The recent final lead rule detailed a disagreement between the American Library Association (ALA) and the CPSC. The ALA believes that libraries do NOT participate in commerce whereas the CPSC says that libraries DO.

The arguments made by the ALA were very weak for several reasons. Regardless if money is directly exchanged for the privilege of borrowing books, there is an exchange of services for tax payer money, which could be defined as a form of commerce. In addition one could view libraries as warehouses which perform commerce. The definitions may be stretched somewhat, but there is an even more direct example of commerce found in libraries. Libraries frequently sell discarded, or even new, books for fundraisers. Childrens’ books available for sell would be required to meet the requirements of the CPSIA in the same way that thrift stores do. In other words, they wouldn’t be required to test, but they also can’t sell anything which is non compliant. (Which begs the question of how do you know if you don’t test?) Finally, libraries distribute books and prizes as part of literacy or summer reading programs, which would be required to meet the requirements of the CPSIA.

Libraries are currently waiting for further guidance on how to handle their pre-1985 collections.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

Now that children’s books are required to have a tracking label, new books printed after August 14, 2009 should include a printing date. For older books, libraries and resellers will have to rely on the copyright date, which is not equivalent to the printing date. Publishers may have information on file on printing dates or they may not, especially for older books.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

ink,
metal or plastic spiral bindings
staples
painted surfaces
screen printed surfaces
plastic components
vinyl
felt
adhesives

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

Current testing recommendations would destroy library collections and XRF testing is recommended only as a screening tool.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

In addition to the testing and certification requirements, the tracking and labeling provision of the law is cumbersome and cost prohibitive. There are many companies that will still have to close their doors after meeting the testing and certification requirements, because they simply cannot implement or afford the tracking and labeling requirements for their products.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

There are two basic methods for lead testing, X-ray fluorescence (XRF) testing and digestive or “wet chemistry” testing.  Home lead test kits are not accurate enough for determining CPSIA compliance.

XRF testing uses a handheld analyzer machine that looks like a ray gun.  It is touched to the item to be tested.  The analyzer shoots a small amount of X-rays at the item and analyzes the way they bounce back to determine the lead content.  (This is the kind of testing done by professionals to determine if a house has lead-based paint.)  It is the least expensive form of lead testing and does not damage the item.  However, it has difficulty reading properly on certain textures, and it cannot detect lead that is hidden under the surface.  While XRF tests typically are more affordable at $5-$20 each, an XRF analzyer costs a lot of money; they start at about $20,000.

Digestive testing basically involves dissolving the item to be tested in acid, then testing the resulting goo for lead.  This destroys the item being tested, but can find lead that is hidden beneath the surface.  It is also a more expensive test that can only be done in a laboratory.  Cost estimates from various laboratories run from $50-$250 per test.

A separate test has to be run on each component of the product.  For example, a pair of pants made of fabric, thread, a button, a zipper, rivets, and a label must have tests done on all six of these components.  A wooden toy elephant painted with five colors must have testing done on each color of the paint (natural wood is exempt from testing).

In some cases, XRF testing can be used as a screening tool to determine whether an item needs digestive testing.  If the XRF test shows the lead level is very low, digestive testing is not necessary.  If the XRF test shows the lead level is close enough to the acceptable level, a digestive test will show whether it is above or below the level.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

Even though they don’t sell books, libraries are still considered under the law to be “distributing [books] in commerce” and “warehousing” them, and so their books must comply with CPSIA and be tested for lead.

Because CPSIA-required testing destroys the book being tested, it is impossible for libraries to test their pre-1985 collections without destroying them.  Libraries also cannot sell off their pre-1985 collections at book sales because they have not been tested.  This leaves libraries only the option of restricting checkout of pre-1985 children’s books to people 13 and older, or destroying their pre-1985 collections.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

Libraries also cannot sell off their pre-1985 collections at book sales because they have not been tested. This leaves libraries only the option of destroying their pre-1985 collections or restricting their checkout to people 12 and older.  Used book sellers would either have to warehouse the books until they become antiques unsuitable for children’s use or collectibles that sell for a high price, a practice that requires productive selling space to be repurposed for storage only.  Because libraries and used book sellers have limited resources, if they cannot afford to keep such a collection or implement such a checkout policy they will have no choice but to destroy the books.

Tweet This Post Facebook Stumble This Post