Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) doesn’t make or sell lights or trees or garland or giftwrap, but it has long been and continues to be one of the most powerful forces in the Christmas business.

The independent non-profit corporation is the best-known and most widely used testing laboratory for electrical products in the United States.

Although the Christmas industry — of which lighting is an important component — has grown to appreciate that the familiar UL label assures consumers the products that bear it are safe, many manufacturers and importers grouse that some standards are too extreme and testing procedures too difficult to recreate.

And currently, with outdoor lighting so popular and new products and technologies at the fore, the role of UL and its relationship with the industry may be changing. Whereas once light strings comprised the largest segment of holiday lighting products and most of them were UL listed, now two of the industry’s hottest lighting products, fiberoptic trees and full-sized pre-lit trees (those taller than 30 inches) are never UL listed.

SCD talked to representatives of UL as well as Christmas industry suppliers and retailers about the lab’s role in the holiday décor industry in 2003. 

Everyone Loves Safety

Founded by electrical inspector William Henry Merrill after a series of Chicago fires in 1893, UL quickly grew into a bustling product-testing laboratory, first evaluating Christmas tree lights in 1905. Today UL, headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., is an international operation with affiliates across the globe, testing everything from electrical products to building materials. In 2001 UL conducted 108,296 product evaluations in 47 laboratory, testing and certification facilities.

Manufacturers voluntarily submit products and pay a fee to UL to have them certified; no one forces manufactures to get UL approval. But there are some jurisdictions in the U.S., such as in the Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles areas, where a UL mark is required in order to sell certain products. Also, many U.S. retailers have a written or unwritten rule of only carrying electrical products with the UL label. Canada requires certification of electrical products by an approved testing lab.

UL 588 is the set of UL standards that covers seasonal and holiday decorative products. It covers seasonal decorative lighting products and accessories up to 120 volts. These are considered “temporary use” products not used for more than 90 days. UL 588 is currently on its 18th edition. The 17th, released in the late 1990s, included major changes, most notably upping the thickness required for light string wiring. Other changes included new standards for wire insulation and plastics and new tests for vibration, flexing and heat cycling.

“Our standard focuses on safety: fire hazards, electrical shorts,” explains John Drengenberg, manager of consumer affairs for UL. He disputes the widely held notion in the industry that UL’s seasonal standards are more stringent than others. But consumer habits such as rolling strings up and putting them in cold attics for storage, stringing too many together, and placing them in close proximity to flammable decorative materials, must be considered in evaluating the products, he notes.  

UL 588 standards are set by a group that includes UL engineers as well as manufacturers, government officials and municipal inspectors, Drengenberg says, but comments and suggestions are always welcome from outside the committee. Christmas industry committee members have included representatives from Toyo, Soyang, GE, Hallmark and Sears. UL also works with groups such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the National Fire Safety Association (NFSA). American National Standard Institute (ANSI) serves as an umbrella organization over UL, Drengenberg notes, making sure the process of developing a standard is appropriate. 

Toeing the Line

But not everyone sees UL standards as a “we” document. Rather, UL is viewed by some as a monolithic enterprise that imposes standards out of touch with real safety thresholds.

“Underwriters Laboratories is a very respected institution outside the Christmas business, but inside it’s one of the least respected,” says one importer, who asked to remain anonymous. “They’ve got a thing for Christmas light manufacturers and have made their lives miserable for the last four or five years with the changes in UL regulations.”

Changes in wire gauge re-quirements were already burdensome, he says. Then, “when they changed the standard again a year or two ago they put a lot of manufacturers out of business, or they consolidated into larger manufacturers, because the machinery needed to test what they’re looking for cost $1 million dollars” and the time limit to implement was very short. “UL has a way of making things convenient for themselves and not the manufacturers,” while not being accountable to anyone, he says.

Complain, the importer says, and manufacturers can kiss expedited applications goodbye, as well as boost the level of scrutiny.

Some tests are difficult for manufacturers to reproduce, says a close observer of UL, such as the rain test for outdoor lights that involves distilled water and salt. Results are therefore inconsistent, he notes. Drengenberg says test requirements are very explicit and no changes are planned for the test.

Others point to approved products that seem questionable. “There is a particular light set that got UL approval, where when you pull the bulb out there is a dead short,” says Brian Love, vice president and general manager of Santa’s Own. “Sometimes they’re not as tough as they should be.”

