Congress Orders Up A Beatrix Potter Bonfire
Did you ever lick a book as a child? Tear a page out and eat it? Then eat all the rest of the other pages? I loved books as a child, but I digested them the metaphorical way. And a good thing that was, too, because, back then, we didn't have the Federal government at the ready to order booksellers and libraries to ditch pre-1985 children's books like we do now...get this...in hopes of protecting the children.
Overlawyered's Walter Olson, one of the few voices of reason on this, writes for City Journal of the cost to children who read from the ridiculous law, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, passed in a panic last summer in a panic over lead in toys from China:
At any rate, CPSIA's major provisions went into effect on February 10. The day before, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published guidelines telling thrift stores, as well as other resellers and distributors of used goods, what they could safely keep selling and what they should consider rejecting or subjecting to (expensive) lead testing. Confirming earlier reports, the document advised that only "ordinary" children's books (that is, made entirely of paper, with no toylike plastic or metal elements) printed after 1985 could be placed in the safe category. Older books were pointedly left off the safe list; the commission did allow an exception for vintage collectibles whose age, price, or rarity suggested that they would most likely be used by adult collectors, rather than given to children.Since the law became effective the very next day, there was no time to waste in putting this advice into practice. A commenter at Etsy, the large handicrafts and vintage-goods site, observed how things worked at one store:
I just came back from my local thrift store with tears in my eyes! I watched as boxes and boxes of children's books were thrown into the garbage! Today was the deadline and I just can't believe it! Every book they had on the shelves prior to 1985 was destroyed! I managed to grab a 1967 edition of "The Outsiders" from the top of the box, but so many!People who deal in children's books for a livelihood now face unpleasant choices. Valorie Jacobsen of Clinton, Wisconsin, who owns a small used-book store and has sold over the Internet since 1995, commented at my blog, Overlawyered: "Our bookstore is the sole means of income for our family, and we currently have over 7,000 books catalogued. In our children's department, 35 percent of our picture books and 65 percent of our chapter books were printed before 1985." Jacobsen has contacted the CPSC and her congressional representatives for guidance, but to no avail. "We cannot simply discard a wealth of our culture's nineteenth and twentieth children's literature over this," she writes. She remains defiant, if wary: "I was willing to resist the censorship of 1984 and the Fire Department of Fahrenheit 451 long before I became a bookseller, so I'd love to run a black market in quality children's books--but at the same time it's not like the CPSC has never destroyed a small, harmless company before."
...A further question is what to do about public libraries, which daily expose children under 12 to pre-1985 editions of Anne of Green Gables, Beatrix Potter, Baden-Powell's scouting guides, and other deadly hazards. The blogger Design Loft carefully examines some of the costs of CPSIA-proofing pre-1985 library holdings; they are, not surprisingly, utterly prohibitive. The American Library Association spent months warning about the law's implications, but its concerns fell on deaf ears in Congress (which, in this week's stimulus bill, refused to consider an amendment by Republican senator Jim DeMint to reform CPSIA). The ALA now apparently intends to take the position that the law does not apply to libraries unless it hears otherwise. One can hardly blame it for this stance, but it's far from clear that it will prevail. For one thing, the law bans the "distribution" of forbidden items, whether or not for profit. In addition, most libraries regularly raise money through book sales, and will now need to consider excluding older children's titles from those sales. One CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, has already called for libraries to "sequester" some undefinedly large fraction of pre-1985 books until more is known about their risks.
The risk? The risk is that children will not read these books, really valuable books that made me love reading and set me on the path to becoming a writer.
Walter wisely closes with this:
Whatever the future of new media may hold, ours will be a poorer world if we begin to lose (or "sequester" from children) the millions of books published before our own era. They serve as a path into history, literature, and imagination for kids everywhere. They link the generations by enabling parents to pass on the stories and discoveries in which they delighted as children. Their illustrations open up worlds far removed from what kids are likely to see on the video or TV screen. Could we really be on the verge of losing all of this? And if this is what government protection of our kids means, shouldn't we be thinking instead about protecting our kids from the government?
UPDATE: As Walter Olson posted in the comments below, Snopes is WRONG. His blog item on that is here.
MORE from Walter here.
ah, i miss the littles. i'd kill for copies of those books.
mlah at February 19, 2009 1:21 AM
Check this out: Snopes says claims are false.
Want to stop filling the trash? Point out the anonymous origin of Bibles and insist they go, too!
Radwaste at February 19, 2009 2:24 AM
Maybe insted of jst throwing them out we could burn them to make a more visible statement
lujlp at February 19, 2009 4:03 AM
Snopes is full of it.
How are you supposed to show certification without paying for the testing?
