Episode 11 Watchdog Test House

Take a look around your home.

Can you be sure that every appliance is safe?

Is everything a company tells you about a product true?

And are you getting the best value for your money?

With the help of the country's top experts, we're going to see

what it takes to test the household products we use every day.

We'll discover how they're pushed to their limits...

..we'll put the makers' claims on trial...

..and show you how to make your money go further.

You'll find these products in any ordinary house.

But this is no ordinary house...

and no ordinary street.

This is the Watchdog Test House.

Hello, we're deep inside one of Britain's leading science centres.

Here at the Building Research Establishment,

some of the products and materials that we use every day

are put to the test

to make sure that they're safe, environmentally friendly

and that they don't fall apart.

Coming up on today's programme - the cycle helmet.

It saved James Cracknell's life.

The wing mirror hit the back of my head at 65-70mph.

If I hadn't been wearing a helmet,

then my head probably wouldn't be on my shoulders,

that's the reality.

How testing to the latest standards helps ensure

it's got the best chance of saving yours.

Four women, four lipsticks, one lucky man.

Do these products really last as long as they claim?

We put them to the test.

-Wow.

-And the hidden dangers that used to be in our homes.

I hadn't realised this but did you know that

the bread in your toaster could go up in flames?

The Watchdog stories that led to a safer kitchen.

Future toasters will be able to cope with the kind of conflagration

that we found out in our tests which is excellent news.

Every year, thousands of cyclists are killed or seriously

injured on our roads, but how many of them were wearing one of these?

Some cyclists don't like them but the Government encourages wearing

a correctly fitted helmet as it may reduce head injuries and save lives,

as one Olympian knows all too well.

On 20 July 2010, double Olympic gold medallist James Cracknell was

cycling on Route 66 across America when a fuel tanker knocked him

off his bike.

The wing mirror hit the back of my head at 65-70mph.

If I hadn't been wearing a helmet, that would be it.

My head probably wouldn't be on my shoulders, that's the reality.

James was airlifted to hospital where

he spent a week in a medically induced coma before being

brought round to begin the long recovery process.

Brain injury is very different to recover from because it controls

so much of your body, or, in fact, all your body and so different

areas of the brain that get damaged results in different behaviour,

different physical issues.

I have epilepsy now.

I have no sense of smell or sense of taste.

All things that

when you're 24 hours away from never seeing your kids again you'd accept

but on a daily basis actually every time I have had a seizure,

you can't drive for a year which then puts more strain on your wife

and the kids and that's hard.

But compared to the other end of the scale which is where

I was nearly at, is not being here at all, is a huge positive.

Although there are currently no laws regarding the protective equipment

for cyclists, the Highway Code recommends wearing a cycle helmet.

It's widely believed that this improves your chances

of survival in an accident.

You're on a public highway, you cannot predict other people's

behaviour on that highway so you need to make sure you are protected.

When the wing mirror hit the back, bang, it softens that impact.

The damage to me was that because the impact

was at the back of the head, the brain hit the front of my skull.

And that caused significant damage but if you can imagine

the 70mph impact of a wing mirror to the back of someone's skull,

it's going to be more than your brain hitting the inside of your skull.

It's going to be ripped clean off your head and it just,

the polystyrene cushioning the blow...made all the difference.

So, if you choose to wear a cycle helmet, how do you know

it's going to do its job?

Well, any bicycle helmet on sale in this country has to meet

certain European standards and all products which comply with

these standards are legally allowed to bear the CE mark.

How high are the standards and how rigorously are they tested?

Find out later.

Lipstick.

These days companies aren't just trying to grab our attention

with the latest shades.

They're also making bold claims about how long the lipstick

will stay on but can the products that say they're long-lasting

really deliver on their promise?

Let's find out.

# Lipstick on your collar... #

No lipstick on my collar, Sophie.

That's a thing of the past,

at least it should be with long-lasting lipsticks.

But I'm no girl, so how do they work, Dr Laura?

So, lots of the lipsticks these days claim to be long-lasting which means

that they should stay on throughout the day and throughout the evening.

