This is probably a topic few librarians know about. In August 2008, President Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The intent of this law is to expand safety regulations on children’s products for children 12 and younger. In particular there are stringent requirements for lead and a ban on pthalates. The first major requirement deadline is February 10, 2009 in which the initial lead ban goes into effect. Many in the retail industry are calling February 10th National Bankruptcy Day because of the devastating costs and testing requirements that apply to ALL children’s products.
I have been studying the requirements of this law for the last 3 months in relation to my other employment. It has become clear that this law will affect libraries too. It is unclear if the law applies to books already on the shelf or not, but it will certainly apply to new acquisitions (whether donated or bought). There are a few book publishers and printers that are only now becoming aware of the law.
Many children’s books are already published with soy ink, which is naturally lead free. The problem is that the book publisher and printers will have to prove it through certified laboratory testing on each SKU through batch testing. Other problem materials include trinkets included with the books. At least one book has been recalled for a lead-laced necklace. Some for small parts. Regardless, each and every surface of the book will have to be tested for lead and eventually pthalates.
Other things to consider in relation to this law:
- Libraries will not be able to resell discarded or donated childrens books or products in fundraisers unless they have been tested for compliance. The law applies to all forms of retail regardless if it’s for charity or not.
- Libraries will not be able to give the above books away because they will be considered banned, hazardous substances. The only option is to throw them away.
- Any other products which are intended for children 12 and younger will be affected. This applies to computers, toys, crayons, paper, pencils. craft projects, etc.
- Summer Reading give-aways, crafts, and projects may need to be reconsidered.
- It is unclear if libraries will be able to accept donated child-related books and place them on the shelf.
Indirectly this law will force an increase in the cost of acquisition of new materials. Children’s books will simply be more expensive to produce and the cost of testing will be passed on to the customers. There may also be fewer choices. It is really hard to say at this point.
I know this sounds crazy. The scope of the law is very broad and still must be fine tuned. The CPSC is currently working through the regulations with fast approaching deadlines. Here are some helpful links:
Filed under: Recent News
Hello! I am in agreement with much of your post, and have been wondering about how the CPSIA will affect libraries. I am not sure that you’re 100% correct about the testing issues that affect most books, though — my understanding is that printing ink isn’t subject to the lead paint testing because it becomes bonded to the substrate, and therefore most books should be exempt from the lead paint requirement. However, it’s clear that books definitely ARE subject to the new total lead requirement, which is a separate element of the law than the lead paint requirement. Here’s a quote from the CPSC’s FAQ page for the lead requirements:
” If the children’s products use printing inks or materials which actually become a part of the substrate, such as the pigment in a plastic article, or those materials which are actually bonded to the substrate, such as by electroplating or ceramic glazing, they would be excluded from the lead paint limit. However, these products are still considered to be lead containing products irrespective of whether such products are excluded from the lead paint limit and are subject to the lead limits for children’s products containing lead. ”
Also, my understanding is that most books are not subject to the phthalate limitation — that part of the law applies only to “children’s toys and childcare articles” — I don’t believe that books fall under that umbrella. I definitely could be wrong — I’m just struggling along with this — but that’s my understanding. Here’s the quote from the CPSC FAQ page:
“Three phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP, have been permanently prohibited by Congress in concentration of more than 0.1% in “children’s toys” or “child care articles.” A “children’s toy” means a product intended for a child 12 years of age or younger for use when playing, and a “child care article” means a product that a child 3 and younger would use for sleeping, feeding, sucking or teething.
Three additional phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, have been prohibited pending further study and review by a group of outside experts and the Commission. This interim prohibition applies to child care articles or toys that can be placed in a child’s mouth or brought to the mouth and kept in the mouth so that it can be sucked or chewed that contains a concentration of more than 0.1% of the above phthalates.”
Here’s a link to the page I’m using for reference:
http://cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/faq.html
Again, I am in agreement with the bulk of your post, and as a book retailer I am exceptionally concerned about how the lead content portion of this legislation, specifically, will affect the children’s book industry. Thanks for your post!!
I did not mention the lead paint ban which went into effect December 22, 2008. Children’s books do need to meet the total lead ban which goes into effect February 10, 2009. This particular ban is retroactive meaning it applies to all inventory regardless of the date of manufacture. Each and every surface of the book will need to be tested, at a minimum, for lead.
Touch and feel books will be among the most expensive to test. Each fabric or material in addition to the book itself will need to be tested. Some books have embedded plastic components which MAY have to be tested for pthalates. Finally, I have seen some plastic-y/vinyl “board” books that have components that can be removed and played with. It would be difficult to argue that those books are not toys too. Even so, the possibility that they will have to be tested for both lead and pthalates exists. I would expect that style of book to disappear. What about those pop-up books that sometimes have metal grommets? They will have to be tested too.
I know it sounds crazy, but if you read the law as written (and read the memos that specifically address this issue – links below), this law does apply retroactively to all products for any child 12 and under.
This includes library books, all the supplies currently in schools, daycares, and other places children hang out, and all re-sale items, be they at a consignment shop, on ebay, or at a yard sale.
Obviously, we don’t sell library books. But if it’s illegal to sell a used book that hasn’t been tested, and said book is classified as hazardous waste, then the obvious conclusion that what we do in libraries by allowing children/families to borrow these untested books is illegal as well.
I opened a library last year – 13,500 items at a cost of $200,000. Is it realistic to expect that I check to see if every single one of these items has had a test for lead?
My Day Job is as an elementary school librarian and I am also the owner of a very small press. Neither the publishing industry or the library community – or the public schools, for that matter – has any real idea of the implications of this law!