It was a single whistle-blower, the anonymous importer says, that contacted UL about icicle lights a few years ago, a call that resulted in the seizure of containers arriving from overseas and seriously impacting market availability. UL, he charges, focuses its attention on such fast-growth products for scrutiny, not necessarily in proportion to the risks they pose.

The importer would like to see another third-party testing organization rise to the level of clout possessed by UL, to complete and prevent UL from monopolizing the category.

On the other hand, UL is valued for its ability to keep products safe and the playing field level.

“I see them as quite valuable,” says John DeCosmo, president of Ulta-Lit Tree Co. “Their greatest challenge is looking at every possible way [a product] will get used” since you “can’t control what the consumer will do.” He feels the UL standard is the gold standard.  

Pre-lit and Fiberoptics       

Perhaps the biggest Christmas industry controversy regarding UL has to do with fiberoptic trees and full-sized pre-lit trees. No trees in these categories have been UL certified.

Manufacturers contend that the light strings incorporated into pre-lit trees by manufacturers are almost always UL approved, and some argue that pre-lit trees are actually safer than trees with lights put on by consumers. “In most cases it’s done better by the factory. There’s more control, no sharp points,” and the tree is not of inferior quality, says a UL observer.

The decision at a UL 588 standards development session not to certify taller pre-lit trees was based in part by the recommendations of fire officials on the standards development committee, says Drengenberg, due to the bulkiness of larger trees. “A smaller tree that was sparking could be picked up and carried outside,” he explains, while a larger tree could not. It’s the combination of the light string and the tree that poses flammability issues, he states. If they relented, he argues, that would degrade the value of the UL mark.

No pre-lit trees are listed on the CPSC Web site as causing injuries or requiring recalls. UL’s Drengenberg notes, however, that pre-lit trees are still fairly new in the market. “As time goes by, the trees will become older and more brittle, and be more susceptible to promoting flame.” Somewhere down the road, he predicts, “there will be an issue with a fire or, God forbid, the loss of human life. The attorney will ask the manufacturer if the product was certified by UL and he’ll say it couldn’t be certified. Can you imagine 12 jurors hearing that?” 

Fiberoptics Issues  

As for fiberoptics, the problem is “the thermo-plastic material does propagate flame rather readily,” Drengenberg says. Specifically, the trees cannot pass the downward-burning-rate test. This test is used to determine how quickly a product would burn if it caught fire, either as a result of its own malfunction or by catching fire from some other source. Lack of fire retardant on the fibers themselves is the reason the trees cannot pass.

The conclusion has dissuaded some, including Ulta-Lit’s DeCosmo, from carrying fiberoptic trees. Yes, he admits, “it’s a lost opportunity, but it’s a firm decision” because of safety. “If you take a cigarette lighter to a piece of fiberoptic you’ll begin to understand. That product defies what artificial trees have always been about, being flame retardant.”

Many manufacturers, however, say it would be very difficult to coat fiberoptic strands with enough material to pass 588 flammability tests, and that these products are designed to shut themselves off if they overheat. Fire retardant is not clear and would obscure the light conducted by the fiberoptic strand.

They emphasize that in the case of reputable fiberoptic tree vendors, a key component of the trees — the adaptor — is UL listed although the trees themselves are not. They note also that the trees offered by well-known industry leaders contain quality motors, heavy-gauge color wheels and, in the case of trees 48-inches and taller, cooling fans to prevent overheating.

Fiberoptic trees have been on the market for a number of years. Nine incidents, with no injuries, have been reported to the CPSC. Ulta-Lit’s DeCosmo, however, feels in time this will change. Established manufacturers themselves point out that the category’s popularity has attracted less exacting makers whose trees may not be as well made as their own.

In December 2000 the CPSC publicized a recall of 9,000 three-foot fiberoptic trees sold by Walgreen Co., Deerfield, Ill. and supplied by Atico International, based in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The voluntary recall was due to two reports of color wheels overheating and melting, with no injuries. Walgreens changed fiberoptic tree factories after the recall, according to company spokesperson Carol Hively.

What frustrates some manufacturers is the seeming contradiction in UL’s regard for fiberoptics. “If you have a portable novelty lamp, say with a UFO theme, that sits on a table, you are able to get UL certification,” says the UL observer. “But if it’s a Santa theme, it becomes a UL 588 product and would not be able to be listed” because it won’t meet 588’s flammability standards, even though it’s probably used for a much shorter period.