In these lipsticks quite often we find

they contain ingredients such as things like polymers.

Ah, yes, polymers.

A chain of molecules which should, in theory,

make lipsticks cling to your lips and last longer.

That's the theory, but what about in practice?

# Fashion... #

To find out, we've picked lipsticks at a range of prices, all making

big claims about how long-lasting and durable they are.

Our most expensive product at £20 is the Estee Lauder Double Wear

Stay-In-Place Lipstick.

It claims up to 12 hours staying power. Very bold.

Our mid-range product is the Revlon Colour Stay Ultimate Suede

lipstick. It costs £8.99 and claims to be food proof and doesn't quit.

Apply once and go.

The cheapest is the Miss Sporty Perfect Colour lipstick at £2.59.

It promises to add rich

and gorgeous colour to your lips for up to six hours.

We'll also be comparing these to the Maybelline Colour Sensational.

It's priced at about £6.50 but makes no claims about being long-lasting.

Right, so, that's their vital statistics. Next, to the lab.

Dr Laura has applied equal amounts of the lipsticks onto

these sheets of silicone, which is a substance that mimics skin.

So what we're going to do now is we're going to see how

resistant these long-lasting lipsticks are to the different

drinks that you may come across in a typical day.

Dr Laura's lined up some water, some coffee

and some ethanol which is the main ingredient in alcohol.

She'll dip the silicon into each of these containers

and then blot them onto some paper.

Then we'll be able to see just how long-lasting they really are.

First up, the water. The silicon is held in there for ten seconds.

Here is where product number one would appear

if it were to have come off and it hasn't.

Here's where product number two...

again that hasn't come off at all.

Product number three which was our Miss Sporty lipstick,

a small amount has come off but most of it has still stuck to the

silicon and here's product number four, now this is the one

that made no

claims about being long-lasting and you can see it's coming off already.

So, the more expensive products, the Estee Lauder

and the Revlon Colour Stay are ahead. Next, the coffee.

And it's a similar story.

The cheap Miss Sporty

and the no-claims Maybelline still not doing very well here.

The most expensive product, with Estee Lauder,

is starting to come off.

But the mid-range Revlon is staying strong and finally the ethanol.

So what we can see here is products number one

and two have held up really well in the presence of ethanol.

Product three, some of that has come off of there

and then product number four, not much has come off with the ethanol.

So, in our lab tests the winner seems to be the Revlon.

The mid-range product which has taken on the triple threat of water,

coffee and ethanol and won.

It did better than the Estee Lauder, which is more than

twice as expensive.

And both outperformed the cheapest product, Miss Sporty,

and the Maybelline product, which makes no claims.

But we need to crank this up a notch. Wine...

music...

and romance.

-Will Revlon have to kiss goodbye to the number one spot?

-Wow.

Find out later.

Now, take a look at your kettle.

If it's got a lead, it will be short or coiled. What about plugs?

Well, you'll see they've all been pre-fitted

and there's a reason for that.

Just as there's a reason why your iron is now much less likely

to catch fire than it was a few years ago. And that reason?

Watchdog.

Its former presenter Lynn Faulds Wood made household safety

a personal mission.

Welcome to Watchdog. In tonight's programme...

All these people have written to us...

The year was 1985 and plastic-sided toasters had just been introduced.

The makers said they'd designed them

to help stop people getting burned on hot metal-sided toasters.

But like many other kitchen appliances in the 1980s,

these could be surprisingly dangerous.

I hadn't realised this

but did you know that the bread in your toaster could go up in flames?

I remember this so well.

I couldn't believe it

when I started hearing about fires in people's kitchens.

All watchdog viewers were doing was taking bread,

maybe a couple of days old, a bit dry, putting it

in their toaster on a brown setting and then going out the room and

coming back a couple of minutes later and finding their toaster on fire.

As our tests showed.

Look what happened. That's 4½ minutes.

You can see there, the plastic's all dripping onto the work surface.

Watchdog's role then was the same as it is now -

to investigate your problems

and encourage companies to put them right...

which they did.

