- Need upgrading for CLP to include the signal word “danger”. Pictograms need updating to CLP standard. Need to include the hazard statements suggested H225 Highly Flammable Liquid and Vapour, H301 Toxic if Swallowed, H331 Toxic if Inhaled. Precautionary statements suggested P210 Keep Away From Heat/Sparks/Open Flames/Hot Surfaces – No smoking, P261 Avoid breathing Vapours, P301 and P310 IF SWALLOWED : Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or Doctor/Physician. The container requires a tactile warning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to include required precautionary statements

Wider context from the report

“(1) Isopropyl nitrite is sold as a liquid in a small (25ml) bottle as “English Room Odoriser”. It is known that some inhale the vapour which is thought to cause a short-lived “rush” / euphoria. The label on the bottle says “do not inhale”. It is classified in accordance with 67/548/EEC: R 23: toxic by inhalation R28: very toxic if swallowed. (2) I have received a report from West Yorkshire Analytical Services which states “The labelling was examined with respect to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP) and the Regulation Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures 2008 (CLP) with the following observations:- Need upgrading for CLP to include the signal word “danger”. Pictograms need updating to CLP standard. Need to include the hazard statements suggested H225 Highly Flammable Liquid and Vapour, H301 Toxic if Swallowed, H331 Toxic if Inhaled. Precautionary statements suggested P210 Keep Away From Heat/Sparks/Open Flames/Hot Surfaces – No smoking, P261 Avoid breathing Vapours, P301 and P310 IF SWALLOWED : Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or Doctor/Physician. The container requires a tactile warning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide a tactile warning on the container

Wider context from the report

“(1) Isopropyl nitrite is sold as a liquid in a small (25ml) bottle as “English Room Odoriser”. It is known that some inhale the vapour which is thought to cause a short-lived “rush” / euphoria. The label on the bottle says “do not inhale”. It is classified in accordance with 67/548/EEC: R 23: toxic by inhalation R28: very toxic if swallowed. (2) I have received a report from West Yorkshire Analytical Services which states “The labelling was examined with respect to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP) and the Regulation Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures 2008 (CLP) with the following observations:- Need upgrading for CLP to include the signal word “danger”. Pictograms need updating to CLP standard. Need to include the hazard statements suggested H225 Highly Flammable Liquid and Vapour, H301 Toxic if Swallowed, H331 Toxic if Inhaled. Precautionary statements suggested P210 Keep Away From Heat/Sparks/Open Flames/Hot Surfaces – No smoking, P261 Avoid breathing Vapours, P301 and P310 IF SWALLOWED : Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or Doctor/Physician. The container requires a tactile warning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Send the coroner’s report and recommendations to Darlington Trading Standards for investigation of the product’s labelling.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The appropriate body with the power to enforce the requirements of CHIP/CLP in the case of the labelling and other requirements of these products is the local Trading Standards Authority, in this case, Darlington. The local authority Trading Standards Service will investigate whether the product was mis-labelled in accordance with CHIP/CLP legislation and decide on an appropriate course of action. We are sending them a copy of your report and recommendations.”

Source location

2015-0150-Response-by-Department-for-Business-Innovation-Skills
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Darlington Trading Standards is responsible for investigating compliance with CHIP/CLP labelling requirements and deciding enforcement action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The appropriate body with the power to enforce the requirements of CHIP/CLP in the case of the labelling and other requirements of these products is the local Trading Standards Authority, in this case, Darlington. The local authority Trading Standards Service will investigate whether the product was mis-labelled in accordance with CHIP/CLP legislation and decide on an appropriate course of action. We are sending them a copy of your report and recommendations.”

Source location

2015-0150-Response-by-Department-for-Business-Innovation-Skills
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Responsibility for CHIP/CLP labelling of poppers lies with the Health and Safety Executive, not this Department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You have suggested that action could be taken by this Department in order to ensure clear labelling of products like poppers in an attempt to avoid repetitions of this tragic accident. I should clarify that BIS is not responsible for the CHIP/CLP legislation regarding the labelling of bottles of Poppers (isopropyl nitrite). This is the policy of the Health and Safety Executive. The CLP labelling on this product would depend on the concentration of isopropyl nitrite and the nature and concentration of other ingredients, and follows prescribed ‘rules’ set under EU single market legislation. Whether or not certain label statements such as ‘If swallowed: Immediately call a Poison Centre or doctor/physician’ are used depends on the classification of the product, which is based on scientific data.”

Source location

2015-0150-Response-by-Department-for-Business-Innovation-Skills
Page 1 · response
Published 15 April 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The General Product Safety Regulations were not breached because the product was used contrary to its instructions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All products intended for use by consumers are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations (GPSR) 2005 which implements the EU’s General Product Safety Directive (GPSD). This Department has responsibility for this legislation. A producer must not supply a consumer product unless it satisfies the requirement that the product is safe (regulation 5 of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005). However it appears that the instructions for use were not followed in this case. The requirement that it should be safe for its intended use would not have been breached in this case.”

Source location

2015-0150-Response-by-Department-for-Business-Innovation-Skills
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 2015

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026