Oliver Gorman

British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association  
1 Viewpoint Office Village 
Babbage Road 
Stevenage  
Hertfordshire 
SG1 2EQ 

www.bama.co.uk 

18th December 2025 

Andrew Bridgman 
HM Coroner 
Manchester South 
By e-mail  

Dear Mr Bridgman 

BAMA response to Regulation 28 Report – Re: Oliver Gorman 

Established in 1961, the British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association (BAMA) represents the whole 
aerosol  industry  supply  chain.  From  component  suppliers  and  ingredient  manufacturers  to 
machinery makers, fillers and marketers of aerosol products. BAMA membership counts over 90 
businesses ranging from individual consultancies to multinational corporations.  

BAMA and the wider aerosol industry were deeply saddened to learn of Oliver Gorman's tragic death.  
Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this challenging time. 

 products are used by millions of people 
Safety is a key priority for the aerosol industry. 
every day and are subject to rigorous safety assessments and clear labelling before they are placed 
on  the  market.  However,  when  misuse  occurs  through  deliberate  inhalation,  these  products  can 
become  harmful.  The  industry  cares  deeply  about  this  issue  and  has  worked  for  many  years  to 
reduce incidents. 

Deaths directly attributable to the inappropriate inhalation of 
 are rare. BAMA supports and 
works closely with Re-Solv, a charity set up to help those using gases and solvents. Figures obtained 
by Re-Solv* from the Office of National Statistics show that there were three such deaths in 2024.  
In the UK, sales of aerosol dispensers in 2024 exceeded six hundred million units.  

BAMA  believes  that  providing  information  and  education  on 
  safety  is  essential  and  is 
committed to ensuring that aerosol marketers provide prominent caution marks on pack, which we 
believe would be more effective than imposing age restrictions on the sale of 
. Since the 
late 1990s, BAMA has asked those placing aerosols on the UK market to add a voluntary caution 
mark alongside the product information, in addition to the legally required text, that reads “Solvent 
Abuse Can Kill Instantly” (SACKI). 

A Company limited by Guarantee Registered at Cardiff No. 1763228 

A2       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Earlier this year, following work with Re-Solv, academia, and consumers on the changing use of 
language, BAMA updated its advice. It proposed an alternative mark that reads: “Intentional misuse 
can kill instantly. Do not deliberately inhale”  along  with  suggested  wording  for  an  additional 
cautionary statement. There is also a recommendation regarding where this mark should be placed 
to make it more prominent to users. More details can be found below or on the BAMA website. 

Like  other  household  products,  aerosols  are  safe  when  used  according  to  the  manufacturer's 
instructions.  Products  are  tested  to  ensure  they  comply  with  all  relevant  regulations  and  are 
labelled,  as  a  minimum,  in  accordance  with  those  regulations.  We  believe  that  the  labelling  of 
products, as detailed above, is the best way to raise awareness of the potential dangers of misusing 
an aerosol, including for parents and those caring for young people. 

Currently, most aerosols on sale in the UK carry the SACKI mark.  BAMA has promoted and will 
continue to promote the existing and updated caution labels, encouraging all those placing aerosols 
on the UK market to apply them, even if the aerosol does not have the potential to be misused. We 
understand that many brand owners and marketers who are currently using the SACKI mark plan 
to adopt the new caution mark.  BAMA is working closely with industry to encourage the speedy 
uptake of this. 

As aerosol dispensers are ubiquitous household products used for a wide variety of applications, 
from air fresheners and hairsprays to deodorants and insecticides, we believe that by improving on-
pack labelling and highlighting the potential risks of misuse, age restrictions are unnecessary in the 
retail environment.   We believe providing information and education at the point of use is better 
than at the point of sale.  However, BAMA has and will continue to work with retailers to ensure they 
are fully aware of the potential for aerosols to be misused. 

We note the coroner's reference to TikTok challenges. BAMA will write to social media companies to 
raise awareness of this problem and to encourage them to remove dangerous content. BAMA would 
also like to offer any assistance it can to UK regulators to help them combat the posting of this kind 
of material. 

*www.re-solv.org    Founded in 1984, Re-Solv works to reduce the harms caused by volatile substance abuse 
(‘VSA’ or ‘solvent abuse’) and the misuse of other legal substances across the UK. 

