Newly Promoted 'Head Editor' of CPSC Doesn't Know What Semicolon Is

[Former_Member]

That's an entirely fictional title, but the video I just watched today on the Association of American Publishers presentation to the CPSC on books from 1/22 reminds me SO much of my old boss who liked to "promote" people to different jobs, based on how well their personalities meshed with his, and NOT based on whether or not they were actually qualified for the job. And yes, he did once promote someone to the position of "head editor" who did not know what a semicolon was.

Such seems to be the case with the CPSC in determining whether or not "ordinary children's books" should be deemed safe enough overall to be exempt from the testing requirements under the CPSIA. I just watched the whole video (over an hour) and took notes. They had representatives there from every facet of the publishing industry (paper & ink manufacturers, print houses & publishers), all very well armed with detailed statistical information.

I won't bore you with all the nitty gritty details, but the thing that stood out to me the most was the presentation from RR Donnelley (one of the largest book printers in the world), who had over 300 testing results to show from a wide variety of both finished products and and raw materials (including all types of paper - coated and uncoated, metal & plastic coil binding, and 47 different types of inks). And they all - let me repeat, ALL - came back as either "non-detectable" or at less than 10 ppm for lead.

So tell me, how is it possible that the CPSC could still be "unsure" at the end of that meeting about whether or not they would exempt ordinary books (paper & ink, without any special toys) and say that they were not convinced that those results were representative of all the books produced in America and it would take so much "scientific research" to make a determination that they could not possibly have a resolution before Feb 10?

I mean, unless a small, independent publisher has their own ink and paper factory going in a separate facility, it's pretty safe to say that all American publishers use ink and paper from a general pool of suppliers - just print different things on them.

One of the CPSC council members even asked if there was any possibility of "industrial paint" (which can contain lead) making it into a children's book by way of cross contamination. You could just see the publisher trying to keep a straight face as he calmly explained that since his company specializes in book printing only (and NOT the production of highway signs and paint for ship bottoms) that that type of paint never even enters their facility.

The whole thing really was laughable. Here, the CPSC is presented with more than enough information to make a decision on the spot for the fate of children's books, but it still can't bring itself to do so. It's like that guy who got promoted to head editor who doesn't know a darn thing about the job, but still feels the need to over-analyze and micro-manage everthing just to make sure everyone knows that he's the "boss".

It's not like books have even been an item in "question" recently. They've simply fallen victim to the ridiculousness of this new law. At this point, I think that all the people on the CPSC in charge of making decision for exemptions, are more concerned about keeping their jobs and looking good than in making the right decision in a timely fashion.

At this point, I'm just glad there are people who are smarter and more powerful than me trying to fight this thing. But I could tell by looking at their faces that even they were incredibly frustrated.

*sigh* It has to end soon, doesn't it? The madness of it all?

[Former_Member]

*shaking head*

Unbelievable!

[Former_Member]

do you have a link to the video?

[Former_Member]

Yes, here's the link http://www.cpsc.gov/vnr/asfroot/publishers01222009.asx

It's long and boring, but I wanted to watch it so I'd be "armed" with information, as I had planned to self-publish some children's books in the near future and may very well have to fight for my right to do so...possibly with lawyers, if the CPSIA doesn't get amended at all.

[Former_Member]

The Design Loft blogged about this, too:
http://designloft.blogspot.com/2009/01/ala-and-cpsia-pt-2.html

She said that the publishing industry:
"did not really have the hard data on hand that the CPSC wanted. Industry experts testified to the safety of their industry and practices, but they did not have the mountain of data that the apparel industry had. The publishing industry tested a mere 150 books to CPSIA standards since November. From the CPSC's perspective, this was a step in the right direction, but still insufficient. In comparison, the apparel industry has tested thousands of products over decades."

She also said they were more adversarial in the responses to the CPSC. I have seen this, too. I think they have, unfortunately, listened to Henry Waxman telling them the Commission has 'full authority' to make the changes they want, and Waxman is being dishonest. Twice the Commission has tried NOT to make the bans apply to existing product, and Waxman has reprimanded them and insisted that they go back and redo their exemptions, making it clear that HE holds the authority, not the Commission.