In addition, I’m a parent and I buy many of my children’s clothes second-hand. I’m not really sure how I can clothe my growing boys if I can’t buy used items.
I am going to have my books tested. If there is no lead found in the initial scan, the price will be $110/book. If there is any evidence of lead, say, in the color yellow, the test will rise exponentially as they will have to test every single color in my full-color picture books that may include that yellow ink…at $75/color.
Scary.
——-
link to CPSC memos on retroactivity of CPSIA:
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/322.pdf
Hey Melanes
You’re totally right in your comments, and I do think we’re on the same page. (Hmm. Punny?) I apologize if I misinterpreted or misread some points in your original post.
As far as books with toy components, I agree that those would definitely seem to fall under the umbrella of items that must be tested for phthalates. It’s just such a small category of books compared to the “regular” books that I think make up the vast majority of those published, which is why I prefaced my earlier remarks about the necessity of phthalate testing with “most books.” I didn’t mean to imply that no books would need to be tested for phthalates, and I did have exactly the kind of books you mention in mind when I wrote that — but I should have been clearer, for sure!
Anyhow, I’m so glad to see that you’re posting on this topic. It’s been so hard to find it covered from a bookseller’s or librarian’s perspective … it sounds like the ALA might be getting in on the action in the near future, though, so there might be more soon. (I hope.)
In the meantime, we’re struggling at our store, where children’s make up about 20% of our current inventory. For toys, at least, there’s precedent for testing, and many existing items have been tested for the European EN-71 standard — which is helpful, kind of/sort of. But books — nothing.
I contacted the CPSC about this issue and today they sent me the following reply:
Hello,
CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children’s Product Safety Laws Taking Effect in February
Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children’s Products, Thrift and Consignment Stores
Please review the below link concerning Resellers of Children’s Products, Thrift and Consignment Shops.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
For further questions, please use this link to submit your inquiry.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/newleg.aspx
Thank you,
jik
This release from yesterday seems to mitigate the implications:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
and indicates that further rulemaking for further guidance is forthcoming.
It is true that the CPSC issued guidelines for resellers. Unfortunately, these guidelines are not official because it is merely a press release. You also must read it carefully because resellers are not required to test but they can still be held criminally liable if they sell non compliant product. Do you know a Friend of the Library committee that wants to take that risk?
[...] CPSIA and Libraries [...]
The implications of CPSIA spread far and wide. It’s not just books at risk, it is even hand-me-down toys and children’s clothing.
But the impacts on books for kids is particularly outrageous. It smacks of government censorship, basically outlawing all the children’s books ever printed because nobody is going to have the money to test them all.
So we’ll be left with little diversity in children’s books and school text books (they are apparently affected, too) for years. Maybe that’s the idea? Control what children learn, and you control the future.
More info on CPSIA regarding books, libaries, clothes, and toys
[...] Books! I like my supply of baby books! But how can I know if they’re safe? Even libraries are worried. Not to mention my books for my older [...]
KION news just covered Salinas Library story – just one more aspect of a BIG BROTHER / BADLY WRITTEN LAW that is going to add to the economic crisis like nobody’s business come Feb. 10.
Here’s the comment I left on their story + a link to their story, below:
Good job for covering!!
I have been covering this on behalf of citizens / parents – this law is MUCH bigger than books, toys, clothes. It’s bigger than businesses being put out of business (even bigger than the businesses we small businesses put out of business – office supply, etc.).
On my blog I have a few articles featured that will save folks a LOT of time in getting up to speed so they can take quick action against CPSIA.
I also have an ACTION plan that ANY CITIZEN can take. And I’ve released 2 videos on You Tube (out of my comfort zone – second better than first) because this is SO critical.
How any law that takes a NATION BY SURPRISE can possibly be born of the will of the PEOPLE is beyond me!!
I say, just as 2007 was known as “The Year of The Recall” let’s make 2009 known as “The Year of The Recall of Incredibly STUPID LEGISLATION.”
I liken it to the crisis in Whoville – we need EVERY VOICE (not person too small) to get the politicians to hear the will of the people (not the will of a special interest group). These are OUR children and I refuse to replace the slogan, “Mother Approved” with “Big Brother Approved.”
You can link to my videos and blog by going to my homepage at http://www.maidenUS.com – first and foremost, we ALL need to be contacting Henry Waxman and requesting he call a committee meeting to scrap this terribly written law.
Kind Regards,
Tristan Benz
Maiden America
1894 SE Sedgwick Rd. #104
Port Orchard, WA 98366
tel. 888-655-1365 / 360-871-9612
fax 360-616-0210
Link to KION TV feature: http://www.kionrightnow.com/global/story.asp?s=9737570
VIDEO #2 – Call to ACTION – my message to our legislators: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z5Rb6t3SU4
Blog: http://www.tristansepinion.blogspot.com
DISTRICT COURT HOLDS CPSIA PHTHALATE BAN
Feb 6, 2009 5:55 PM Report Abuse
The court’s decision overturns the commission’s opinion and requires the commission to enforce the ban on all items made with phthalates, regardless of when they were made. United States District Judge Paul Gardephe held that the “plain text of the phthalate prohibitions provides unequivocally and unambiguously that [children’s care articles and toys containing certain phthalates] may not be sold as of February 10, 2009.” “Unless another section of the statute can be read as creating an express exception for existing inventory,” he continued, “the commission may not interpret the phthalate prohibitions as containing such an exception.”
As a result of the decision, beginning Tuesday, February 10, 2009, stores may not sell toys or products for children under the age of 12 that contain certain phthalates.
The agency has announced that it does not plan to appeal the decision