Your sincerely 

Chief Executive 

A Company limited by Guarantee Registered at Cardiff No. 1763228 

A3 
 
 
                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inhalation Caution Mark 

Since  the  SACKI  mark  was  introduced  in  1997,  discussions  with  academia,  a  Re-Solv  report  on 
Language and Stigma, and consumer research conducted in the cosmetic and toiletries sector have 
all indicated that, in the UK, the way language is used has changed.  To reflect these changes, BAMA 
has developed a new caution mark and statement that can be used to provide additional detail on 
the potential problems which can arise if the aerosol dispenser is not used in accordance with the 
manufacturer’s instructions. 

Intentional misuse can  

kill instantly 

Do not deliberately inhale 

Caution Statement 

Caution: Use only as directed. Do not spray directly into the mouth or nose.  Do not deliberately, 
directly  inhale,  as  this  misuse  can  be  harmful  or  fatal  for  all  ages.  Use  in  short  bursts  in  well-
ventilated places.  Avoid prolonged spraying.  

Other product-specific user instructions may be included. 

Location and Colour of the Caution 

Location - It is recommended that the caution mark be placed in the top two-thirds of the back of the 
pack copy to ensure that it is noticed by the consumer. 

Colour - The background to the text of the caution mark should be white, or in a contrasting colour 
to the primary pack colour, to ensure the warning is as visible as possible.  The caution mark should 
be surrounded by a contrasting border to increase visibility against other pack copy. A red border 
must not be used, as this may cause confusion with statutory CLP labelling. 

A Company limited by Guarantee Registered at Cardiff No. 1763228 

A4

Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts 
Department for Culture, Media and Sport 
1st Floor 
100 Parliament Street 
London SW1A 2BQ 

6 January 2026 

Mr Andrew Bridgman 
HM Assistant Coroner for Manchester South 

Dear Mr Bridgman, 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report of 4 November regarding the death of Oliver Luke Gorman. I 
am responding as the Minister for Advertising, and I would like to pass on my sincere condolences to 
the family and friends of Oliver for their loss. I would also like to apologise for the delay in our response 
to you. 

I can confirm that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) leads on online 
safety. My colleague at the department, Minister 
is best placed to respond to you on this tragic incident, and will be writing to you regarding this within 
the statutory timeframe. 

, Minister for AI and Online Safety in DSIT, 

Thank you again for your important contribution to this issue. 

Yours sincerely, 

Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts 

A1

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation 
and Technology 
22-26 Whitehall 
London SW1A 2EG 

www.gov.uk/dsit 

17 December 2025 

Andrew Bridgman  
Assistant Coroner  
Coroner's Court  
1 Mount Tabor Street  
Stockport  
SK1 3AG  

Dear Mr Bridgman,   

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future 
Deaths dated 4 November 2025, regarding the devastating death of Oliver Gorman. Since taking 
up my role as Secretary of State for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, 
I have been actively reviewing the issues you have raised in your report, and I am grateful to you for 
bringing them to my attention.   

First and foremost, I want to express my deepest condolences to Oliver’s family and friends. 
Every death is a tragedy, but it is especially harrowing when it involves someone so young, and with 
their whole life ahead of them. The circumstances of Oliver’s death are profoundly concerning, and I will 
ensure your report informs the government’s considerations on how we strengthen online safety for 
everyone - particularly for children. I also want to assure you that I will be working across government 
with all relevant Secretaries of State to see what more we can do to stop these very tragic 
incidents happening.  

As you will be aware, the Online Safety Act received Royal Assent in October 2023. This landmark 
legislation lays the foundation for strong protections against illegal content for all users and 
harmful material, particularly for children. The independent regulator for online safety under the Act is 
Ofcom.   

The illegal content duties have been in force since March. This means that all companies in scope need 
to take steps to prevent users from encountering illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services 
and remove such content swiftly when identified (once aware that it has been uploaded).   