It's bullshit all around. Typical Congressional over-reaction. China sends us toys with leaded paint? Make a new law that says anything not tested for lead content is by default a "hazardous substance". Mewling greenies whining about pthalates? Classify anything with pthalates as "hazardous".
The law should be tossed.
brian at February 19, 2009 5:36 AM
Ok anyone got the vaguest idea how to stop this? I'm all for protecting kids but this is nuts, just plain nuts. This is like valentine rabbit meets 1984.
vlad at February 19, 2009 6:25 AM
Got a mile of rope and 535 trees?
brian at February 19, 2009 6:29 AM
vlad did you men velveteen?
lujlp at February 19, 2009 7:02 AM
Rad, Olson sharply disagrees with Snopes' reading of the law. And since he's the lawyer, I'm inclined to go with his opinion.
One other thing to keep in mind here is that most childrens' books written since 1985 are utter crap -- that's about the time that political correctness took over the children's literature (and textbook) industry. That date was not chosen for any scientific reason; it was chosen to force the destruction of un-PC books. I assume that the 1984 date was accidental symbolism, but maybe not.
Cousin Dave at February 19, 2009 7:17 AM
Not to worry, there will be widely distributed, tested as safe, children's books available from the Department of Childhood Learning.
(sarcasm warning)
Andrew_M_Garland at February 19, 2009 7:27 AM
Not to worry, there will be widely distributed, tested as safe, children's books available from the Department of Childhood Learning.
(sarcasm warning)
Andrew_M_Garland at February 19, 2009 7:27 AM
I'm with Cousin Dave on Walter Olson.
Amy Alkon at February 19, 2009 7:27 AM
"vlad did you men velveteen?" Yes.
vlad at February 19, 2009 7:28 AM
Utter lunacy.
Snopes is not at all encouraging. They concede that thrift stores et al. will still be liable if they sell the stuff; read the last two paragraphs in the piece. (I'd paste them, but for some reason I can't seem to copy text in snopes.)
kishke at February 19, 2009 7:39 AM
Yes, Google "Snopes" + "CSPIA" and you can confirm firsthand from dozens of people in the craft, book, clothing and resale trades that, alas, Snopes is full of it in this particular instance. I've also called Snopes on the carpet about it myself here. Their response to the many upset readers who've written in is really not satisfactory at all.
Walter Olson at February 19, 2009 7:42 AM
Well no Snopes is not wrong in his interpretation of the law, just missing the outcome. So long as the books test safe they need not be discarded or destroyed. However if the book is worth $5 and the cost of the test is $5 or more the book will obviously be destroyed. So what happens? Well now those golden books my parents still have from the 80's will be worth a shit load so long as I have them tested for lead. Also is can be argued (at least with the FDA) that is 10% of the books from a certain publication (same publisher same run) are tested as lead free it can be treated as safe. Do you honestly think that every single book, piece of food, clothing etc. are tested? No they test a small amount of them. The testing is usually destructive.
"I watched as boxes and boxes of children's books were thrown into the garbage! " Personally I'd have filled my car up to the top and made several trips to save these. I don't have any vintage book stores around me otherwise I'd have a basement and garage filled with more books.
vlad at February 19, 2009 7:44 AM
Okay, seriously, this whole bubble-wrap the world movement has simply got to stop. I'm assuming they're worried the kids are somehow going to ingest the books? Seems to me if your kid is doing that, you have bigger problems than lead poisoning.
I'm tempted to go buy up a ton of pre 1985 children's books now - that might be a nice retirement nest egg.
Ann at February 19, 2009 7:50 AM
Thank you so much, Walter, for posting that. I'll put the link in the bottom of the post when I get to my writing location, aka The Quarry.
Amy Alkon at February 19, 2009 8:08 AM
What's the enforcement mechanism? Maybe it's time for a little civil disobedience.
As a result of this terrible law even more small businesses (in retail or craftmaking) will be forced into bankruptcy. Way to go, most ethical congress in history.
Pseudonym at February 19, 2009 8:12 AM
Do these lawmakers have no sense of cognitive dissonance?
"Holy fuck! The economy is going up in flames! Everyone will lose their jobs and homes! Pass the stimulus plan now! No time to read the damn thing - it's fucking huge! Now pass this bill that will surely put thousands of small businesses under and force charities to destroy millions of dollars worth of goods that they could give to the people who need them. Not to mention cost precious library services that could be used elsewhere."
Elle at February 19, 2009 9:32 AM
The Congresscritters who've consigned classic childrens literature to the landfill in the name of protecting the children are every bit as full of righteous mindlessness as the Taliban who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas in the name of protecting Islam.
