Very few of these books were purchased new. The majority of them came to our home this way:
Library booksales. The books above came from a library sale where books were one dollar a box. My dear husband backed the truck up to the library door and carried out boxes willy-nilly. We came home, he carried them in, stacked them on the floor, and then left for a two week military training program. In Las Vegas. But I digress. This method of amassing children's literature will no longer be possible for young families like ours once was, thanks to the CPSIA. This is a consequence I am sure Congress did not foresee, but it is one that could be averted if they had only the courage to stand up to PIRG and Public Citizen and the rest of the Naderite groups and simply revisit the issue and take care of it.
All illustrations in this post come from pre-1985 books picked up from library booksales, books which it is now illegal to sell without lead-testing.
Good news-
Federal researchers found that just 1.4 percent of young children had elevated lead levels in their blood in 2004, the latest data available. That compares with almost 9 percent in 1988.
"It has been a remarkable decline," said Mary Jean Brown of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a co-author of the study. "It’s a public health success story."
And it happened entirely without the CPSIA, in spite of what PIRG and friends are wont to call 'lead laced' or 'toxic' toys, an epidemic of them, even, in their substantive free and inflammatory fashion.
Here's an interesting source of information:
Article title: Law And Practice: The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act Of 2008
Article source: Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, March 2009 issue
Opening Paragraph:
No legislation in recent memory has engendered more confusion and consternation than the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ( Pub. L. No. 110-314 (HR 4040)) (the "CPSIA"). The complexity and difficulty of fully complying with the CPSIA's regulatory framework, coupled with the consequences of non-compliance, have created substantial risks to all parties in the consumer products supply chain, as well as to asset-based lenders. The Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") has acknowledged that the law as adopted, and the expense of full compliance, may in fact be too burdensome for many businesses, and recently issued a one-year stay of its enforcement of certain important provisions of the law. Despite the stay, businesses and lenders that deal in consumer products will have to contend with a highly technical legal framework and will undoubtedly incur substantial compliance costs. Attorneys should be prepared to deal with the legal issues that will surely arise.
Hmm. The authors say the law is is confusing, complex, compliance is difficult, it causes harm to businesses and agents up and down the supply chain, the legal risks are great, it's burdensome, too burdensome for many businesses, the stay isn't very helpful, ti's expensive, and it requires legal assistance to deal with all the ramifications.
Obviously, the authors are really Mommy Bloggers in disguise, and these are merely pseudonyms at best: Michael B. Goldsmith, Member of the Firm's Corporate Practice Group, resident and Co-Managing Partner in the Firm's New York office. Jay L. Silverberg, Member of the Firm's Corporate Practice Group and resident in the Firm's New York office.
The CPSC also:
acknowledged that the new act "cut a broad swath through the business community from books to children's apparel to toys and sporting goods to children's electronic products". . . and that "many of the firms making consumer products. . . are small businesses" who "do not have laboratory test facilities and must turn to outside labs" for a wide array of complex and expensive tests .(Notice of Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement, 74 Fed. Reg. 25 (Feb. 9, 2009) at 6398). Who knew that the CPSC was also staffed by Mommy Bloggers? We're everywhere, it seems.
Further, those Mommy Bloggers masquerading as male lawyers issuing professional advice, advise that the stay is of limited use since the states' Attorneys General need not abide by it (hmmm, where have we heard that before?), retailers are still requiring proof of compliance even if the CPSC is not, and (here's a doozy):
Importers may find the CPSIA particularly challenging since there is a specific provision providing for the non-compliant goods to be refused admission at customs (or sent back to the importer). The non-conforming products may not be exported out of the country and "shall be destroyed . . . unless the Secretary of the Treasury permits the export in lieu of destruction." In addition, "all expenses . . . in connection with the destruction . . . shall be paid by the owner or consignee." 15 U.S.C. §§ 2066(e), (f). Based on a literal reading of the statute, an importer who receives non-compliant goods cannot legally export them to return them to the party who provided them and may be liable for destruction expenses.Emphasis added.
They call it a 'formidable law' with 'far-reaching consequences,' and note:
Asset-based lenders whose collateral is consumer products should also take note of the CPSIA and its consequences. The CPSIA applies not only to goods in the borrower's possession but also extends to goods that have been sold to stores or stored in warehouses. Unwary lenders to businesses that violate the CPSIA may wake up to find that accounts receivable or inventory that it relied upon to secure a loan are worthless. This possibility requires that these lenders adopt due diligence procedures heretofore not practiced.
They recommend that lawyers get up to snuff on the law and sign up for regular CPSC updates so they can accurately advise and protect their clients. They must be 'hysterical' and 'panicked,' according to our friends from the consumer advocacy groups and our reps in D.C.They also issue a warning about this portion of the law:
The CPSIA dramatically raises the maximum civil penalties for each knowing violation of the CPSA or any other act that the Commission enforces (to $100,000), and for a related series of violations (to $15 million). It also, among other things, increases the maximum term of imprisonment for knowing violations to five years and adds as a punishment “forfeiture of assets associated with” the violations. Criminal liability, previously unknown in practice under the CPSA, also no longer depends on the violation’s having occurred after written notice from the Commission.
Valerie, at The Bookroom, asks:
What could this mean for a home business–and the title of that home? What about the business vehicle? What might this mean for an inventory of thousands of books–with a few dozen non-compliant titles? (Sorry, but we booksellers were changed forever by Fahrenheit 451. We don’t assume that it could never happen.)The CPSIA is stranger than fiction, unfortunately.
