Do you remember when supermarkets used to have piles of old cardboard boxes near the exits? 

If you were moving house or clearing out a shed you could take some without asking and no one minded.  It was very handy, especially for a serial tidier like me.

I was buying my yearly haul of Easter eggs recently, and as I gazed at the dazzling colourful displays, teetering in two-for-one towers at the end of each aisle, I was reminded of those piles of old boxes, and how handy they were.

And then I got home, and I read the news, and I got all shouty and furious.

It seems that some bright spark (pun intended) has decided to update The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRFSO) 2005, which to us ordinary folk means the rules about fire safety in non-domestic premises.  It was a predecessor of this legislation that did for those handy cardboard boxes, deemed too much of a fire risk to be left lying around.

And now, it seems, the health and safety elves have gone even further, and conducted a series of experiments to determine how flammable a product will be, given the ratio of air and packaging to said product.  As from next year, this formula will be applied to all products, to determine whether they are too much of a fire risk to be stored in large numbers at a supermarket.  If they are, they will be banned.  Needless to say, not one single commercially produced Easter egg would have passed the test had it been applied this year.  The absurd result it that they will either have to be repackaged, or the eggs will need to be solid chocolate (to reduce the air in the equation) making them considerably more expensive.

Now I’m all for reducing unnecessary packaging, but this is surely tackling the problem from the wrong angle?  It’s nonsense legislation that means a can of hairspray can be deemed “safe” in the event of fire, but not a bag of crisps (too much air to product, I’m told).  Yet again, common sense has been pushed aside in a flurry of pseudo-science and red tape.

Needless to say, manufacturers are now faced with a difficult choice – take a big hit on packaging costs and redesign their eggs, or increase transport costs to ensure delicate products are surrounded by suitable padding during transit. 

Xia Shisoth, spokesperson for Coalition of Retail Associates and Packers said: “This is a complete shambles.  No one has considered the cost or practical implications of the proposed legislation, nor consulted adequately with those who have to implement it. We’ve dealt with some fairly ridiculous health and safety legislation before but nothing this badly thought through.”

I was generous with Easter eggs this year and I’m glad that I was now.  Next year I may be giving very small, very expensive chocolate eggs. 

It’s going to be hard to persuade the kids that their fire retardant qualities make up for that.  Grrrrrrrrrr.