The Act delivers important protections for children. Since July, the child safety duties have required all 
regulated user-to-user services and search services in scope of the Act that are likely to be accessed 
by children to protect them from harmful content.  Sadly, Oliver’s death occurred before these duties 
came into force, but I want to set out how I hope the safeguards now in place will prevent tragedies like 
this in the future.  

 to experience a ‘buzz’. Your report stated that this trend is widespread 

Content that is harmful to children can be categorised as either ‘Primary Priority Content’, ‘Priority 
Content’ or ‘non-designated content’. Your report highlighted evidence from Oliver’s school, detailing a 
trend of inhaling 
on social media and was a ‘challenge’ that you note was disseminated through TikTok. The Act 
explicitly defines ‘Priority Content’ as including content which encourages a person to ingest, inject, 
inhale or in any other way self-administer a physically harmful substance or a substance in such a 
quantity as to be physically harmful. ‘Priority Content’ also includes content defined as content which 
encourages, promotes or provides instructions for a challenge (or stunt) highly likely to result in serious 
injury to the person who does it.   

A6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Platforms such as TikTok must protect children from ‘Priority Content’, while search services have a 
duty to minimise the likelihood that children in age groups encounter harmful content when searching 
online.   

Ofcom recommends that services which are at medium or high risk of Priority Content and allow 
this type of content on their service should use highly-effective age assurance to determine whether 
children are on these parts of the service and put in place appropriate access or content controls. 

Your report noted concerns about Oliver being bullied. While you evidence that this was not a factor in 
Oliver’s death, it is worth highlighting that the Act also defines ‘Priority Content’ to include bullying, 
abusive, or hateful content. Services in-scope of the Act must also take steps to protect children 
from this type of content online.   

We are also applying more robust duties on services in respect of the most harmful types of content 
(‘primary priority content’), which includes pornography or content that encourages, promotes or 
provides instructions for suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, and must prevent children from 
encountering such content by using highly effective age assurance.   

Your report references algorithms on social media services. Under the Act, providers must assess how 
algorithms may amplify children’s exposure to illegal or harmful content and take action to reduce risks, 
including for ‘priority content’. If a risk assessment identifies that habit-forming or addictive behaviour 
(resulting from the design of the service) could cause significant harm to children, providers must 
implement measures to mitigate and manage this risk. The Act also makes clear that harm can arise 
from how content is disseminated — for example, when an algorithm repeatedly pushes large volumes 
of content to a child in a short period.  

Services likely to be accessed by children must also provide simple, effective reporting tools for harmful 
content and respond quickly.   

In relation to minimum age limits for access to online services - 13 years-old is commonly the age social 
media services set as a minimum age. 13 is the digital age of consent in the UK – the age at which a 
child can consent to their data being processed by online services. This age reflects what was 
considered at the time the digital age of consent legislation passed to be the right balance between 
enabling young people to participate online and ensuring their data is protected. Any change to this age 
threshold would require a formal process, including public consultation, to ensure that the views of all 
relevant stakeholders such as parents, children, industry, and regulators are fully considered before any 
legislative amendments are made. 

The OSA does not require services to set a minimum age limit. However, Ofcom notes that if a service 
has a minimum age limit set (as most social media services do) and is not using highly-effective age 
assurance to enforce this, then they should assume younger children are using their service and apply 
protections accordingly. This should help ensure that younger children also have age-appropriate online 
experiences.  

Your report references that the challenge or practice of recreationally inhaling deodorant spray was 
known to be shared on TikTok. However, your report also notes that it was not possible to access 
Oliver’s mobile phone to determine whether he had been viewing content about dangerous stunts or 
challenges before his death. It would be helpful to understand further what issues you had accessing 
Oliver’s phone. It is of utmost importance to me that coroners do not face undue barriers when it comes 
to preserving or accessing social media data in these tragic circumstances, and so if you wanted 
to provide further details on why you were unable to access his phone, I would be happy to ensure we 
look into this further.   

As you will likely already be aware, there are existing provisions in the OSA to aid coroners with 
preservation and access of social media data. Under the OSA, Ofcom can issue information notices at 
the coroner’s request, requiring services to provide data where a coroner feels it is relevant to an 
investigation. Since September 2025, Ofcom has also had the power to issue Data Preservation 
Notices, if requested by coroners, which require services to preserve a child’s data so it cannot 
be deleted or altered during an investigation. I hope that these powers will make a material difference 

A7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 for you and other coroners in being able to access and preserve social media data, where it may have 
played a part in a child’s death.   

If a platform fails to respond to a Notice, Ofcom can take tough enforcement action - including fines of 
up to 10% of the companies' qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. I expect 
Ofcom to use all its enforcement powers to hold platforms accountable where they are failing 
to meet their duties under the OSA, including in these circumstances.   

