Why are people not up in arms about the new Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act? Why are the talk show hosts and the blogs and the news outlets not buzzing with information about this heinous law?
I think there are several reasons:
1) Even now that the law has gone into effect, many people are like I was —in denial. Our government could not be causing the wholesale destruction of books, children’s clothing, and toys for no discernible reason, could they? Either there must be a real danger OR it must not be happening.
Well, there is no danger to children from lead in books or clothing or toys. A very few pieces of jewelry may pose a problem, and even those are few and far between. SO no real danger.
And it is happening, folks, whether anyone wanted the books to be destroyed or not, they are being trashed. Scroll down to my previous post for more details.
2) Those who are in charge of enforcement in Washington and those who are responsible for passing this law in the first place don’t shop in used bookstores and in thrift stores. The national news media people do not shop in used bookstores and thrift stores. And many of them don’t have children. anyway. They do not see why the destruction of some old clothes and old books is such a problem. And they don’t listen to poor and middle class people who do shop in thrift stores and who do buy used books.
3) Publishers and new booksellers, who should be having a fit about CPSIA, don’t really want you to buy used books anyway. The used book market cuts into the sales of new books. So what if you can’t find a copy of Tasha Tudor’s pre-1985 books anymore? Just buy something new and shiny. Forget those old books.
4) Libraries have declared themselves exempt from CPSIA. Even though the libraries are loaning out the same books that used bookstores are being told to destroy or “sequester”, the libraries think they can go on their merry way unmolested because the ALA has told them that they can. Good luck with that. What happens when it comes time for the library book sale and your library wants to sell all those old books that it pulled from the shelves?
5) The news media is so busy trying to figure out and spin the stimulus bill that anything else is a distraction. CPSIA was a bill passed under a Republican administration (Bush) and now implemented under a Democratic one (Obama). Republicans and Democrats voted for CPSIA (all of them except for Ron Paul, I think). So, nobody gains any political points by realizing that the law was a mistake or by fixing it.
All of these reasons for inaction mean an uphill battle. I am sad that more and more books, irreplaceable copies of beautiful children’s books from the decades before 1985, are going to be destroyed because of a stupid, unnecessary law that never should have seen the light of day.
Call someone today before any more books are destroyed. And if you get a placating or patronizing answer, talk back. Be sassy. It’s time for some outrage. If you love freedom and books, please call to protest this book-banning law.
I don’t know, Sherry. I’m looking at a news release that states second-hand dealers are not required to certify their inventory. http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/cpsc-clarifies-requirements-new-childrens-product-safety-laws-taking-effect/
>>The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.
>>The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties. <<
I think some retailers are not concerned, and some are worried. It’s confusing overall, but I think the safety commission isn’t going to enforce the law against any small business or local retailer unless someone sues them.
I’ve called my congresspersons (again!) and will call the committees when I have the next chance.
I don’t have the time or right tools to do this, but it would be great if someone could create a suitable sidebar graphic with “My Children Read Banned Books” and a link to a good summary with contact information. Anybody?
##==>
And yes, I know the books are not “banned.” You don’t have to officially ban something to have the same effect when a small business is at the mercy of being sued by the next AG who wants to run for governor on a record of “enforcing children’s safety regulations.”
One of my concerns from the first time I heard of this is coming true. Those (even legislators) who point to the word of the law may not realize the full issue which is that some laypeople and some lawyers are interpreting this more conservatively or being more ‘safe’ by taking the letter of the law to be more strict than it really is. That explains why although second hand stores were exempted some are still refusing to take in new items of that type or will throw away current inventory.
The real life application of this law is sometimes more strict than the congress ever imagined or intended.
For now Freecycle.org is still (I believe) allowing free swapping of used toys, clothes and books. I feared that local Freecycle moderators who control the little local groups would also MISINTERPRET the law and carry it over to free swapping between citizens. See Freecycle.org if you want to swap free clothes, toys and books with others.
Phil, you are absolutely right. Resellers are not going to be taken to court by CPSC. However, and it’s a big however, many are still destroying or refusing to sell pre-1985 books because the ink used in these books may have had lead. And the resellers are still subject to penalties if they sell anything that exceeds the lead limit, whether or not those items are likely to be ingested by children. Do children consume entire books? No. Do they eat bicycle helmets or zippers or music boxes or anything else that’s banned under this law? Not usually. Have ANY children gotten lead poisoning from children’s books printed before 1985? NO.
Read more.
Phil and Sherry, one of the multiple problems with the CPSIA has written is that it gave brand new enforcement powers to the fifty states’ attorneys general, along with vastly increased fines and other powers. The states’ attorneys general are IN NO WAY bound by that stay. NOTHING prevents them from charging and fining a thrift shop with selling untested items (not leaded items, simply untested)- that power is specifically given to them in the bill, which the Commission cannot alter, and, in fact, four AGs have specifically said they will be ignoring the stay. Possibly the thrift shops and used bookstores involved live in those states or another state where they know their Ag has no interest in respecting the stay..
