Once upon a time, there was a well-meaning group of politicians—the 110th Congress—that approved a law requiring lead and phthalate testing for children’s products.
The politicians penned the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) after thousands of children’s toys, clothes, and other items were recalled because of unsafe lead levels. Not long after, the ruler of the land at the time, President George W. Bush, signed the act into law. For a short time, everyone was happy, knowing their children would be safe from the evil health hazards.
As time went on, however, people throughout the land became confused by the broadly written law, which called on all manufacturers, big and small, to essentially test any products that would come into contact with children younger than 12.
Concerned about the future of children’s toys, citizens began asking questions: Would all products that kids might use need to be tested? Would the law apply to sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment shops?
The uncertainty surrounding the law prompted many small retailers—owners of online businesses, boutiques, and bookstores—to worry they wouldn’t be able to afford testing for their products and would therefore have to close up shop.
Less than a month before the act’s scheduled enactment on Feb. 10, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement clarifying its impact on certain retailers.
Sellers of used children’s products, the commission said, wouldn’t be required to test products for compliance with the new lead and phthalate laws. They would, however, be expected to avoid selling products likely to contain lead. If they did, they’d face potential punishment in the form of civil and criminal penalties.
The clarification allowed the nation’s thrift-store owners to breathe a little bit easier, but it still left questions for other vendors of children’s products: bookstores and libraries.
With the law’s enactment date looming, children’s books advocates across the nation began pressing Congress and the Consumer Product Safety Commission for more definite answers.
Nothing to worry about?
In a recent interview with the Sun, Emily Kryder, press secretary for CPSIA supporter U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), said the public is misinformed about the act’s impact on children’s books.
“It really stems from people not understanding the law,” Kryder said. “The law is really meant for large-scale retailers and manufacturers.”
And when it comes to having unhealthy amounts of lead, Kryder said, “books especially would be the least likely suspects.
“The law is designed to monitor clothing, toys, pacifiers, and other child-care products,” she said.
Still, many people remain unconvinced that the law wouldn’t pertain to books as well.
In a letter sent to the commission in January, the American Library Association wrote: “We are extremely concerned that the Commission’s implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) will prevent libraries from providing children with access to books and other print materials.”
The American Library Association urged the commission to amend the law so it clearly wouldn’t apply to library books. The association also asked the commission to officially recognize that “ordinary books”—ones made of natural materials, such as cardboard and paper—don’t inherently contain significant amounts of lead.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission later announced it wouldn’t impose penalties on anyone making or selling children’s products made of certain natural materials, including “ordinary” children’s books printed after 1985. Regulations have prevented publishers from using ink with traces of lead in it since 1986.
The clarification meant books published after the mid-1980s were safe. But what about the rest?
American Library Association spokeswoman Jenni Terry said the association asserts all children’s books should be exempt. Founded in the late 1800s, the American Library Association represents thousands of public, state, and academic libraries throughout the country.
“We believe the commission should turn [the law’s] focus to where the real threats are, not on books,” Terry said.
Under the current law, libraries and bookstores face a potential regulatory headache when it comes to books printed before 1986, many of which are considered classic children’s literature.
At the Santa Maria Public Library, head children’s librarian Cathy Allee said it would be difficult to determine how many books in the library’s vast collection were printed before 1986. She estimates the number would actually be small—about five percent. But to find that five percent, she said, the library staff would have to go through the collection book by book.
“Our kids are rough on our books. Most of the books published before 1986 have been replaced,” Allee explained, adding that any “salvageable” books are sold at the Library Shop.
Confusion over the law has prompted some libraries—public and academic—to pull older children’s books from their shelves. But in Santa Maria, library officials are waiting for more information.
“The law is having a lot of unintended consequences that no one thought about,” Santa Maria librarian Jack Buchanan said. “We’re not going to do anything about [the law] until it’s clear that we have to.”
This is only a test
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has yet to determine whether or not older books are hazardous to children, nor has it made any official recommendations to libraries about quarantining the books.
“We’re definitely not telling libraries to take books off their shelves,” Consumer Product Safety Commission chief of staff Joe Martyak told the Sun.
The commission is currently in the process of testing older books to see if any of them pose a significant risk to children. So far, Martyak said, the results have been inconclusive.
The commission has exempted libraries from testing books for lead. But libraries are expected to refrain from lending or selling books that could have traces of lead in them.
Lending out a book that proves to have higher-than-allowed traces of lead in it is technically illegal, Martyak said, but the commission has assured libraries they will not be penalized for doing so. Still, many children’s books advocates, like the American Library Association, want that assurance in writing. Formally amending the law, ALA representatives say, will remove the stigma placed on older children’s books and protect libraries from potential litigation.
The outlook is even more glum for book retailers, especially small-budget mom ’n’ pop shops. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a one-year moratorium on testing for certain children’s products, including books made prior to 1986. If the commission determines lead levels in older books are harmful to children, bookstores could be required to test and dispose of faulty books as early as February 2010. Only older books that have been labeled collectible would be permitted for sale, according to current Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines.
Laurette Oien, owner of 2 Sisters Books and Gifts in Santa Maria, said she already takes special precautions with her collectible children’s books. Oien has two collectibles in her store on Main Street, including an Abraham Lincoln biography published in 1907. She keeps both of them in a glass case, out of the hands of children.
“No one’s going to buy a book for $99 and then give it to their kid to chew on,” she said.
Oien keeps the rest of her children’s books boxed up in her garage, but not because of CPSIA: “I needed more space,” she said.
As for CPSIA and the effect it could have on older children’s books, Oien said she’s going to wait for further guidance from the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Until then, Oien said, “people are just going to have to use common sense.”
Frustration all around
The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Martyak said the agency is “fully aware and understanding of the unintended consequences” the law is having on manufacturers and retailers of children’s products, including books.
“Congress wrote the law so narrowly that you have to prove a product will cause absolutely no absorption of lead to get an exemption,” he said. “You could say that a child wouldn’t chew or mouth a book past 19 months old, but are you absolutely sure?”
Martyak added that interpreting and enforcing the law has been equally frustrating for the commission.
“We’re going to uphold the law to the greatest extent possible,” he said, “but when it comes to monitoring lead in books versus children getting trapped in cribs and dying because of strangulation—I don’t even have to say which one is a greater risk.
“Congress wrote the law so they certainly are the ones who can change it,” Martyak added.
Contact Staff Writer Amy Asman at aasman@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Apr 16-23, 2009.