Martin at February 19, 2009 9:53 AM
Pseudonym, the law gives state AG's broad authority in interpreting and enforcing the law. That's part of what makes it scary -- the standards are really undefined, and subject to the whim of politicans all over the country. Doubtless whichever state winds up establishing the strictist standard will end up being the model for most of the country.
Cousin Dave at February 19, 2009 11:09 AM
Also, I should correct Cousin Dave on one point: I'm not a lawyer, though I've spent my career writing about law and regulation, and though lawyers make up a good share of the active readership at my Overlawyered site.
Walter Olson at February 19, 2009 11:16 AM
One other thing to keep in mind here is that most childrens' books written since 1985 are utter crap -- that's about the time that political correctness took over the children's literature (and textbook) industry. That date was not chosen for any scientific reason; it was chosen to force the destruction of un-PC books. I assume that the 1984 date was accidental symbolism, but maybe not.
So, out with "Swimmy" and Beatrix Potter and Baden-Powell and in with "Heather Has Two Mommies" eh?
This law is uber-silly.
Even so, the books themselves won't disappear if we don't let them. They'll just have to be reprinted. Which, if this forum is any indication of the demand, should be a profitable venture.
The problem lies in the books that don't get reprinted - or that are only reprinted in paperback.
Of course, the irony of all of these older copies being thrown away is that these lead-filled timebombs will end up in the landfills - put there on the orders of nanny-state hyper-enviromentalists.
Conan the Grammarian at February 19, 2009 12:44 PM
This breaks my heart. Thinking of all those books getting thrown away for nothing makes me want to cry too. Or throw up.
Yep, I'm a real softy. But it's just cruel that our lawmakers are this stupid.
Debra at February 19, 2009 1:10 PM
Walter, it's good to see you - but I have a question: just who is enforcing the law?
At work, we have to keep a chain of custody on any sample, or it must be discarded and another one drawn.
At the gun store, if the dealer's bound book isn't totally accurate, BATFE will put him in jail, confiscate his inventory and (obviously) put him out of business.
Who's going to be busting the Salvation Army?
Radwaste at February 19, 2009 6:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/19/book_burnings_b.html#comment-1635029">comment from RadwasteWhile I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, I'm guessing charitable organizations need to be very careful about not breaking laws.
Amy Alkon at February 19, 2009 6:51 PM
Who is going to enforce the law. Easy .... The LAWYERS.
It is going to be the poor or rich lawyer that wants more money who is going to to be bleeding that Odds and End shop, used book store, SALLY ANN type charity store. HELL it will not be too long before some sort of CLASS action suit against AMAZON.COM. Well because they do sell some old books.
It is the same for the DISABLED AMERICANS ACT. It was not the police and government inspectors who enforced the the hieght of hand rails and the proper slope of wheel chair access points.
John Paulson at February 19, 2009 11:04 PM
Christ, you can just about smell the scent of burning books in the air! This is horrible!
Thanks, Conan, for the mention of books out of print -- since you know the morons will sniff at our protests and say they can be reprinted.
When I was a kid, one of my favorite books was this cute little story called "Who's Boss in Tony's Family?" It's about an adopted cat who is less than well behaved but winds up scaring away a burglar, making the family appreciative of Tony's darn cat that won't behave.
I loved this book when I was a kid and as an adult wound up with a cat very much like the one in the book who protected my home very ably for 18 years (she ate dobermans and german shepherds for breakfast) and wanted to share it with my daughter but, of course, couldn't find it any where.
Well, by the time T was born, internet was an every day thing. I went straight to amazon's used book store service and had them search for me. Week later I had the book in hand and T (and daughter) love it as much as I did. But that makes me a bad Grandma I guess. Given that it went out of print in the late 60's, shortly after I first got my grubby little hands on it.
T's Grammy at February 20, 2009 10:18 AM
Has anyone tested newspaper ink for the same levels of lead that so concerns CPSIA? There are reports of newspapers being left around a home. They could fall into the hands of little children. Don't buy another newspaper until it is tested!
(sarcasm warning)
Andrew_M_Garland at February 20, 2009 2:56 PM
Like I said - what makes you think these are unintended consequences?
Get rid of all private charity, replace it all with the loving gaze auf der Staat.
See also: Wir sind gefickt.
brian at February 21, 2009 4:53 AM
Dunno if this'll get noticed - but even ATVs and small motorcycles are getting stuck in the warehouse. Apparently small children eat valve stems, brake levers and battery terminals!
Radwaste at February 25, 2009 2:12 AM
This is one of the most absurd and disturbing things I've read in a long time from the US.
DavidJ at March 3, 2009 8:07 AM
Leave a comment