This places businesses and charities in a dangerously high risk situation, because
the law was primarily supported by and pushed through by private activist groups like PIRG and Public Citizen, and, as Walter Olson at Overlawyered points out, “private activist and lawyer groups often shop potential cases to state AGs’ offices, and in turn are made monetary beneficiaries of resulting fines and settlements.”
http://overlawyered.com/2009/02/cpsia-what-will-be-enforced/
And if you read the stay, then you should have also noticed this expiration date:
“This enforcement policy will remain in effect until superseded by action of the Commission.”
And this currently two person Commission will have a minimum of three new people, when the President appoints them. That’s because when Congress wrote the bill, they also rewrote the make-up of the Commission members, bringing it from three to five, effective sometime in 2009, while refusing to approve the third nominee (which is why it’s been a two person commission for so long).
That stay is a press release about policy, basically, it is not the law. Oh, and Public Citizen and NRDC are rumoured to be filing another lawsuit (they already won one, forcing the Commission to make the phthalates ban retroactive) to overturn the stay. If they do this, there is little doubt that they would win.
And no, Ron Paul is far from the only nay vote, and I am not very impressed with him or his nay vote right now.
Facts: His was the only no in *the House*, and that nay vote was *not* on the final version of the bill where it counted.
In the Senate, 13 Senators (Republicans all) voted no the first time, and three of them voted no on the final version- DeMint, Coburn, and Kyl.
Furthermore, DeMint was very vocal, very active in his opposition from the beginning (unlike Paul).
And while it was passed under a Republican President, it was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress, with 101 of 106 sponsors being Democrats.
PIRG, Public Citizen, NRDC, and other ‘progressive’ groups lobbied in favor of it, and the mainstream media seems to be taking what information they get from press releases from these groups.
And with all due respect, no, there is no guarantee the CPSC itself will not come down on small businesses. That guarantee could only be made by changing the law, and Congress would have to act. Consider the ramifications of this note from a From a news program in Omaha:
“In order to crack down on online sites such as Craigslist and Ebay, the CPSC says, they are currently working with an internet surveillance team to watch over the online marketplaces.â€
Source: http://bookroomblog.com/2009/02/11/a-law-with-no-consequences/
It’s not only as bad as you heard, it’s much, much, worse.
Sorry, I should have double checked that link first. Phil. you do realize you’re quoting from a news story dated in early January, right? And the CPSC has issued several ‘clarifications’ since then that supersede what was said in that story? I am also fairly certain much of that info came from CPSC spokesperson Julie Valeese, who resigned very shortly thereafter- possibly the next day.
I suggest you read some of the following for more updated information:
http://overlawyered.com/2009/02/cpsia-and-vintage-books/
http://overlawyered.com/2009/02/cpsia-chronicles-february-10/
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/cpsiasbguide.pdf
From that middle link: “In general, the rules appear to hold little that is surprising or new, and thus serve to confirm that the law will prove a disaster unless quickly revisited and reformed by the U.S. Congress. To take just one example, that of resale, thrift and consignment stores, the CPSC guidance advises that such stores discard, or refuse to accept donations of, a very wide range of children’s items unless they are willing to test the items for lead or call their original manufacturer — neither of which steps is consistent with the economics of an ordinary small thrift store. Included in the suspect list are most children’s clothing (because most of it has snaps, buttons, zippers, grommets or other closures with unknown/unproved metal or plastic content), most books that were printed before 1985 or that (even if more recent) include metal or plastic elements such as staples* or spiral binders; most playthings (dolls, balls, trains, toy cars, etc.), most shoes and hair ornaments, most sporting goods, outdoor play items and wagons, board games when including any plastic spinners, tokens or other items, all bicycles and tricycles in kids’ sizes, most decorations for kids’ rooms, nearly everything with metal or synthetic applique, most school, art and science supplies, and on and on. A much diminished assortment of t-shirts, pullover sweaters, slip-on canvas shoes, unpainted/untreated wood blocks, post-1985 glued-spine books and a few like items might remain on the shelves, but for the most part, it now seems clear, the U.S. Congress in its wisdom has decided to banish the business of kids’ resale to the realm of outlawry, even when carried on by non-profits with unpaid volunteers.”
Yes, I knew the article was from last month, but I thought it was still accurate. Goodness. I honestly still hope this is not as it appears, and the silence from many good columnists or conservative advocates helps that idea. Makes me want to call my local bookstores.
I’m confused, because when I looked at the document on the site it excluded most books:
“Ordinary books, including books for small children, are generally not regarded as toys.9 However, some novelty books, such as plastic books marketed as bath toys, or books that incorporate sounds, may be regarded as toys under both ASTM F963 and CPSIA section 108.”
The only way to ensure this isn’t as bad as it appears is to call our reps and ask them to change it.