I also think it's strange that, knowing full well the Commission is understaffed and pressed for time, and does not have the manpower they need to process the information between now and 2/10, Waxman and the ALA think it would be an effective strategy to pull their resources from the task at hand by flooding their offices with complaints.

The ALA and the publishing industry interests would be better served by lobbying Congress to change the law- something the CPSC cannot do.

[Former_Member]

Unf-ing-believable. I would write more, but I'm not sure I can express myself without the use of many, many expletives right now.

[meredithdillman]

Thanks for posting this, because I will have the same problem as you should I want to print a children's book. I am really curious what it going on with the print on demand book industry and CPSIA for example. There is no way they are going to be testing individual books ordered and no way a real publisher wants to print thousands and then test without being sure it passes.

[Former_Member]

The thing with books though is that, while there are countless titles out there, they are all basically made up of the same ingredients: paper, ink (pigmented and clear varnishes), glue, & possibly staples or stitching materials. While they may all LOOK very different from each other, that is due to the miracle of the printing process which allows you to create an endless variety of images/colors from a mere 4 inks. Once you've tested one type of book, it is safe to say that all the other books which are produced in that same format (though they may look very different from each other) are using the SAME materials.

It is entirely different from the apparel industry which uses a heck of a lot more variety of individual components than the book industry does.

[Former_Member]

Artistscs28:
"paper, ink (pigmented and clear varnishes), glue, & possibly staples or stitching materials."

And Waxman's recent letter to the Commission forbade them to make exemptions for books with any metal components- which would include staples.

He may have meant they couldn't exempt 'toy' books (which I do not believe they would, anyway)- but like the law, whatever he meant, that's not what he said.

He also said no exemptions for plastic components. Libraries often cover their books in plastic covers, contact paper, and tape the covers to the book- since Waxman ALSO INSISTS that the ban MUST be retroactive, existing books, alread taped, covered, mylar protected, etc, can't be exempted.

He's made it very, very complicated for the Commission to do anything much at all. He can fix this. I don't understand why he won't.

[Former_Member]

this is how i understand it, and i'm not saying that it's right... because actually EDUCATING consumers on the manufacturing process of textiles and books [let's hope they are watching these videos, too] would help him.

but this is what i gather.

he has thousands of calls, emails and letters from two camps.

those FOR the testing.

those AGAINST the testing.


both camps want safety standards... and control of china's imports. we need to establish that, between the camps, because that's the truth. no one here or there wants lead threats in our kids mouths.


SO... after they appeased the wants and fears of the consumer watchdogs, who put SO MUCH pressure on them, i imagine that he has a real hard time admitting that they didn't really THINK this through.

instead of owning up... because he fears that anything he says will cost him HIS job, he puts the pressure on the CPSC, but makes them fear losing THEIR jobs.


consumers are painting nord as a bush cronie who only cares about money and big companies. they have her painted into this hole... because they most likely are so focused on china, and fear, that they don't understand the zero risk the majority of our companies pose.


now, i will say that... as others have stated, this has opened quite a few eyes to what they were using, and those vintage buttons... good catch. it's been a very useful test and education in knowing your supplies, suppliers and industry.

and it hasn't hurt any of us to go thru this learning process.


but, we HAVE to... HAVE TO... find ways to make it clear that we do not want the law repealed. because we do not! what we want is fair amendments to the TESTING... exemptions for materials that post no threat.

ugh...

i think i got off course.

sorry.



my point is, waxman has pressure from two camps, and unless he realizes that HE HAS TO MEET THEM IN THE MIDDLE... and make both camps understand that they aren't enemies... he's never going to pass the buck.

we're all looking at him.

he has the chance to make it all right. he can ease both camps, by accepting scientific data and making consumers aware of what is a threat, where the danger really is, and how to spot it. making business aware of their materials, what is a threat... where the danger really is, and how to spot it.


that's all he has to do.

then amend the law to those specifics.


everyone wins and we're all safer, because criminal accountability hopefully makes importers think twice about cheap plastic... and paint. HOPEFULLY.

how many toys went unnoticed in all those recalls?

do laws really assure that will stop?

no. but, one can hope.


sorry that was so long.