The government’s mission is clear: children must grow up safe, protected, and free from online harms. I 
will work relentlessly across government, alongside other Secretaries of State, to prevent tragedies like 
this from ever happening again. The Online Safety Act is a critical tool in achieving that goal. The 
protections outlined above are now fully in force, and we are already seeing real tangible improvements 
in how children experience the online world. But let me be absolutely clear—this is only the beginning. 
These protections are a foundation from which we will build on if required. My department is 
working closely with Ofcom to track the impact of the Act, and their flexible approach means we can 
respond quickly to new and emerging risks. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to strengthen 
child safety measures. We will do whatever it takes to ensure children are protected online.   

Yours sincerely, 

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology 

A8

Office for Product Safety and Standards
Multistory, 
18 The Priory Queensway, 
Birmingham. 
B4 6TF 

                                        Ref: 

      17 December 2025 

Dear Mr Bridgman,

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report (Prevention of Future Deaths) dated 4 
November 2025, prepared following your investigation and inquest into the death of 
Oliver Luke Gorman. Your report states Mr Gorman died on 5 May 2025 following 
inhalation of butane gas from an aerosol deodorant. I am responding on behalf of the 
Department for Business and Trade in my role as Chief Executive of the Office for 
Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), which is part of the Department. OPSS is the 
UK’s national product regulator, responsible for the regulation of most consumer 
goods except food, vehicles, and medical products.

May I first say how sorry I was to hear of Oliver's death. If you have the opportunity, 
please convey my deepest sympathy to his family. I recognise the devastating harms 
that misuse of these products can cause, and, like you, I am aware of other tragic 
deaths of young people caused by inhalation of substances in aerosol products.

In responding to the matters of concern raised in your report, I would firstly like to 
explain how aerosol safety is regulated under the Aerosol Dispensers Regulations 
2009. These regulations set out requirements for placing aerosols, including 
deodorants, on the UK market. This includes affixing a compliance mark (UKCA in 
Great Britain or the reversed epsilon in Northern Ireland) to confirm the product 
meets the relevant product safety requirements which includes mitigating risks 
associated with inhalation of the dispenser’s contents. Aerosols must also meet 
aerosol-specific labelling requirements under the classification, labelling and 
packaging of chemicals legislation. This includes warnings and precautionary 
statements, such as ‘keep out of the reach of children,’ where they are relevant to the 
aerosol product.

Where evidence is available to OPSS regarding products that pose a safety risk or 
do not comply with the law, we and Local Authority Trading Standards have powers 
to enforce the law and remove products from the market. As a risk-based, evidence-
led regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards gathers data on product-
related harms from a range of sources, including notifications from local authorities 
and other regulators about safety issues involving consumer products. We have 
reviewed these notifications to OPSS and found no reports since 2022 of non-
The Office for Product Safety and Standards is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 
We strive to enhance protections for consumers and the environment and drive increased productivity, growth 
and business confidence. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-product-safety-and-standards                  1

A9 
 compliant or unsafe aerosol deodorants. We have also examined available 
information from the National Child Mortality Database, which gathers reviews of all 
child deaths in England. 

In your report, you raise three matters of concern. I address those within the remit of 
OPSS below:

1. Age restrictions

Your report expressed a concern about the absence of an age limit on the sale of 
aerosol deodorants (unlike aerosol paints and butane for cigarette lighters). To 
address the dangers from products that might be abused, the Psychoactive 
Substances Act 2016 makes it an offence to supply a product containing a 
psychoactive substance to a person whilst knowing or being reckless about whether 
it is likely to be consumed for its psychoactive effect. Guidance published by 
government and trade associations, such as the Association of Convenience Stores, 
supports retailers to fulfil these responsibilities, and retailers should make sure they 
are aware of the potential uses of such products so they can effectively exercise their 
responsibilities in law.

Local Authority Trading Standards also support retailers to prevent misuse and 
protect children, through advice to retailers on refusing sales when misuse is 
suspected, conducting voluntary age checks and spotting red flags, such as unusual 
or repeated purchasing patterns.

