As some of our long term readers know, there is a specific single parent family we work with from time to time (some previous posts here, here, and here)The five year old little boy spent the night with us on his birthday this week, just for fun. We were discussing how bedtime routine would go with him, and with a casual remark, he shattered my heart.
It went something like this:
My husband: After you brush your teeth and get into your pajamas, I will read you a bedtime story. You like books, right?
Adorable Little Boy: Yeah. But my mommy doesn't read to me. When I go to my daddy's, he doesn't read to me, either. And nobody reads me bedtime story books
My husband read him three bedtime stories, including:
The Man Who Didn't Wash His Dishes, published in 1950, written by Phyllis Krasilovsky, illustrated by Barbara Cooney. I believe this book is out of print, certainly our copy is a 1950 edition, and we've read it to all of our children and now this charming little boy. I do not think it has been reprinted in a very long time.The Adorable Little Boy (ALB) laughed, chortled, and gasped in delighted disgust, "Oh, no! That's gross! Ohhh, yuck."
He wondered why that man didn't just do his dishes. He got the giggles when the man ran out of dishes and had to use his soap dish, and then an ash tray.
He was simply delighted- and delightful.
Then my husband read him that deliciously nonsensical, but still informative book on manners, What Do You Say, Dear?
Again the little lad chortled and expressed concern by turns- "Look out!" he said at one point, "that little girl is gong to fall!"
And finally they read the classic Blueberries for Sal, Our copy is a pre 1985 hardback. By then he was tired, it was well past his bedtime. He relaxed in the HM's lap and just let the words wash over him.
If you already own a copy of this book, hang on tight. This is not the time to get rid of your old, tattered copy and replace it with a reprint. The CPSIA's ban on selling pre-1985 children's books is fraught with unsuspected pitfalls and snares for innocent children's books.
In fifteen minutes the little guy got more read aloud time than he normally gets in a week. Or a month. He's a little sweetie from a single parent family, his mother's main source of income is home daycare and what she gets from the state for the two children who live with her. He certainly counts as 'under-privileged.' If he is ever going to have access to books, it's going to be through books found at school, libraries, thrift shops and yard sales- and my house.
Which brings us to the point of this post- the CPSIA harms the poorest children directly for the sake of pretending to preventing dangers that are more imaginary than real. Yes, children are harmed by lead in their blood levels. But the greatest and most direct KNOWN harm is lead from paint- adult paint, paint for houses in older homes and paint on cars- even new cars. The second greatest dangerous source of lead is their drinking water- from lead in the pipes. And the third would be other adult products that are found more often in immigrant populations, like old samovars with lead soldering, lead folk remedies, lead candies from Mexico.
There are NO known cases of children harmed by lead in a book. There are thousands and thousands of case of children harmed by lack of access to books.
As Carol Baicker-McKee, who blogs at Doodles and Noodles, wrote in her excellent comment to this post:
...The other variable to mention is that exposure to a stimulating environment (like one filled with books, perhaps) can prevent or offset the harm of lead exposure. See this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Parents who smoke run the very high risk of low birthweight for their children, respiratory diseases, middle ear infections, and recurring infections. Parents who expose their children to pre-1985 books risk only making their kids smarter. Yet one of these two things is banned- and it's not the one that carries no known risks for children. Pin Itpubmed/17290364 . There's also more at my blog post on CPSIA and literacy programs: http://doodlesandnoodles.blogspot.com/2009/03/cpsia- . (The lead vs. enriched environment stuff is near the end of the post.)and-books-5-threat-to-staple. html
It is good to remind people that everyone involved here cares about kids and wants to do what is right for them. You don't go into a business involving kids' products unless you like kids - for the most part it's not a mega-bucks business environment, and it has always had tighter regulation and more headaches. The old Saturday Night Live character played by Dan Ackroyd (who was promoting great holiday gifts for kids like the "Bag o' Glass) is a complete fantasy. The recalls the last few years have all been for imported products, all cheap metal jewelry or lead-in-paint issues. (By the way, lead is still legal in certain paints, including auto paint - don't let your kid suck on the bumper - some industrial coatings, and a handful of artists' pigments like lead white which is used sometimes as a ground for canvas). The vast majority of children's products made in the U.S. are safe, with or without this law. Furthermore, even this law won't guarantee that the plastic action figure you pick up at Walmart is harmless - all it does is maybe make it easier and tougher to go after a wrongdoer. But we already had laws that were working well to do that - the leaded toys that were a problem were recalled, the manufacturers were fined, and kids stopped being harmed. The bigger problem has been monitoring, and that is likely only going to get harder, given all the enforcement of new paperwork requirements.
Lead is risky, but we still recognize that sometimes the small risk associated with its use outweighs the small danger it poses. Do you ever take your kid to church? Guess what holds those beautiful windows together - lead. And yes, if the lead is touched (say for cleaning) small amounts can flake off and mingle with the other dust in the church and get into a child who puts his hands in his mouth. But most church-going people will opt to take the chance. And that's the point - in our country, we let parents make their own choices. Want to smoke around your kids? Cigarette smoke is loaded with toxins, including lead. I think it's a terrible idea and wouldn't do it, but other parents choose differently and we let them. This law goes overboard in removing choice from parents, inhibiting the creation and distribution of safe, useful products, and punishing people who have done nothing wrong - and that's why I oppose it and always will.