Within a year, heat resistant plastic or a metal rim to separate

the plastic edges from extreme heat had been developed.

And it wasn't just the manufacturers who took action.

The British Standards Institution was quickly on the case

and improved the industry's standards.

Future toasters will be able to cope with the kind of conflagration

that we found out in our tests, which is excellent news.

That safety standard for plastic toasters

came in before they caused more problems.

But it wasn't so with another kitchen appliance...

the kettle.

Every parent should actually look at the kitchen from a child's eye view.

They should get down on the floor, have a look round,

it's quite an adventure playground.

Long trailing leads or flexes were causing around 1,000 injuries a year

to young children, scalded by the boiling hot water

after pulling kettles off kitchen worktops.

Mummy!

It was the shocking case of Michael White that first brought this

to Watchdog's attention in 1985.

Michael just tripped, reached up to grab something

and it just happened to be the kettle lead,

pulled it down, came down on his head and down the side of his face.

A third of his body was covered in burns,

an accident that could have been avoided by shortening leads

or then this simple solution.

Coiled kettle flexes spring back into position once you've used them.

Now, these coiled flexes

could save thousands of families terrible anguish

and save the National Health Service millions of pounds.

In the '80s, there were no rules about how long

a kettle lead should be.

Watchdog called for coiled flexes, to stop children being scalded,

but SEAMA, the industry association for small electric appliances,

claimed coiled flexes would cause as many problems as they solved.

Well, we did what we think they should have done in the first place.

We sent copies of this document to all sorts of real experts,

from Department of Trade's consumer safety unit

to the British Burns Association.

All of them said the evidence in their document was unconvincing,

spurious, irrelevant or just plain wrong.

We're delighted to say that SEAMA have now had a change of heart.

So all kettles were to come with coiled or shorter leads,

a huge success for Watchdog and for all safety campaigners.

There was also another appliance in your kitchen that desperately

needed to be made safer.

It would take the death of a whole family for that to happen.

The tragedy happened in Wales last year in this house.

During the night, fire broke out.

The lady who lived there, she lost her husband and five children.

Six members of the family wiped out in the fire.

The cause of the fire - an iron with a faulty thermostat.

At the time, hardly any had cut-outs to stop them overheating.

But after Watchdog alerted manufacturers to the dangers,

they acted.

Now, what they've done is they've put in thermal cut-outs.

This is Hoover's. This cost just 17p and they've put this in their irons,

so if a thermostat fails, the iron will cut out.

But not all safety campaigns had such a quick resolution.

For years, many appliances came without a plug.

We were expected to fit them ourselves.

We're not electricians.

Trying to fit your own plug, if you haven't got the skills

and knowledge, can be very dangerous.

Watchdog and the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents

campaigned for fitted plugs throughout the 1980s.

But still the industry resisted.

That is until 1991 when young mother Julie O'Toole died,

electrocuted because of a badly-fitted plug.

Following her death, ministers sat down with manufacturers

and declared that within two years plugs must be fitted as standard

to all domestic appliances.

It was a massive victory

and it was a great move forward on the home safety front.

It's amazing to think that just 30 years ago,

the kitchen was such a dangerous place.

But the manufacturers did eventually take action. They had to.

Tougher standards means tougher testing.

And tougher testing means that the products we all use today

are actually much safer.

Now, energy-saving light bulbs.

They can be cheap, long-lasting and good for the environment.

But how do you choose the product that's going to give you

the best value whilst giving you the best light?

Well, here at the Building Research Establishment,

they are experts in all that.

So, who better to ask than Peter White?

Hi, Peter. So, this is a classic light bulb, isn't it?

This is the one we're all used to. But you can't get these any more.

No, these have been phased out across much of the world.

They're so energy inefficient, they're no longer on sale.

And they've been replaced by what we've got here.

So, the compact fluorescent that most people would recognise,

an energy-saving lamp.

A little halogen lamp.

And this, the latest to the market which is an LED.

How long do they all last?

Well, the bulbs you've got in your hand would last maybe a year,

if you're lucky. This will last for a couple of years.