Observations of contradiction are correct, Drengenberg says. “There are different regulations because of the way the product is used. Seasonal products are used at certain times of year and in and around numerous combustibles, so the requirements are different.” He likens the distinction to another product, ultrasonic cleaners. Those used for jewelry, he says, have a different standard than those used for dentures because the latter are worn in the mouth.

Outsiders contend there are differences among UL staffers on issues such as certifying taller trees and holding 588 products to a higher standard.

And there may actually be some advantages to having no certification, points out Santa’s Own’s Love. “It would be a pain in the neck if every time we designed a new Christmas tree” incorporating lights it would have to be submitted to UL. 

Going a Different Route

The lack of certification for these products has driven some manufacturers into the arms of another product-testing lab.

Frustrated by the lack of available UL certification for fiberoptic trees, Lenny Finkel, vice president of Bradford Novelty Co., hired Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Entela, Inc., to test his trees. Like UL and 27 other labs, Entela is an OSHA-certified (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). He was also motivated by Canadian requirements for certification. Entela tested and certified the trees based on UL and CSA (Canadian Standards Association) standards. Bradford touted the certification heavily in trade advertising.

“I like to sleep at night,” Finkel says. “We’re considered the leaders in the quality end of the business,” and certification will help ensure that position. “In the event someone else’s tree is recalled, I can say ours are tested.” Retailers are happier being able to assure customers of product safety, he adds.

Other manufacturers obtaining Entela certification for fiberoptic trees include National Tree and Puleo International.

While Entela works from UL 588 and Canadian CSA 37 standards, they approach the testing in a different way, says Nick Maalouf, vice president of the firm. Entela conducts the downward burn test on the electrical components themselves, not on the components together with the tree. “There is no logic that says the tree must be tested,” he notes — just as UL tests light strings but not the blue spruces they may be used on. “You don’t need to do the downward burn test on the tree if you do all the necessary tests on the source of fire. The tree itself is not a source of fire.”

He says Entela actually goes beyond the standard where they see a need, such as the stability test that says the tree must not tip over if pushed five degrees off a horizontal plane. In real life, Maalouf says, the tree is likely to be pushed all the way over, and they make sure fire would not result even then.

Maalouf and many manufacturers suggest that UL’s long history in testing has resulted in some contradictions. “Throughout the years they set a lot of precedents that they can’t really change” even after they see the illogic in them, he says. “In many cases they do not make decisions because of safety, but they can’t say it’s for political or economic reasons.”

UL is leaving a lot of money on the table by refusing fiberoptic tree certification, Finkel says, and he continually asks for addition of the category since the UL label is so well known. That business — and all categories of Christmas décor testing — is what Entela and other labs are hoping to capture by challenging UL on service, says Maalouf. “You do have a choice.”

Still, others want to see UL change. “If a product is that high in consumer demand, seemingly UL would work out an endorsement,” agrees Wayne Bronner, president and CEO of Bronner’s Christmas Wonderland, Frankenmuth, Mich. He wishes there were a way to at least test the relative safety of one pre-lit or fiberoptic tree compared to another. 

Retailers and Consumers

So if UL certification is optional — and kind of a pain — why do manufacturers participate? The short answer is market pressure.

Consumers expect retailers to sell safe products, and retailers in turn expect this of their vendors. So manufacturers are under pressure to comply with a certification process that ensures this. Christmas light sets “are one of the areas where the public is most cognizant of the UL mark,” says Drengenberg.

Wal-Mart, Bentonville, Ark., says it “puts a lot of value in UL ratings,” according to spokesperson Sarah Clark. “They are extremely important in setting standards for product usage to ensure safety.”

Observers differ on whether they believe consumers deliberately seek out the UL label on Christmas merchandise. But most concur that shoppers feel retailers play a role in ensuring the safety of the products they sell. “We feel consumers believe if a product is on our shelves it is safe when used properly,” says Walgreens spokesperson Hively.

Wayne Bronner says the market contains both UL-aware consumers and those more focused on price than safety ratings — that’s why he carries both UL and non-UL light strings. “We buy from reputable vendors” to ensure they are properly made, says Bronner, noting that displaying the pre-lit and fiberoptic trees year round in the firm’s store actually works as a kind of test of their long-term durability and safety. He has never experienced any problems with the trees.

