Book Burning hits the US

[oggbashan]

I found this link in my trade emailed magazine. Don't give away any older children's books. They'll be toast.

Pre-1985 Children's Books

This is another example of the law of unintended consequences. Lead is bad for children. Some illustrations in children's books used colours that had traces of lead in them. If a child ate all the pictures from an older book that child might have had one hundredth of the lead in a small paint chip from a piece of wood in an older house but let's ban and destroy everything just in case...

Modern reprints of older children's books just aren't the same. My hardback Arthur Ransome Swallows and Amazon series don't feel like the modern hardback reprints. The older copies have better, thicker paper, the green cloth covered boards are heavier, the dustwrappers are just paper, not shiny plastic-coated paper.

Which of your children's books printed pre-1985 would you miss if only modern editions were available?

Og

 

[Leto Degeneres]

Which of your children's books printed pre-1985 would you miss if only modern editions were available?

This just makes me want to cry! I had no idea this law was coming to pass. $100,000 fines and jail time, if enforced, to anyone that sells these books, even at garage sales? The only people handling these old books, for the most part, are small booksellers and families. What the hell is wrong?

I wanted to find more direct links to the law. I haven't found them yet, because of all the other hits using "pre-1985 books banned". A lot of people are yelling.

This is the sort of think could make me, at least while I'm fuming like this, turn a blind eye to anarchy.

I'd miss all of those books, Og.

 

[matriarch]

That has to be the most fucking ridiculous thing I've ever heard!

Us oldies - Pre-1985's - havent suffered from the items.

PC gone mad. Absolutely freakin' mad.

 

[oggbashan]

My wife treasures her first US edition of Charlotte's Web sent to her as a birthday present by an American friend of the family.

It is well used, has lost its dustwrapper, but to her it is beyond price.

My equivalent is an 1890s copy of Ruskin's The King of the Golden River, with the original woodcuts, which was left to me by my eldest aunt. She was given it new for her fifth birthday but not allowed to touch it until she was ten.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are brilliant children's books that have never been reprinted. These are historic artifacts, and I'm not going to destroy them.

 

[christabelll]

Bambi and Bambi's Children gone forever? Not the Disney Bambi Either - the original stories!

Christ I must have over two dozen illustrated tales books - from Hajji Baaba to Beowulf. No way am I getting rid of these and if I can lay hands on more I am snatching them up!

Somehow I think this has to do with getting rid of the older influencers of our society - along the lines of keep them ignorant - and they can't argue or fight.
Presentism and shades of faranheit 451........


NO BOOK BURNINGS

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think that this will be one law that runs into trouble really quick. In the mean time, let us rush to www.abebooks.com and rescue as many as possible. I have a first edition Phoebe's Revolt and an irreplaceable The Bear at the Hunters' Ball. They will pry them from my cold, dead fingers . . .

 

[TE999]

Sieg Heil!

What a stupid ruling! It's not like children eat books.

This does kill two birds with one stone, tho. You're eliminating the racisim, sexisim, speciesism, etc. in those old texts; along with harmful teachings on things such as thrift, responsibility, difficulty and hard work being it's own reward.

 

[oggbashan]

As far as I can tell from the current state of the US legislation, secondhand bookdealers etc are exempt from the requirement to test or certify for lead content for post-1985 books only.

If you offer for sale any children's books printed pre-1985 you can be prosecuted.

Put any of your old and precious children's books well out of the reach of babies and toddlers (and the local Sheriff's office)!

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sieg Heil!

What a stupid ruling! It's not like children eat books.

This does kill two birds with one stone, tho. You're eliminating the racisim, sexisim, speciesism, etc. in those old texts; along with harmful teachings on things such as thrift, responsibility, difficulty and hard work being it's own reward.

Social engeneers, both left and right wing, want to burn books that say things they don't like. They can never get away with banning them unless they can concoct some excuse such as this one.

 

[LilyBart]

I found this interesting enough that actually found myself searching the CPSC website. I found the law, but at 63 pages I don't have the required time or attention span to actually find any reference to books specifically. I did find a CPSC staff presentation that identified items likely to contain lead, which included pre-1985 childrens' books. However the presentation didn't specifically address any actions. It did say that childrens' books have an ordinary shelf-life of 20 years, which I think sounds a bit arbitrary.

I can say that none of my children has ever attempted to eat the pages of a book. As toddlers they might have torn pages, or colored in them, perhaps, but never eaten one. My dogs on the other hand...

And I have my own favorite, a 45 year old version of Robert Louis Stevenson's A Child's Garden of Verses from my childhood. I still love to read the poems.

~LB

 

[glynndah]

I have an entire library filled with children's books, a good deal of them printed pre-1985. So far, none of the students have suffered any ill effects. As long as no one tries to sell them, I guess the kids are safe.

 

[oggbashan]

...
And I have my own favorite, a 45 year old version of Robert Louis Stevenson's A Child's Garden of Verses from my childhood. I still love to read the poems.

~LB

Just don't try to sell it in the US, nor attempt to buy an equally ancient copy.

As far as the reports from the secondhand book trade is concerned, the impact of the legislation means that it is impossible for a trader to sell a secondhand children's book published before 1985, and even post-1985 the trader, if a commercial retailer, could be required to test and certify that the book doesn't exceed the lead limits.

It is true that many books printed before 1985 will have a measurable quantity of lead. Typefaces were cast in lead and the printing process gradually wore away the casting. That is no problem UNLESS you eat the book.