This should last for five to ten years

and this between 35 and 50 years.

Up to 50 years?! One bulb could last you 50 years?

-The rest of our lives.

-They are that much more expensive, aren't they?

These cost a little bit more, it's true.

But when you work it out over the lifespan,

these are going to be ultimately just cheaper.

And what about the quality of the light because I look at that

and it's had a bad reputation as a slightly dull light,

-not as good a something like this?

-It is true. When you first turn

these on, they can be a bit dim, they take a while to warm up.

Shall we turn one on?

And the light... These aren't so bad now.

When they first came out, they were a bit blue.

But now the colour's about right.

The halogen bulb has come onto the market

because it's the sort of light people are familiar with.

-It's got that warm glow...

-Very bright.

-..that we've got to know.

But these are so inefficient that they also will be phased out

fairly soon, in the same way that the ordinary bulbs were.

The LED, if I turn this on, it might be a bit blue-looking,

but it's instantly much brighter than this.

And in terms of the energy,

this is using 40 watts,

this is using 11,

this is using five.

So it's a huge saving on the energy.

So you can make massive savings on your bills,

-just by changing your light bulbs.

-Very quickly.

This would reduce your bills significantly.

Over time, once you've offset the cost of buying it,

this is actually the most efficient.

Peter, thank you.

Back to lipsticks now.

Earlier, our lab tests showed you don't always need to spend

a fortune to get the best long-lasting performance.

But how will our lipsticks cope where it really matters,

in the real world?

Yes, we're talking wine, brass musical instruments

and of course the obligatory kiss test.

Meet Katie, Caitlin, Chloe and Verity.

These lucky ladies have some very fun tests ahead of them.

# Je t'aime. #

As does this lucky man,

who will be the subject of our Watchdog Test House kissathon.

OK. Enough of that.

Grant's actually one of our team and he needs to get back to work.

Chop chop. First, our volunteers need to apply the lipsticks.

Katie is wearing our most expensive product at £20.

The Estee Lauder Double Wear Stay-in-Place lipstick.

Verity is applying the mid-range Revlon ColourStay Ultimate Suede

which cost £8.99.

Chloe has the cheapest product, Miss Sporty Perfect Colour, at £2.59.

And Caitlin is wearing the product which makes no long-lasting claims,

the Maybelline Colour Sensational which costs about £6.50.

As for this machine, Dr Laura is using it to measure what shade of red

is on their lips at the beginning of the test.

She'll check each colour again at the end of the test

to see if it's changed.

So, let's get down to business. Pucker up, ladies.

MUSIC: "Kiss" by Prince

-Hello.

-First up, the most expensive lipstick, the Estee Lauder.

You can see some of that expensive lipstick

has come off onto your face.

So, it's not doing too well so far.

How about the mid-range product, the Revlon?

Now, the mid-range product has done well.

I can't see any marks at all on your face.

The Revlon survived the kiss test. But will the cheapish product

claiming to be long-lasting, the Miss Sporty, leave its mark?

Wow. A lot has come off there.

That doesn't look very good, does it?

-It doesn't look good at all.

-Uh-oh. Not looking good for Miss Sporty.

Finally, on to the lipstick which makes no claims about being

long-lasting, the Maybelline.

Can't see any. Can't see any at all on there.

That's done really well, actually.

So, after the kiss test, the mid-range Revlon lipstick

and the Maybelline which makes no claims about being long-lasting

are in the lead.

Phew. After that experience, our ladies need a drink...

which brings us to our next test.

The wine glass test. We've cracked open

some of the finest nonalcoholic wine that money can buy.

Each of the girls takes a sip

and Dr Laura checks the glasses for traces of lipstick.

Three out of the four products perform well -

the mid-range Revlon, the cheapest product, the Miss Sporty,

and the product that makes no claims, the Maybelline.

As for the priciest Estee Lauder lipstick...

We can see clearly some of it has transferred onto the glass there.

So, the most expensive of our products, the Estee Lauder,

is actually doing the worst out of all of the lipsticks

after our wine glass test.

So, to our final test. Which one's that again?