The retailer’s role as gatekeeper is not so clear-cut, however. For one, UL regulations are constantly changing, and few buyers have the time to keep themselves up to date. Also, not every buyer may realize that while part of a product may bear the UL stamp, say the adapter, another, part may not. UL says it’s undertaken a “UL 101” campaign to educate retailers about its certifications.

Second, it can be tough to hold to UL-only pledges when there is a hot new Christmas product in great demand by consumers. Importers say they’ve seen buyers look the other way when a sought-after product lacks UL listing.

At Reading, Penn.-based Boscov’s, UL is important evidence of a product’s safety and a hedge against liability concerns, says Stan Zajac, buyer. Lack of certification can be a difficult issue. “In some cases we will accept a product without UL because it’s not required,” he says. Fiberoptic trees, for example, “have become a prominent part of the industry and the most growing category,” he notes.

Says Zajac of UL, “in most cases they do a good job, but in others cases they are overzealous.”

Walgreens has a similar stance. Says spokesperson Hively: “If a product is not listed and there is a current standard on it, we won’t buy it.” However, since “there is no standard on the fiberoptic tree as a unit…no one has an approved tree” and Walgreens does carry them.  

Shorter Timetables

Due to the length of the certification process, approval can be stalled in UL bureaucracy just as buyers need to make their purchase decisions. Some tests, says Drengenberg, simply take time, such as a 14-day plastics aging test.

UL itself acknowledges its processes have not kept pace with the shorter time-to-market demanded in many industries. A new president brought in from the for-profit world in 2001, Loring Knoblauch, says the organization is seeking ways to shorten cycle times and reduce costs, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. He called his own organization too paternalistic, top heavy and laden with too many layers of management. In fact, a few months after joining UL, he cut 375 jobs, but pledged to replace the time-eating system of assigning one engineer for every aspect of a project to breaking projects by functional area, such as order taking, engineering and invoicing. That change has been implemented elsewhere and was due to be enacted in U.S. labs by the end of 2002.

But only paperwork can be accelerated, notes Drengenberg. “You cannot speed up testing. All requirements must be passed.”

Some critics have cast aspersions on the veracity of UL procedures themselves. Lawrence Booth, partner with Booth & Koskoff, Torrance, Calif., sued UL a few years ago on behalf of a small child injured in a fire he contends was caused by faulty light strings. The suit was settled out of court, but in an article published on FindLaw.com in October 1999, he calls UL a legal monopoly and says as a result of massive discovery, he found issues of concern. For example, he says, because many light strings are manufactured via cottage industries out of people’s homes, he contends, “there is little or no quality control,” and “it is nearly impossible for the UL standards to be complied with,” casting doubts, without any particular proof, that the process is corrupted. “UL relies on the honesty and integrity of these people who work in a country in which bribery is standard.”

The importers who spoke to SCD refute accusations against the integrity of their overseas factory partners. “The factories I deal with have hundreds of approvals,” says Santa’s Own’s Love. Although the work is done at home, “they still have to pass the quality control check and be made the right way.”

And UL steadfastly defends its overseas operations. “Our own people supervise the inspection staff and go on inspections with the inspection staff,” says Drengenberg. The process is identical to what occurs in the U.S. “There is the same level of observation until we detect something going wrong. Then we increase the level of inspections.”

So What Now?

If retailers and consumers come to accept electrical Christmas décor items without UL certification, doesn’t this degrade the value of the UL mark in the category?

That’s up to retailers to decide.

Drengenberg believes the lack of certification for taller pre-lit and fiberoptic trees “shows the power of the UL mark. It’s not just given out because consumers want to buy the product.”

UL’s importance is actually increasing in the Christmas industry, says Sal Puleo Jr., vice president of National Tree Co., because “most products are moving toward electrical.”

But others point to the market success of products not bearing a UL mark, including some rice lights, several makes of mini-light strings, as well as fiberoptic and taller pre-lits.

The power of UL is clear — the fact that some sources didn’t want to be named when criticizing the organization is itself testimony to their power. So the Christmas industry’s love-hate relationship with UL is likely to continue in the same style — grateful for the endorsements that help sell their holiday products, but frustrated with the standards and processes entailed in attaining that certification.