CPSIA and Vintage Books: My Comment to Consumer's Union

Drawing by Jessie Willcox Smith from The Little Mother Goose, with thanks to Project Gutenberg  

Consumer's Union blog has a very inaccurate account of the rally (really quite bizarre at times - don't know what rally they attended, but it wasn't the same one I did). You can read it here. 

There are lots of great comments from people who were really there, but I had to add my two cents too (especially since so far they haven't seen fit to post my comments, though in fairness they've posted plenty of others that are critical):

Um, you forgot to mention speakers like me. I do not represent any organization or industry, I paid my own way to the rally and gave up a day of work to attend and speak at it, and what's more, I was even arguing contrary to my self-interest. I write and illustrate new children's books, the ordinary kind currently enjoying a stay of enforcement - it would be to my advantage to have libraries and schools throw out their old books and have to buy new ones like mine to replace them. I was there to argue for what I believe is best for children, particularly for the most disadvantaged in our society who suffer disproportionately from lead poisoning. This law gets it wrong on so many fronts.

 

I have my doctorate in clinical child psychology from the University of Virginia and graduated magna cum laude from Yale with distinction in psychology. I am not an idiot and I am well aware of the potential hazards of lead poisoning for children, especially for the youngest ones. I also know that the research on lead is more complex than is commonly acknowledged by consumer organizations like yours. The truth is that lower SES kids are at greater risk of lead poisoning, and this discrepancy has persisted even as efforts by the CDC and other agencies to reduce sources of environmental lead (in lower income areas as well as others) have been enormously successful. Part of the reason that lower SES kids are at greater risk is because they still live disproportionately in older homes with lead-containing dilapidated paint and to play in areas with lead in the soil (the CPSIA does nothing to help with those on-going issues). But there are many other variables that also put low SES kids at greater risk -- and I can assure you that higher rates of exposure to books, high quality handmade toys, bicycles and ATVs, ballpoint pens, organic clothing, and one of kind artwork are NOT among them - and yet these blameless items are disproportionately being affected by CPSIA, which also means they won't be around in 5 years to be passed along through thrift stores and give-away programs to kids who could really use them. Instead the law does NOTHING to address the very real measures we could take to reduce the absorption of and harm by lead in the young children from lower SES populations, including improving their nutrition (low calcium and iron levels lead to higher absorption rates), providing support to improve parenting practices (neglected and abused kids suffer higher rates of lead poisoning even when controlling for SES; and kids whose parents have poor housekeeping practices have higher rates, again controlling for SES), and improving the mentally stimulating quality of the child's environment through providing high quality child care, book distribution programs coupled with instruction on sharing books with children, and programs to distribute toys that promote physical exercise (like bicycles) and encourage brain development (a mentally stimulating environment both prevents and treats the harmful effects of lead at low to moderate blood lead levels). The CPSIA not only doesn't help with these proven effective measures, it actually hinders them, putting an end to bike distribution programs, closing down the children's sections in affordable thrift stores, and raising the prices of all consumer goods for children, so that low income parents have less money to spend on high quality food, toys and books. By banning the sale of inexpensive older used books, removing them from libraries, schools and daycares, and raising the costs of the new ones purchased by literacy programs, the CPSIA snatches books and the chances for better school achievement from the hands of low income kids as surely as the Grinch plucked the books and toys from the Whos down in Whoville.

 

Way to go, Grinch.

 

P.S. You are correct that the law only addresses children's products. But if this law were in fact necessary, then you'd have to ban lead in adults' products as well. Children are actually at the greatest risk of lead poisoning prenatally, when it's Mom's exposure that matters, and they further come into contact with items intended for adults or the whole family every day. When you decide that minimal lead exposure is important enough to take away American's automobiles (aka lead machines - with lead in everything from the batteries to the steel to the brakes to the weights used to balance the wheels) then I'll start to think you at least believe in what you are saying.

 

I'd also like to see you recommend that all American families discard all their current children's products and household goods unless they get them tested - obviously necessary if you believe that retroactive application of the law is so essential that even during a severe recession thrift stores can't sell a pair of jeans to a 10 year old.

CPSIA Rally Update Coming - I'm Whupped

I'd like to thank everyone who left words of encouragement for me over the last couple of days; your good wishes are much appreciated, and I hope I did well by all of you. My plan had been to get everyone updated this evening, but I'm going to have to ask for your patience until tomorrow. 