I don’t think silence is because the law isn’t as bad as it appears- I think it’s because the stimulous is a much bigger and more urgent deal. I also suspect that many of those columnists and advocates don’t shop at thrift shops, sell things at Etsy, or get their books at library booksales, either, so it hasn’t really crossed their radar. They may also be reading the same news reports and press releases you are, when the documents from the CPSC and websites like fashion incubator and overlawyered are more accurate.
Motherreader,
I don’t know which document you are referring to, but this guide from the CPSC says:
“Books – ‘ordinary’ children’s titles e.g. paperbacks and hardbacks” are “OK to sell, if printed after 1985.”
The strong implication is that they’re NOT OK to sell if printed before 1985.
And it’s not just toys that are covered by the law. Although the guidelines have exempted cloth from being tested, clothing is still covered under the law, and must be lead-free, if it has any kind of fasteners, snaps, zippers, etc.
I really didn’t believe the law would have any effect either, until my daughter came home from the bookstore and told me that they were pulling all of the children’s books with any kind of attachment, spiral binding, plastic, etc. The pre-1985 books they haven’t done anything about yet because they don’t have the time or staff to pull all the children’s books printed before 1985 and move them to the “vintage” section. But they are trying to figure out what they should do, and I predict they will pull them soon, in addition to picture books with staples and anything else they think might possibly get them in trouble.
MotherReader, I am guessing you are looking at the phthalates portion of the law. This is another point of confusion for many people- the law is very broad and has several different requirements. The law requires lead testing (expensive, redundant, third party testing after August) of *all* products intended for use by children 12 and under, and forbids selling untested items, or items that supercede the new lead limits (600ppm now, 300 ppm in August, and lower again sometime in 2010 or 2011).
But there is also a phthalates test required, that is a separate portion of the bill, and it applies only to toys and items used to facilitate sleeping or eating for children 3 and under. So books only need pthalate testing if they are plastic ‘toy’ books instead of regular books. That’s what you are probably reading.
There are other portions of the bill about small parts, new regulations for cribs, a new labeling requirement (for pretty much everything) and the labeling requirement is also going to be a problem for many people (and create a choking hazard for things like rattles)- but right now most people are focusing on the lead testing because it’s the most immediate and broadest concern.
On the BookRoomBlog there was a quote from someone saying they are trying to destroy history. At first I didn’t entirely agree, but then again, the best place to really get a picture of what life was like “back in the day” isn’t from reading a history book, it’s from reading books written in the period they happened. The thing I REALLY love about old children’s books are the great values they teach – honesty, hard work, kindness, virtue, love. Our society is already getting further and further away from those without this.
http://stillswinging.blogspot.com/2009/02/cpsia-bad-to-worse.html
Here is a Dr. Seuss style story about the CPSIA to cheer you just a little!
http://easyfunschool.com/the_CPSIA_meets_Dr_Seuss.html
STATUS REPORT ON PETITION re: CPSC CHILDREN’S BOOK LEAD BAN
Thank you for all the signatures accumulated so far! This issue is at a turning point for libraries, booksellers, and readers. We can make a difference if we really push now.
Our concern is at a very pressing moment in the U.S. House of Representatives. Last Monday, U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb) sponsored H.R. 1692 which granted an exception for children’s books given that they have no inherent play value for young children and no harm had been demonstrated (my paraphrasing). According to my limited understanding, the bill has been “referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerceâ€, but lacks sufficient co-sponsors to advance in the Committee.
Please act swiftly on this issue by phoning or emailing your Representative in the U.S. Congress and asking them to support H.R. 1692. We cannot delay since some libraries and stores around the country are clearing their shelves while we debate.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1) Sign the petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/savebook/petition.html
2) PLEASE EMAIL OR PHONE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS ASAP and ask them to support H.R. 1692 to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to exempt ordinary books from the lead limit.
Visit http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml for phone and email information.
3) And most importantly: FORWARD this email to anyone you know! IF WE DON’T, THIS PETITION WILL NOT CONVINCE THOSE IN POWER!
Sincerely,
Sara Lizzy Timlin
saralizzy@gmail.com
H.R.1692
Title: To amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to exempt ordinary books from the lead limit in such Act.
Sponsor: Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] (introduced 3/24/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/24/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:28 PM
Hi, Readers!
If you’re worried about the upcoming ban on books printed before 1985,
please sign my petition now! I am a strong environmentalist, but feel
that to eliminate all these books due to lead poisoning would be a
tragedy. Besides, all that lead would just end up in landfills and in the
water supply.
I just set up this website to create an online petition, and if you agree
with me please take a look.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/savebook/petition.html
If you need more information, this article in the Washington Post just came
out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301764.html
Please forward this message to absolutely everyone you know!
I give permission in advance for this to go to listserves as well.
Sara Lizzy (Just a Reader)
Maryland, USA