Note To Dumbass Legislators: "Devouring" Books Is Just A Metaphor
Here's the latest bit of dumbshittery resulting from the CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act), which is supposed to protect children, but mainly seems bent on protecting businesspeople from earning a living. Karen Raugust writes at Publishers Weekly about the new testing requirements for lead content in books:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has said it will not enforce the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act when it comes to "ordinary" books printed after 1985, and legislation was introduced last week that potentially would exclude ink-on-paper and ink-on-board books from the Act entirely. But for publishers of novelty and book-plus formats--which account for a significant chunk of sales, especially in mass-market and special-market channels--the CPSIA will remain in full force, with all of its costly testing, certification and labeling requirements.After a stay of enforcement, publishers have until February 10, 2010, to get their CPSIA-mandated third-party testing procedures in place. However, publishers and retailers have had to comply with the law's safety requirements since February 10 of this year, which has led the large retail chains to demand testing for all children's products, some as early as last November. A survey of over a dozen publishers exhibiting at Toy Fair in mid-February found that almost all already had some sort of testing in place, largely due to the demands of their key customers.
Several publishers said they test all of their titles, not just novelty books but also ink-on-paper formats. Most books came through the testing with flying colors, but there were a few incidences reported in which titles did not make the grade. With the increasing interest in all things "green," it's interesting to note that books made of recycled materials are more likely to contain some lead or phthalates and therefore less likely to make it through the testing process.
As I commented on Overlawyered, which has been really terrific about covering the results of this ridiculous act:
I'm not a mother, so perhaps I'm naive, but do children commonly lick books and eat the pages...or do they just read them?
I love to *smell* books - both brand new and ancient ones - and have since I was a kid, but I can't remember ever wanting to lick them.
But this is only counting the years for which I have memories, of course, and in answer to your question "do children commonly lick books and eat the pages" - children: not really, babies/young toddlers: most definitely yes, in at least some cases. And we're not talking cursory licking, either - one of my sisters in particular really did numbers on her board books as a baby/toddler. Mostly the corners, gummed and then gnawed progressively more tattered. :)
That said, this whole kerpuffle over lead in books has worried me, as an avid book-lover who would really like to see the second-hand stores stick around, thankyouverymuch.
Katie at April 22, 2009 2:38 AM
You may be amazed to know that these morons also think that youngsters eat motorcycle gear. Yes, I mean the paint on the gas tank, the valve stems and brake levers found on youth motorcycles and ATVs. Here's a short article about it. There's more, of course.
If you're reading this and you had anything to do with passing the legislation, you're an idiot, and I will be publishing your name as widely as possible when I dig it out of Thomas (thomas.loc.gov).
You can sell a ten-year-old fishing sinkers, paint, Lysol, and PVC glue, but can't sell his Dad a Honda for her to ride at the park on Saturday with him.
Radwaste at April 22, 2009 2:42 AM
My eldest daughter chewed the edges of her board books when she was smaller, primarily when she was teething, and my younger one does it now too.
She sticks to her books (which is a blessing), but she does like to chow down on them from time to time.
James H at April 22, 2009 4:08 AM
I know it sounds really stupid but, my son once saw our dog chewing on one of my books. This, of course, led him to beleive that they must taste pretty good. The next thing you know, he has the Websters open and was working on the C's when we found him. NO HE HAD NOT EATEN A-B by then but it was really rather strange thing to see.
Matt at April 22, 2009 4:31 AM
Yeah, they do when they're teething. One-to-two-year-olds will chew anything they can get their mouth around.
I still think it's a stupid law. My boy chewed board books from China all the time, and he has never had an abnormal lead test. (anecdote =/= data, of course)
Melissa G at April 22, 2009 6:41 AM
Okay, so children eat books. But, even so, are they eating them nonstop -- or just a page or two? And isn't this something parental supervision can solve? And once a parent notices little Bubba eating a book...isn't there care taken to see he doesn't eat another? The motorcycle thing is absolutely crazy, too.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2009 7:35 AM
Both my girls chewed on their books, actually it was only one in particular: Pat the Bunny, which had a plastic, spiral spine. I bought a new one for #2, because #1 chewed the crap outta hers, but they both did this when they were teething, not before, not after, just during. Their other books mostly just got colored in and thrown at each other. Until they were older and could actually read them. Now, they both have multiple bookshelves in their respective rooms, stuffed to overflowing with all kinds of books. For which I am very grateful! They both love to read. o.O
Flynne at April 22, 2009 7:52 AM
If the concern is that kids will *eat* the books, then that seems pretty crazy once you're talking grade-school kids.