Yesterday was a LONG day for me and my daughter. We got up at 3:30 a.m. to drive to DC and didn't get home until 10:30 last night - and then because I was speaking at a literacy organization midday today,  I had to get up early and spend the morning preparing for that and the afternoon catching up a bit on various things. I'm so tired now I'm heading to bed with a good book.

Publishers' Weekly interviewed me last night about the rally as I was getting ready to head home, and though I'm sorry they couldn't use most of what I told them, the article is excellent coverage - and more than a little worrisome for new books too. You can read the article here.

I was/am a bit disheartened about what my senators' staffers told me about the likelihood of the CPSIA being amended - but it does sound like other rally people felt more hopeful after meeting with their congressmen, so overall that's encouraging. And the staffers I spoke with were not only polite and listened, I think they are genuinely willing to learn more. Please everyone, don't let up now - keep working to get this law changed, sooner rather than later.

Okay, more tomorrow.

CPSIA and Vintage Books: Speech! Speech!

I've agreed to speak at the April 1st CPSIA Fly-In, Rally, and Congressional Briefing on vintage books. I'm slightly terrified; it feels like a gigantic responsibility, and most of my speaking experience for the last ten years is to groups of school kids who like my fart jokes and curly bug demonstrations. I think I have to be a little more serious to speak to congressmen.

Here is my work-in-progress, way too long outline. I'm going to use it to make up my leave-behind notes for congress folk, but I also have to pare it to the bare essentials so I can get through everything important in my alloted 3-4 minutes. I'd appreciate any suggestions!

Outline: Speech on CPSIA and Books

Amend the CPSIA Rally, April 1, 2009 

I.               Thanks and intro self Author/illustrator and lifelong advocate for children (doctorate in clinical child psychology, early childhood educator, classroom and literacy volunteer, parent, etc. Well aware of the real risks of lead poisoning in kids.) Quick description of how books handled under CPSIA (exemptions for books for kids up to 12 printed after 1985 for possible lead in ink; also for collectible books that because of rarity and value would not be given to children.) Not enough - urging exemption for all books, including vintage ones.

II.             Vintage books are safe. Speaking as a scientist with experience and expertise in interpreting research findings.

A.    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.

B.    Statement by CDC (“on a 1-10 scale, books are a 0.5 risk”)

C.    If a something is a significant source of a toxin, then people with a high rate of exposure to the source should suffer more harm than those with a low rate of exposure. Instead, we find just the reverse with books, even when we look only at studies conducted prior to 1985 (when lead in books no longer an issue). Children with more books in the home, who spent more time engaging in leisure reading, or who were read to more by their parents fare better on the outcome measures associated with lead poisoning – like IQ, school achievement, rates of learning disorders and ADHD, frequency and severity of antisocial and aggressive behavior. (Caveat – this is all correlational evidence,  just like the studies linking blood lead levels and poor outcomes – neither proves clear, causative pathways.)

D.   Lead is found only in some old books (but no way to tell which ones without testing) Even the worst offending books are borderline cases; highest levels being found by CPSC’s digestive testing are around 300ppm (below current allowed levels, around the level that goes into effect in August). No feasible way to detect which books are safe and which aren’t – can’t use XRF testing for books, where ink is part of substrate, and since used booksellers’ inventory tends to be OOAK, digestive testing is impossible as well as obscenely expensive.

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.

                                                     i.     Evidence from human observational studies that mentally stimulating environment is protective against lead’s ill effects. [Bellinger (major lead researcher from Harvard); CDC recommendations]

                                                      ii.     Evidence from animal studies also supports those conclusions (rat studies)

                                                        iii.     Books are easy, inexpensive way to provide enriching environment, plus increase parental engagement with child, creating a virtuous spiral of better environment for child. Success of early literacy book distribution programs. 

G.   Despite safety that is clear even to public health officials, equally clear that vintage books as a class nonetheless do not pass muster under the excessively strict guidelines of the CPSIA – total lead content in vintage books sometimes exceeds 300 ppm, and more will exceed 100 ppm if/when that goes into effect in August, 2011; there’s a general lack of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence (don’t study what’s not a problem) and none likely to be available any time soon; what little evidence there is prevents assertion that there’d be no absorption of any lead ever from an old book – just that the risk is insignificant.

                                                     i.     Bottom line: if a parent, teacher or librarian asked my professional advice about removing old books, I’d tell them not to, and if they’d be unable to replace those books, the answer would be an emphatic NO – the risks from having few or no books greatly outweighs the miniscule risk of lead exposure.