You suggested an age limit on the purchase of aerosol products would help raise 
awareness among parents and caregivers about the potential associated risks. 
Aerosol products are common in households, with over 485 million sold in the UK in 
2024, according to the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association (BAMA) via Kantar 
Worldpanel data. Many of these, such as deodorants and hair sprays, are frequently 
purchased by parents for people under 18, and are typically accessible around the 
home.  

While I share your concern at the circumstances of Oliver’s tragic death, it is not clear 
the available evidence proves that placing an age limit on the purchase of aerosol 
deodorants would be more effective than the measures currently in place under the 
existing regulations, or the additional steps the industry is taking on warnings, which I 
have set out below.  

2. Adequacy of warnings

You also raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the warnings on aerosol 
deodorants currently required by the existing regulations. Awareness raising of 
potential harms which can be caused by products is vital, particularly for vulnerable 
groups. 

Your report suggests that the current warning - Solvent Abuse Can Kill Instantly 
(known as the ‘SACKI’ label) - does not adequately convey the possible risk of death 
from inhalation in clear and accessible language or appearance. The SACKI label 
was introduced in 1997 in response to concerns about awareness of harms caused 

The Office for Product Safety and Standards is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 
We strive to enhance protections for consumers and the environment and drive increased productivity, growth 
and business confidence. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-product-safety-and-standards                  2

A10 by substance abuse, and has been implemented voluntarily by industry since, with 
currently around 70 percent of aerosols manufacturers in the UK using the warning, 
according to the BAMA. 

Since 2024, businesses have been working with the substance abuse charity Re-
Solv and with the BAMA to design a new label to better address concerns, like yours, 
that the inhalation risks from everyday aerosol items need to be more easily 
understood. The BAMA is recommending that businesses consider using the new 
message “Intentional misuse can kill instantly. Do not deliberately inhale.”  
BAMA are also providing guidance to all UK manufacturers regarding the colour and 
location for the label to help improve visibility, whilst also meeting the other label 
requirements set out in legislation including the classification, labelling and packaging 
of chemicals.

I understand that one of the UK market leaders in this industry will implement the 
new messaging from January 2026, meaning a significant proportion of aerosol 
products in the UK will soon carry the new label. While this will be voluntary, we 
expect other businesses to follow suit, and OPSS will be encouraging all aerosol 
manufacturers to take up the new warning. I understand the BAMA will also 
encourage their membership to make the change as soon as possible. 

The voluntary uptake of this clearer label, which includes a reference to the risks as 
you set out in your report, will lead to a renewed focus on safety from businesses in 
this industry and further increase the protection of people from inhalation risks. 

OPSS, with the BAMA’s support, will monitor the progress on the voluntary uptake of 
the new labelling and we will make clear that we expect industry to be following this 
updated best practice for products where it is most relevant. 

Consumer awareness campaigns help individuals to understand and engage with 
product safety issues, enabling them to make informed purchasing decisions to keep 
themselves, friends, and family safe from harm. There is a history of work to reduce 
solvent abuse harm built on collaboration between industry and charities like Re-
Solv, and OPSS encourages industry-led initiatives to address risks and compliance 
issues. We also work closely with charities including the Royal Society for the 
Prevention of Accidents and the Child Accident Prevention Trust to share information 
and messages about accident prevention and product-related harms to reach 
vulnerable groups, and the general public. I have asked my officials to make sure 
that the new industry labelling initiative is communicated to these groups and others, 
to ensure awareness is raised as widely as possible.

3. Social media access and content

In relation to your matters of concern regarding harmful content accessible across 
social media platforms, I know you have sent your report to the Department for 
Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 
which are best placed to respond to these matters. 

This is clearly a tragic case, with significant implications that we should learn from. I 
hope that what I have outlined about the existing product safety framework and 

The Office for Product Safety and Standards is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 
We strive to enhance protections for consumers and the environment and drive increased productivity, growth 
and business confidence. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-product-safety-and-standards                  3

A11 proposed changes to the warnings, intended to protect people, particularly vulnerable 
groups, from product-related harms, provides some reassurance. OPSS is 
determined to work with industry on measures to further protect people from potential 
risks posed by aerosol deodorants. Thank you again for writing to the Department 
raising your concerns.

Yours

The Office for Product Safety and Standards is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 
We strive to enhance protections for consumers and the environment and drive increased productivity, growth 
and business confidence. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-product-safety-and-standards                  4

A12