Alexandra Lozanoff, a recent college graduate and member of the Illinois PIRG, doesn't think things are all that complicated; we just need new leadership at the Commission since Nord must go (young Alexandra takes her marching orders from PIRG well, does she not?), and the situation is simple enough:
No responsible business wants to sell a product that will hurt our kids.
No parent wants their children harmed by the toys they buy for them. Together, with strong leadership from the CPSC, we can reach the goals of safety for children and financial viability for small businesses. The CPSC has a big job ahead to accomplish the CPSIA's goal of keeping unsafe toys out of our kids' hands.
The agency needs new leadership that is up to this important job.
In other news, nobody who has actually read the law truly believes that only irresponsible businesses are opposed to it or that it actually saves anything more valuable than legal settlements for PIRG and Public Citizen. There are several brilliant responses to PIRG's scripted talking points for Alexandra, and they are far more accurate, detailed, and informative than she. Here's one of my favorites:
Ms. Lozanoff is being either hyperbolic or disingenuous when she rants about the "danger" kids are in without CPSIA. Lead blood levels have been on the decline in this country for decades, thanks to other, more effective measures that do not claim small business as collateral damage. 70% of what lead levels of concern remain after these measures comes from lead-based paint remaining in housing units, and most of the rest comes from exposure to lead-based home remedies from China, Mexico, and many other countries. Had CPSIA been in effect in 2007, it would likely have not prevented the lead toy scare.
Ms. Lozanoff herself notices that "No responsible business wants to sell a product that will hurt our kids," and she is right. The irresponsible businesses that through lax oversight (not diabolical intent) allowed lead paint to get through would just as likely forge their CPSIA certifications. In the meantime, the businesses that were already responsible are being put out of business, giving more market share to the irresponsible ones. Remind me again, Ms. Lozanoff, how this helps keep children safer.
That's from Sarah Natividad, one of those poor befuddled 'Mommy bloggers.'
Another one, Generations Tie-Dye, begins:
Alexandra, I'm not sure where to begin to sort through your misconceptions, misinformation, and omissions, but since you are representing a group claiming to act in the Public Interest, getting your facts straight would certainly serve that interest.
And Michael Feeney points out a similarity in all these letters from PIRG, Public Citizen, or anonymous souls who just Care About The Children:
Over the last two months I have been reading a great deal about CPSIA. I have seen numerous letters like Alexandra Lozanoff's. Every one of them has expressed dismay at the confusion supposedly caused by the CPSC and/or the "Mommy Bloggers". Unfortunately not one of those letters as wasted so much as a single sentence actually addressing this so called "confusion". They merely state that it exists. They don't state specifically what we are all confused about nor do they present any information to clear this supposed confusion up.
Precisely. They are like children, arguing by sticking their fingers in their ears and saying 'Nuh-uh.' If Mommy Bloggers are others were so confused and bewildered, it would be the work of a moment to say, "Oh, you poor dears, you are worrying your frowzy little empty heads for nothing, because ......" and then something substantive would follow to correct that misinformation. But that corrective information is apparently only a one-way street. The substantive data comes only from those who believe the CPSIA is flawed and needs some serious revising. From those in favor of the law as is, we only hear name calling and vague, airy-fairy promises about how nobody is going to 'come after' micro-businesses, anyway.
In this article, Toys R Us explains that they've been insisting on phthalate free products since 2007, as well as enhanced safety standards from their suppliers (indicating the CPSIA just put a stamp on what was already happening in the mega-businesses), and Arlene Flecha, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission promises us again that the CPSC isn't looking to put anybody out of business and won't be going after the little guys. At least, I'm sure that's what this means: the CPSC
will have inspectors make unannounced visits to stores throughout the country and will randomly conduct tests on products.
Hugh Hewitt, who must be yet another hysterical, panicked Mommy Blogger in disguise, touches on the CPSIA again, expressing concerns that the media isn't even touching on
the vast damage the law is doing to other industries like the ATV business and sporting goods, or the legion of plaintiffs' lawyers who are empowered by the law to bring suits against non-compliers.
Valerie's little boy needs a new coat- the zipper on his is broken. They went to Goodwill to get one, but their Goodwill has pulled all their children's coats with zippers. What good is a coat that doesn't close? It's ten degress outside where we live today. In what possible way doesn't anybody imagine this law keeps young Gunnar safe?
Walter Olson is, as ever, including a number links in his daily update.
At Wellspring Creations we learn that Half Price books pulled all kinds of children's books from the shelves. The employee says the books are boxed and sent back to headquarters where they are tested for lead. But again- nobody has ever shown so much as a single case of elevated blood lead levels from reading a book, holding a book, or even eating a book.
And speaking of eating, she found that one book section that was particularly reduced by CPSIA compliance was the children's cookbook area- most children's cookbooks are spiral bound, for ease of use. I wonder how many other 'how to' books it is now illegal to sell. It seems that every day I find a new genre that we can ill afford to lose, and which we do lose by removing the CPSIA banned books from the market- yesterday it was the first children's biographies of Black Americans like Harriet Tubman.In the case of children's cookery or any other 'how to' book that is spiral bound so the book will lay flat so the child can refer back to it easily, it's all of them- they cannot be sold unless they are tested, the third party individual component testing required by August is neither feasable (it destroys the product, making it worthless for used books) and it is prohibitively expensive.
Books: The Little Travelers In Wales, by Mrs. Gwladys Morgan Lyle
An older Mother Goose Pin It