Oh, yeah. Exactly. Our trumpet test. Didn't I say?

Verity, Chloe, Caitlin and Katie are all members of a trumpet quartet.

Cue Bach's Three Fugues. Let's see if the lipsticks will survive this.

Wonderful. Our girls have performed brilliantly,

but what about the lipsticks?

-First up, the Estee Lauder.

-You can see there's some residue on there.

Some has transferred from your lips onto there and some has also

transferred back onto your face as well,

so it really hasn't done so well, your product.

Next, our leader so far, the mid-range Revlon.

-Looking...

-Can't see any.

-..really good. Can't see any on there at all.

Still going strong. But how about our cheapest, Miss Sporty?

I can see a tiny bit on there.

Unfortunately, I can see some on your face, so it has transferred.

Doing OK, but a little bit smudgy.

Finally, to our product which makes no claims, the Maybelline.

-How does it look?

-It looks good. It looks fine, actually.

There's a tiny bit.

But now we're going to get a more scientific view on how well

the lipsticks have done.

Dr Laura is back with her colour measuring machine.

Let's see which lipstick has retained their colour the best

after all our tests.

What we've found is that our most expensive one,

even though we lost a lot through transfer,

there was quite a bit left on the lips at the end,

so when we took the redness reading, they were still quite right.

So, after losing in every other real-life test, at last,

a win for the Estee Lauder product.

Even though the most lipstick came off,

it's retained its colour better than any of the others.

But the Revlon came a close second.

And as it won all the other tests

and is less than half the price of the more expensive product,

it's three cheers to Revlon, our mid-range product.

Back now to cycle helmets

and earlier we saw how wearing one saved James Cracknell's life.

So, how rigorously are they tested? Let's find out.

Any bicycle helmet on sale in this country has to meet

European standards and all products which comply

with these standards are legally allowed to bear the CE mark.

The danger of wearing a helmet that's not been assessed

is that the helmet may not comply

and the impact when falling off a push-bike

may cause significant damage to the brain.

For the purposes of today's test, we've chosen

one of the most expensive helmets we could find on the market

and one of the cheapest.

How will they perform in some of the tests which make up

the European standard?

First up, the strap strength test.

The outcome of the test is designed to prevent trauma to the throat

because the strap may be too strong

and not give enough in the event of a helmet being wrenched.

So we're going to drop a mass on the end of the neck strap

and see how much it instantaneously gives

and then how much it springs back again.

Both helmets have enough flexibility in their strap

not to pose a danger, so they both pass this test.

The next test we're going to do is the impact test.

We're going to drop a helmet from about 1½m onto an anvil.

This simulates someone coming off their bike

and hitting the curb or some hard object

at a speed of somewhere in the region of 10mph.

We're looking for an impact energy of less than 250G.

250G is 250 times the strength of gravity.

That might sound a lot, but the human body can withstand this,

as long as it's for a very short period of time.

And that's not all.

The test makes sure helmets comply with the standard

in hot, cold and wet weather conditions.

That means heating...

soaking...

and cooling three versions of the exact same helmet before testing.

So, the benchmark is an impact energy of less than 250G.

Anything above that is a failure.

How will these helmets perform?

The heated sample of each helmet is up first.

The cheaper helmet has an impact energy of 80G.

The more expensive, 97G.

They're both well within the limit and they both pass.

Next up are the chilled helmets.

Again, they're both under the 250G limit. Another pass.

Finally, the soaked helmets are put to the test.

Again, it's a pass.

They all passed. They're all less than 250G

which means that they would have protected you from too much damage

to your brain during an impact.

However, the damage to the helmet is such that you would need to

replace these. You can see there's quite a lot of damage inside.

They protected the cyclist from injury, but they won't do it again

and we need to replace the helmet before going out on your bike again.

The final test is the effectiveness of retention test.

This is designed to determine

whether the straps hold the helmet in place firmly enough.

If the helmet comes off the head, it's bad news.

But again, they both pass this test.

If you want more information on the safety of products in your home,

you can go to our website...

That's all for today. Thanks for watching.