                                                      ii.     I’d still give my kids vintage books. Talked to many parents; all would continue to allow their kids access to older books.

III.           Why Should Anyone Care?

A.    Aren’t old books worthless? (That's what CPSC thinks)

                                                     i.     No one uses books more than 20 years old - they’re worn out and the content is obsolete, right?

                                                      ii.     The exemption for collectibles covers the special old books, like the first edition Winnie the Poohs, so nothing more is needed, right?

                                                        iii.     Publishers could just reprint the old books if someone wanted them, right? 

B.    WRONG! Loss of number of books available to kids – hard to say for certain, but likely hundreds of millions of old books currently in use by kids.

                                                     i.     Old children’s books have remarkable staying power, both in content and physically

                                                      ii.     The number of books at risk also must include books that were printed post 1985 but which lack print dates – a common practice in kids’ books. Likely affects millions or even billions more volumes.

                                                        iii.     Contrary to CPSC assertions, discarding old books would have devasting impacts on library collections – estimates vary, but even well to do libraries estimate as much as 1/3 of their collections would be lost. Small, low income libraries could be even worse.

                                                       iv.     Equally terrible impacts on schools and childcare facilities, also contrary to CPSC assertions. Old books in libraries, classroom libraries (often assembled out of the teacher’s own pocket), sets of classroom novels used only a few times a year.

                                                      v.     Also hurts home libraries. Number of books in the home one of the best predictors of child’s success in school (after maternal education). Vintage books often significantly cheaper and better quality than even more recent used reprints (because of law taxing warehouse inventory).

                                                       vi.     The one category with a low survival rate is books for the youngest kids – the ones at greatest risk for ingesting books and for lead poisoning. Thus the books that pose the greatest risk – but still small – are not a significant problem. 

C.    Loss of diversity in books available to kids – as bad as the loss of number

                                                     i.     New books don’t make old books worthless anymore than second child makes first one obsolete. Compare also with suggestion that we discard all paintings done before 1985 because they also contained lead – we can just get by with new paintings, copies of old masters, cheap reproductions. Doesn’t sit right, does it? Same emotional response to this law by people who know and love children’s literature.

                                                      ii.     Most old books out of print in any form – loss is not just of volumes, but of actual titles, content, values, historic style, etc.

                                                        iii.     Most unlikely to be republished (variety of reasons)

                                                       iv.     Differences between new and old books, even when reprints available (paperbacks vs. hardcovers, quality of paper and printing, loss of special features like endpapers, jackets, re-illustration, changes in text to reflect current values).

                                                      v.     Certain categories more affected than others (like poetry, other non-fiction, anthologies and collections)

                                                       vi.     This problem reflexively feels like censorship to most people, even though that’s not probably not what was intended. (Not helped by 1984 cutoff date.) At a minimum creates de facto censorship.

D.   Economic Impact 1 - Threat to businesses, individuals that sell older books

                                                     i.     Huge impact on used booksellers large and small – Quotes from Half Price Books, Jacobsen books, Deputy Headmistress (others?)

                                                      ii.     Hard to judge overall impact in dollars, but likely substantial, especially as it’s not uncommon for a book to be resold more than once.

                                                        iii.     Good business for tough economic times – internet makes it easier than ever to make money through resale. Prices are low enough that the product is affordable to families suffering through hard times. Amusement for child with hours of use and re-use, educational, quiet, etc.

                                                       iv.     Common and profitable items at yard sales – right now many families need even the small change that these kinds of sales produce.

E.    Economic Impact 2: Hurts charities that raise revenue through book sales (like libraries, Goodwill, literacy programs)

                                                     i.     Literacy programs also redistribute used books to homes, schools, child care centers, after school programs, waiting rooms

                                                      ii.     Also hurt charitable recipients overseas – we ship used textbooks and trade books to schools in 3^rd world countries to stock schools. Not allowed under CPSIA 

F.    Groups especially hurt by loss of old books

                                                     i.     Chronically needy, families hurting in recession – increased costs of books for kids; harm to institutions in low-income areas doubles impact.

                                                      ii.     Home schoolers – low cost way to obtain necessary teaching materials

                                                        iii.     Gifted children – older books tended to have more innocent themes, while having more difficult vocabularies and longer, more complex texts (c.f., Make Way for Ducklings with a modern duck picture book for same age). 

G.   Loss of history of children’s literature

                                                     i.     Children’s books not just used by kids, but will be lost to adults too. Impact on social scientists, historians, children’s lit scholars, contemporary authors and illustrators (and thus harm to quality of books going forward), book artists.