My advice? Keep your precious pre-1985 children's books out of reach of under-5s, preferably locked away, and only bring them out when reading to a child or when the child is old enough to appreciate an old book.

My worry is not that children's classics will be lost - they won't because they are constantly reprinted - but the books that have echos of their time. Where are your Roy Rogers annuals, your Lone Ranger annuals, Davy Crockett etc? Those will be lost forever by this legislation.

Og

 

[cloudy]

I think that this will be one law that runs into trouble really quick. In the mean time, let us rush to www.abebooks.com and rescue as many as possible. I have a first edition Phoebe's Revolt and an irreplaceable The Bear at the Hunters' Ball. They will pry them from my cold, dead fingers . . .

Just like they'll pry my copy of Where the Wild Things Are from my cold, dead fingers.

 

[alyxen]

As far as I can tell from the current state of the US legislation, secondhand bookdealers etc are exempt from the requirement to test or certify for lead content for post-1985 books only.

If you offer for sale any children's books printed pre-1985 you can be prosecuted.

Put any of your old and precious children's books well out of the reach of babies and toddlers (and the local Sheriff's office)!

Og

Where did you find this info Og? I found the legislation in question, but can't find any mention of books or print yet. Of course I skipped the video of the session with publishers since I figured they would have listed any amendments. For those interested:

www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML

 

[oggbashan]

Where did you find this info Og? I found the legislation in question, but can't find any mention of books or print yet. Of course I skipped the video of the session with publishers since I figured they would have listed any amendments. For those interested:

www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML

I'm a retired member of of secondhand bookdealers' association. I found it in my (confidential) trade briefing.

The legislation is intended to deal with toys and other items that small children might put in their mouths but also covers children's books without specifying what age range the book is intended for. I presume that is because younger siblings might exercise their teeth on older siblings' books.

Og

Quoting myself from the isolated blurt thread:

Extracts from my trade association blog (secondhand bookdealers)

The USA ban on pre 1985 children's books
Dear Sir
Typically I am not alarmist, but as a bookseller, I am quite aghast after having read the article appended to this e-mail. I learned of these circumstances just this morning from the lovely young lady who weighs my book parcels at the local post office -- she being a bookish sort who buys quaint and curious old children's books for her one-year-old daughter. Perhaps I am simply under-informed, but this story appears to have escaped the attention of many mainstream media, so I bring it to your attention in the hope that other booksellers and collectors may benefit by (or at least be as incredulous as I in) this knowledge.
For the moment, the new law discussed below would affect only books sold, collected, and/or distributed in the United States, but the potential for thousands, if not millions, of vintage children's books being destroyed seems very real, indeed. If, upon review, you feel, as I do, that this news is worth sharing, please pass along to your... readers.
To be sure, important clarifications of the article's content may be found at: www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp. However, as misinformation and disinformation result in drastic actions such as already witnessed on the part of certain booksellers who have eliminated some or all of their pre-1985 children's books from inventory, the actual contours of the law are almost beside the point. Books are seemingly being destroyed in significant numbers daily here in the states, perhaps for no valid reason at all. Best regards, Brendan D. Strasser, Saucony Book Shop, Kutztown, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Dear Sir
I read the article on pre-1985 children's books and lead content, and was nearly panic stricken, but instead of dumping our collection, wrote my congressman, who is on the Commerce committee, first. He wrote back in detail, including:
According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency charged with regulating CPSIA, Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits. In addition, the law requires that testing be performed by manufacturers, and not by retailers. For up to date information, please visit http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html.
Sounds like groundless hysteria again. Truman Price, Columbia Basin Books, Monmouth OR 97361.

It seems that some US retailers are actually interpreting the legislation as a total ban on pre-1985 childrens books and junking them. Save a book now!

Og

 

[oggbashan]

Original reference: City Journal - read and weep!

Og

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It's false -- read the page at snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's false -- read the page at snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

That still does not address the question of books printed before 1985, at least not the way I read it. Could you clarify how it might?

 

[oggbashan]

It's false -- read the page at snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

I have read it. Even the Snopes statement still means that pre-1985 books cannot be sold.

It's still true for any book before 1985 and although the retailer is not obliged to test they must not sell any item with 600ppm lead.

They don't have to test, but if they don't, they can still break the law.

Og

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I have read it. Even the Snopes statement still means that pre-1985 books cannot be sold.

It's still true for any book before 1985 and although the retailer is not obliged to test they must not sell any item with 600ppm lead.

They don't have to test, but if they don't, they can still break the law.

Og

Isn't there some cheap way of testing?

 

[oggbashan]

Isn't there some cheap way of testing?

Almost all books printed before 1985 will fail. Most were printed using lead or lead-based type setting. Books were not designed to be eaten. Children's very early starter books with fabric or board "pages" were intended to resist chewing while teething.

US, UK and European book publishers producing those starter books were very careful to use non-toxic materials. When books began to be outsourced to less quality-conscious countries, short cuts and cheaper materials were possible. Some children's items produced in recent years have had horrifying levels of dangerous materials - not just materials that might possibly cause injury if ingested in large quantities over years - but materials that could cause illness and permanent injury in small amounts.

The legislation has a legitimate target but its impact on older children's books is disastrous - and Washington was repeatedly warned what would happen - but they seemed to have considered that any children's book more than 20 years old was worthless...

Og

 

[oggbashan]

ABC news video (after the advert) Book safety

 

[Belegon]

It's false -- read the page at snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

it's not. Snopes put up this page to debunk an email saying children's clothing could not be resold.

I am in touch with them and have complained about the misleading language on that page.