But if the concern is that kids touch the books (and the pages, and the print) and get lead (or something else) on their hands, then eat without having first washed their hands - and do this over and over and over for days and months and years .... Maybe it's not so crazy?
jen at April 22, 2009 8:02 AM
Jen -
We're not talking about kids eating paint chips off the wall here.
We're talking about amounts of lead that are so small as to be considered below trace.
When you look at a law that is as poorly written as this, the first question you should ask isn't "does this save children". The first question you should ask is "who benefits".
And the answer to that question is always going to point to the true intent of this law.
Who benefits? Large retailers, sellers, and publishers of new books. All of whom have strong lobbies.
Who is harmed? Small retailers, libraries and sellers of used books. All of whom are opposed by the first group, and none of whom have strong lobbies.
Your starting assumption should be "The state is not your friend", and the reason for just about everything the state does can be derived from that.
brian at April 22, 2009 8:11 AM
I work in the children's department of a library - children will chew the hell out of books. There's a good reason for this, that being that their mouths are the most sensitive region when they are between 0-2 years, so the way they "explore" items is to put 'em in their mouths. It makes sense, but it never ceases to break my heart when I have to throw a book away because it is riddled with teeth marks.
One of the big reasons board books are so popular is because Lil' Bubba can suck/chew/gum it without doing too much damage to the book. So Mom & Dad can stick baby in the playpen, and he can play with his book (which will inevitably wind up going in and out of his mouth repeatedly) while they have grown up time. [However, common sense says they should NOT do this with the library's books, for cryin' out loud!].
So no, children aren't "eating" the books, but they're definitely putting them in their mouths, which is a relatively harmless activity [so long as they're board books and don't belong to the library]. Children have been doing this since paper was invented, and I don't see a massive outbreak of lead poisoning for any of these generations, so I think the risk is definitely minimal. It's just the government overreacting, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater in their attempt to look good and "safeguard" our children.
cornerdemon at April 22, 2009 9:03 AM
I'm thinkin' what they mean with novelty and books plus, they mean books that have extra pieces on them that aren't what you would consider book... Like a side piece with a spoeaker and pushbuttons for them to hear a story being told. My kids had a 101 dalmations one. While reading the book, you can push certain parts of the page, and hear something being said by the character. Also, books that have a plush character embedded within them... My kids especially like sailor pig for that...
So basically these are TOYS that have a book around them.
All that said... as usual these sorts of things can be ham-fisted and laws not well written... but if they classified these as toys rather than books, it would make things clearer.
SwissArmyD at April 22, 2009 11:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/22/note_to_dumbass.html#comment-1644461">comment from SwissArmyDNo, I believe they're talking books, pages, spines. The question is, does the ink have lead content? Etc.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2009 11:26 AM
"And isn't this something parental supervision
can solve?"
Are you kidding? The kid is sitting there happily, and quietly chewing on something too large to swallow. That's pretty much the goal of parental supervision.
Plus, you don't want to discourage an interest in books. Like Flynne said, it grows into actual reading later on. I just find it sad that most books have batteries these days.
Anything designed for a kid under 3, you have to assume it will spend time in the mouth. But a bike tire valve? Different story.
smurfy at April 22, 2009 11:44 AM
But, what if the kid goes into the drink, and needs to breathe the air out of the tire?
Didn't think of that, did you?
/sarc
brian at April 22, 2009 12:15 PM
The amounts of lead involved here are so small that a child would have to eat several hundred very old books in their entirety to absorb enough lead for a blood test to detect the difference. In the meantime, the child would be getting some, ahem, digestive consequences from eating so many books. The child would stop eating books way sooner than he'd absorb more lead than he would from drinking tap water to wash the books down.
Over $4 BILLION so far has been lost from our economy because of this stupid law-- and that's just what a friend of mine has been able to quantify from peering through SEC filings and news stories. Businesses too small for SEC jurisdiction or too insignificant to make the news are experiencing losses directly attributable to CPSIA and not the economy.
Ironically, because the law adds so many costs to manufacture, more manufacture will have to be done overseas, where the lead contamination problem came from in the first place.