                                                      ii.     Exemption for collectibles not sufficient to protect books from extinction or unavailability – most old books sell for less than new books, making it difficult to argue they’re too valuable to give to children. Also, dividing line is in the eye of the beholder, making selling collectibles an uncertain business.

                                                        iii.     Will increase rarity and drive up prices, putting old books out of reach of all but the wealthiest individuals and institutions.

                                                       iv.     Sharing childhood books is especially powerful spur to connecting generations, interesting reluctant parents in reading to their kids

 

In sum: Harm likely to be caused to books and kids under CPSIA greatly outweighs any possible small benefit in terms of reduced lead exposure.

IV.           Action I’d like to see

A.    1^st choice: repeal act and start over. Too flawed, piecework amendments will make an already too-complex law even more complicated and increase violations and difficulty of enforcing it.

B.    Otherwise, amend law to make it more reasonable – and thus more effective.

                                                     i.     Exempt all books, except those with high risk components (like baby bath books). (Other categories of books with unnecessary burdens, like most novelty books, stapled books, books aimed at older kids with risky components)

                                                      ii.     Limit age range to under 3

                                                        iii.     Make standard for getting exemptions more reasonable – give CPSC more discretion (e.g., reliance on expert advice in absence of peer reviewed scientific evidence), ability to balance risks and benefits

                                                       iv.     Get rid of retroactivity of law – if problem not serious enough to recall/recommend discarding ALL old kids’ products

                                                      v.     Un-deputize states’ attorneys general, or require them to follow guidelines set by CPSC.

                                                       vi.     Make penalties less extreme for all but the worst offenders.

                                                         vii.     Say what you mean, and mean what you say – if CPSC doesn’t intend to go after used booksellers or people holding yard sales, make it law,  not Russian roulette

                                                          viii.     Let parents make their own choices for their own kids – allow warning labels or an educational campaign instead of banning books for all.

                                                        ix.     Concentrate resources instead where most fruitful – will increase compliance, ease enforcement, gain buy-in by folks who care about kids, like those here today.

Thanks! 

CPSIA and Vintage Books 6: Rally 'Round!

Illustration by Marjorie Torrey, copyright, 1956, Random House

The illustration above (and the close-up detail below) are from my childhood copy of Favorite Nursery Songs, compiled by Phyllis Brown Ohanian and illustrated with delicate watercolor and pencil pictures by the Caldecott-honored Marjorie Torrey. The book, my favorite songbook when I was growing up, was published in 1956 and has been out of print ever since.

Detail from "Ring Around a Rosy"

More about Ms. Torrey's charming illustrations in a minute, but first I want to encourage everyone who can possibly make it to join me in a trek to Washington D.C. for a fly-in, rally, and Congressional briefing on Capitol Hill to amend the CPSIA. You can get all the details, including the info on hotels offering special deals for the event, at a special website here.

Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources, Inc. (see his CPSIA blog here) has been helping to organize people from many affected industries, large and small, to get our voices heard by Congress. I'm trying to schedule meetings with my senators and representative as well - and I'm taking my teenage daughter, so she can see political activism at work in person (and put in her two cents worth too). I'm planning to leave from Pittsburgh very early on the morning of the first and return in the evening. I have a minivan, and if anyone from the area needs a ride, just shoot me an email and we can work out the details.

Copyright Random House, 1956

Detail from cover

Isn't the cover of this book beautiful? The quality of the color reproductions was really quite remarkable for the era, too. You can readily see the rough texture of the watercolor paper, as well as the soft layers of washes and the nuances of the pencil lines. I think it's notable that these images still come vividly to mind more than 45 years after I first saw them the moment I hear the familiar first lines of songs like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" or "Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush."

Here's a glimpse of the illustration for the former song, as well as a closer look at a couple of the figures. There's a real sweetness, without veering into saccharine. The botanical elements are consistently precise and beautiful. 

