What he never discusses is how this lead magically would transfer from the book to a child's blood stream, which is where the danger point actually exists.
He quotes Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a former member of the United States EPA lead advisory panel, who is concerned because he claims toddlers are 'constantly' sucking on those books:
KIRO Team 7 Investigators grabbed an armful of used books from the children's section of Seattle's main library.Using a simple test with an easy to read result, we tested 18 books ourselves. Two samples turned pink, which means something on the book contains exposed lead.Knowing the over-the-counter indicators aren't always accurate, we paid a certified lab to do a detailed chemical analysis.Scientists confirmed our suspicion.While pointing to our results, Friedman and Bruya testing specialist Brad Benson told us, “That's about two and a half times our detection limit, so would definitely consider that a verifiable hit of lead on that sample.”Seattle parent Becky Anderson routinely takes her toddler Annie to the library to find fun reading material. She was a bit taken back by the notion that books, she was checking out for her daughter, might contain toxic lead levels.“I wasn't aware of that. That is really concerning to me. We've gone to lengths to have our house examined for lead and concerned about the toy recalls. I hadn't heard about the books. That is alarming. They need to look into it.”According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), starting this year, children's products are considered hazardous with lead levels exceeding 300 parts per million -- but even that's considered unsafe.A new federal law says toys and children’s books with lead over 100 parts per million can't be sold or distributed two years from now.The books we tested show respective lead levels at 546 and 456 parts per million -- over the allowable safe limits.Numerous parents we spoke with outside Seattle’s libraries wanted to weigh in on this controversy.
“Toddlers are constantly sucking on these things at the same time they are reading or having it read to them. For those kinds of books, I worry quite a bit. We need to make sure that some good regulations are in place to protect that age kid from books.”
Um, really? Where was the lead? On the corners, or in the illustrations? When toddlers chew or suck on books, do they typically suck through the center of the book, like the Very Hungry Caterpillar, or do they chew on the corners? Has he or the investigative reporter done any investigative research examining just how much time toddlers spend sucking books into a lead-filled slurry and how many times this has resulted in elevated lead levels (o)? And does anybody in this story stop to consider why an imaginary toddler sucking on a book is proof that books intended for 12 year olds should be banned because they might have some lead in the substrate?
Halsne says the two books they tested were Poems of Childhood and Japanese Children’s Stories. He doesn't give author's names or publishers, but does say both were published before 1983. Neither title sounds like a toddler's book, so it's a bit disingenous to use test results for two books for older children and then talk about how the 'fact' that toddlers suck on these books 'all the time' is the other half of an equation 'proving' Congress needs to act. Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that either of these books are intended for toddlers, given the fact that they were both published before 1983. Toddler books in libraries just don't last that long.
This is a bit of slight of hand designed to frighten the public without informing them.
Here are some facts Lanphear and Halsne should be aware of:
E. Book ink poses virtually no threat under normal use and abuse by a child
i. Book ink soaks into paper, does not rub off on hands
ii. Research on absorption of lead from ink – saliva can’t leach
iii. Bibliophagia (eating books) rare at any age.
1. Normal for babies and toddlers to mouth board books (usually just edges), but studies show putting books in mouth becomes unusual past 18-24 months. Law covers books for kids up to age 12, 10 years past age when mouthing occurs.
2. Actually eating the book is exceedingly rare – usually sign of pica, a medical condition in which people compulsively eat non-nutritive substances (and thus not under the umbrella of “normal use and abuse.”(and only found 2 cases in which young children were said to have eaten a book, along with other substances that posed much greater risk of lead poisoning or other health problems – both kids were later diagnosed with pica and treated for underlying medical conditions.)
F. Emerging evidence that exposure to books may help to both prevent and treat harmful effects of lead toxicity.
Lead is not magic. It doesn't just fly through the air from the printed page to a child's blood stream. There are:
No known cases EVER of lead poisoning from books (of 44 rare sources of lead poisoning in children cataloged by CDC, none is from a book – only print-related case was an infant who had elevated levels after parents burned logs made from old newspapers – people don’t burn children’s book logs.) No mention ever, anywhere of lead in books even contributing to elevated lead levels.Saying that lead is bad is not good evidence that this law is a good law, because toys, books, and clothing are not the primary source of elevated blood lead levels in children, nor is this argument honest, as we know that children under 3 absorb lead much more readily than older children. There is no reason to believe that lead in a book of Japanese children's stories poses any threat to a ten year old, yet this law covers ALL books for ALL children from ages 12 and down.
And of course, the New England Journal of Medicine articles, notwithstanding, the verdict on lead levels is not nearly so conclusive as the above emotional laden argument makes it seem:
Based on his review of the body of literature and his own research, Bellinger hypothesizes that an enriched environment can prevent or ameliorate the effects of lead exposure, which is especially significant in light of the absence of an effective medical treatment. In the journal Pediatrics, Bellinger noted (emphasis added is mine):Finally, characteristics of a child’s rearing environment might influence the
toxicity of a given lead dose.47 Lead seems to be similar to other biological risks, such as low birth weight, in that children from environments that offer fewer developmental resources and supports express deficits at a lower blood lead level than do children from more optimal environments45,48
and show less recovery after exposure.43
There is not a case on record where lead from a child's book entered the blood stream.
What evidence that does exist suggests that touching, holding, reading, even licking the book will not result in a chlid absorbing the lead, because saliva turns out not to be a very effective way of separating lead out of a printed page.
Actually EATING the entire book *might*- if a child chanced to eat a book that had more lead in it than most other pre-1985 books, but I suspect most children would be complaining of a belly ache for other reasons before they finished chomping down an entire book.
I don't know any children over 2 who lick, suck, or chew on their books, yet this draconian law forbids the sale of all pre-1985 books for the use of children as old as 12- with zero evidence it's even possible for that book to harm a ten year old risk assessment is completely forbidden by the CPSIA as it stands. And it appears Halsne feels fully justified in having these books removed from libraries as well.Remember when people were insisting this was ridiculous, nobody wanted to get rid of library books?
Thanks to LAnon for pointing out the article (in the comments to this post), even if it has given me heartburn and pushed back my breakfast making some two hours.=) Pin It