Sarah Natividad at April 23, 2009 7:48 AM
Honestly, people, stop justifying Amy´s hasty assumptions. Are you guys seriously arguing that, well, it's not THAT much lead? With your kids' lives? Toxins during developmental stages are exponentially more dangerous. Did you guys read about China's problems with lead and other toxic chemicals in their products, including baby formula and toys? Where do you think the cheapest inks and paints come from? Really, for shame, it's obvious Amy didn't think this through, and all this scrambling to justify a perfectly reasonable regulation is embarrassing. Can you also imagine the outrage if dozens or hundreds of kids got sick with lead poisoning because of lax regulation?
incredulous parent at April 24, 2009 7:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/22/note_to_dumbass.html#comment-1644696">comment from incredulous parentARE hundreds of kids getting sick from lead poisoning from books? There's been no regulation up till now. As a parent of a young child, since young children apparently eat things all the time, isn't it your job to see that your child is given age-appropriate (teething-age appropriate) toys and give them supervision? Why must everything in life be child-proofed for the lax parents?
My neighbor is a toy designer in addition to being a stay-at-home mom. She created these organic cotton board games with little wood pieces, and the silk-screening on the board games is the same as on t-shirts. At a time when her husband lost a good part of his income, she is now unsure as to whether she'll just have to store the remaining stock she has and go out of business. She certainly can't afford $4K in testing per game. She can barely afford to go to the supermarket these days.
Oh, and she's one of the more concerned parents out there -- Waldorf-schooled kids, etc. She monitors what her kids play with, watch, etc. They aren't allowed to watch TV, and don't, except when their dad turns on Jeopardy, or whatever that show is where they ask questions about history, etc., and people answer.
Amy Alkon at April 24, 2009 7:26 AM
HAD baby´s gotten sick in China with baby formula before the recent outbreak? HAD any toys been recalled by the thousands because of lead in their paint before? I see you chose anecdote to deflect my criticisms. Your neighbor uses organic materials, so there! Really?
Lax parents!!! You buy a kid's book from the store, your kid does what, based on MOST of your comments, kids do, which is put it in her/his mouth. The ink used for the book was bought from a polluting, unregulated factory somewhere in China. And it's somehow YOUR fault, because you were cooking the kid's lunch and didn't think "hey that kid's book I bought? What if it's poisonous!"?
Be serious. The world is not like your neighbor's toys. Lax regulation provokes cutting corners to the point of mixing POISON with everyday items. All it takes is "you know, I didn't think this all the way through at first, but maybe there´s something to this regulation. I hate that it negatively affects my neighbor, but it makes sense, seeing that mass produced books tend to try and get the lowest cost for their materials, which could lead them to buy foreign inks or papers that include lead or other toxic materials." Try it, quit defending your rash statements and actually think this through.
incredulous parent at April 24, 2009 8:47 AM
icredulous parent please provide, lets say 5 cases in the last 4 months of lead poisioning from american made childrens products.
Other wise shut up, this law is about driving small buisness under.
A small publisher prints 100 books and sells them @ $20 bucks each, under this law the price of each book jumps to 3 times the original price
A large publisher prints 100,000 and the price jumps $2 per unit
Do you see the difference?
And this law calls for the seller to do the testing not the manufacturer.
Suppose you were to sell a silk blouse using cotten thread, and plastic buttons, but the thread holding the buttons in place was a different color, that is 4 items to be tested for one product - $1,600 in testing
And here is the kicker, suppose the company that produces the silk sells to, lets say 3 dozen grament manufatures.
Rather than the manufaturer paying to have their stock tested once, this law has 36 companies testing the same product 36 times.
That an extra $140,000 in NEEDLESS governemnt mandated testing
So tell me, did you bother to think it thru, or did you like majority of america mindles womb slaves stop at "its for the children" and disengage that usless mound of flesh inside your skull?
lujlp at April 24, 2009 9:28 AM
And another thing why is it apparently fine with the US government to poision adults whith shoddy materials?
lujlp at April 24, 2009 9:29 AM
Maybe you should stick to topics you know about, or at least researched.
Tom65 at April 24, 2009 10:59 AM
Gotta at least note the hilarity of a post that claims 4 Billion in damages by a regulation that hasn't been implemented yet.
But also, do kids really eat paint chips? And if so, are they chowing down a whole WALL of paint? And can't parents just monitor their kids a little better? Could you have pointed to, let's say, 5 cases of lead poisoning over 4 months before the government BARGED into areas of private concern? Big government get out of my paint! What's next, seat belt laws?!?
Tom66thru74 at April 24, 2009 11:24 AM
Leave a comment