Marjorie Torrey, Copyright Random House, 1956

I spoke recently with Joe Martyak, the chief of staff at the CPSC, for information about how CPSIA affects children's books, literacy programs, libraries, and the sale of the original art from children's books for an article I'm writing for the Society for Children's Book Writers and Illustrators (SCBWI - visit their website here) and for an opinion piece with a similar theme I'm working on to submit to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (which ran one excellent article on CPSIA and dirt bikes but has otherwise ignored the whole thing). Although much of what Mr. Martyak told me could be construed as encouraging from a short-term perspective (he didn't think the CPSC would be going after libraries, literacy groups, booksellers, etc. any time soon due to low priority and lack of resources), my overall mood is one of gloom for the future of children's literature's past unless Congress agrees to try again with the CPSIA. He was clear that their preliminary testing  finds many older books hovering around the 300 ppm level - the standard which goes into effect in August. (This is destructive testing because XRF testing is not particularly helpful for books since it can only measure the lead in a particular spot which tells you little about total lead) An even stricter standard of 100 ppm goes into effect in August, 2011, at which time my guess is that few old books will pass.

Mr. Martyak did his best to ask my specific questions, but it's clear there's just much that he and the agency have not yet figured out. And that of course is just one of the many, many problems with passing a tsunami of a law and rushing it into enactment: there are a nearly limitless number of details and judgment calls with a law like this, and no matter how hard-working or well-meaning the folks at CPSC are, they will simply not be able to sort them out any time soon, not in the next year, probably not in the next five. For example, he had no idea how the law would be applied with regard to schools (who become manufacturers under a strict reading of the law when they create unit packets with comb bindings - or when they even just staple a pile of papers together). He thought that the publishers who produce inexpensive staple-bound paperbacks could get away with just testing the staples (since for now "ordinary books" are exempt from testing), but it sounded to me in other published CPSC advisories like deviating from the ordinary book definition meant the whole product had to be tested. And Mr. Martyak had not realized the agency had used different definitions of ordinary books, nor whether that signaled a shift in interpretation.

I love how she handled the challenge of facing pages that couldn't really bleed together, given the printing limitations at the time.
Aren't the cherry blossoms breathtaking? And they should be in bloom on April 1st for the rally. Of course, that baby should be sleeping on his back, in an approved, labeled crib. Hope there aren't any fasteners or phthalates in that sleeper. On the whole, I think the CPSC investigators would have a field day, as would CYS.

Right now, those of us who oppose the CPSIA are largely at the wind-blowing stage. (The ATV industry and the thrift stores too are past that though). But the bough-breaking phase is not far off - next February 10th will herald both the testing and certification mandates - and the end of many more businesses and safe, useful products. We need to take action now, before disaster strikes.
Not sure if this guy is looking for his little dog, or for the toys, books, and clothes he used to have.

Favorite Nursery Songs is 64 pages long. Color printing was quite expensive then, so the spreads alternate between full color and half tone pencil drawings like the one above. As a child, I loved them too, because they were easier for me to try to copy when I was teaching myself to draw. My kids used to imitate her style too.

One of the extra elements common in older books are illustrated endpapers, like those above. You still see them in some picture books today, but much less frequently since they're an added expense, as well as more work for the illustrator (who is generally paid the same whether or not the end papers are illustrated). Endpapers are not usually included when a hardcover is reprinted as a paperback, which is yet another reason to prefer the older editions.

The description below is from a bio of Marjorie Torrey (who was also an acclaimed mystery writer) by Tom and Enid Schantz that appeared in the Rue Morgue Press in 2002:

"But it was her work as an illustrator that brought her fame and awards. Her first Caldecott Honor book, Sing Mother Goose, with songs by Opal Wheeler, came in 1946. The following year she earned another Caldecott Honor medallion for illustrating Sing in Praise: A Collection of the Best Loved Hymns, once again selected by Wheeler. A Caldecott historian wrote of her work: 'The full-color illustrations reflect the solemnity and reverence seen in Torrey’s Mother Goose collection, and these interpretations communicate the essence and importance of the songs’ words…Torrey’s gentle black-and-white illustrations possess the softness of pencil, some the sharp lines of pen and ink, and others a combination of both.'...All of her books are out of print today. Even her Caldecott honor books are difficult to find, often confined to rare book rooms or the special collections section of larger libraries."

You can read the whole article here. And despite the rarity of her books (which my attempts at searching for them confirm), you can still find a few inexpensive copies (see these amazon listings for the song book I own), meaning the volumes likely won't qualify as collectibles under CPSIA standards - so better get a copy while you can.

Ms. Torrey was also well known for her version of Alice in Wonderland.

I'm hoping someone decides to republish her work.

Here are two more CPSIA articles on books in the MSM: a Washington Post article that ran in the health section, and one from the St. Petersburg Times here. Very discouraging, but I think Congress ought to take a look at the typical comments about this law. Don't know who those constituents are that they claim are pestering to preserve the law unchanged, but they're not exactly vocal in public.