[Former_Member]

I think Waxman is on a power trip. He loves the power he has over this whole situation. Someone needs to tell him to pull head out of is A.. and start doing his real job and that is to serve the people of the USA.

[Former_Member]

DeputyHeadmistress, I understand what you're saying. I also read that letter that Mr. Waxman (apparently still ignorant of what goes into an "ordinary" children's book) wrote to the CPSC. And I do believe that he is the major damn holding up the process. But I'm not totally convinced that the CPSC cannot make any moves without his express authority either. Actually, I think they CAN, but are AFRAID to do so, because they 1) don't want to look bad and receive a backlash from the general public and 2) because individually they are afraid for their jobs.

He, in turn, doesn't want to be made out to look like a fool so he's putting pressure on the CPSC to move more quickly, a job that's impossible for them to do. He's given them some very specific "ideas" for what to exempt and not to exempt, but as far as having the power to "forbade" them to do anything, I'm not so sure...otherwise why would the decision-making be in their hands at all? Why wouldn't HE be the one making all the decisions WITHOUT the CPSC?

Of course, the whole thing could be easily solved if he would just swallow his pride and bring the issue before Congress, so we need to keep putting pressure on him to do that.

But I also believe we need to keep putting pressure on the CPSC to do the right thing. Right now everybody is paralyzed by "fear" of something and that means nothing is being done.

The more pressure the better. At this point, I don't care who takes the heat.

[Former_Member]

First of all, I think the guy has to be allowed a LITTLE slack, he just got thrown into the job. (They're on their 3rd director in less than a year?! and that shakes up everything all down the employee line...)

Also, if he said "Yeah, I know, you guys are all great and safe, I'll grant you an exception right now." Waxman would make SURE he got fired. It's not really his decision to make, these meetings give CPSC the ammo to fight for changes. It take congress to make these things stick, since Congress pushed this monster through.

As far as I can tell CPSC hates this thing as much as we do. They didn't get what they needed to be able to effectively enforce the OLD law, and now they get stepped on and forced to handle a NEW law that's so expansive and sweeping, that technically it's not enforceable. (It's also set up so that small and micro businesses CAN'T comply...but I think that was the result of forgetting that small & micro business exists.)

In the Great Depression it was the small & micro businesses that pulled society through, it was government sponsored JOBS (like WPA handicraft project) that employed people who were otherwise unemployable.

[Former_Member]

Yes! liberally apply heat on EVERYONE who can do ANYTHING to change this.

[Former_Member]

"But I'm not totally convinced that the CPSC cannot make any moves without his express authority either. Actually, I think they CAN, but are AFRAID to do so, because they 1) don't want to look bad and receive a backlash from the general public and 2) because individually they are afraid for their jobs."

I would agree that there's some fear- but here's the thing- they have made exemptions before- they didn't want the bans retroactive, for instance, and Waxman, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. ordered them to change that. So they know all their exemptions are being second guessed by Congress, who will come along and order them to undo them of they want. So they have to be more careful to get their ducks in a row, and get all the scientific data they can to back up their exemptions, because Congress tells US they have 'full power', but then tells THEM 'no, you don't. Do what we say."

The record shows that he does have the power to forbade them to make changes- he's used it before. They only have authority to implement the act as Congress wrote it. Congress can and does come back and say, "that's not implementing what we said, do it over."

Basically, the Commission is like Congress' whipping boy and scapegoat right now. They're supposed to implement the law Congress passed- they don't have authority to change it. The law itself needs to be changed, and the Commission has no authority to do that.

I do care who takes the heat, because I think the heat is most effective in the places were *real* meaningful changes can be made- and that's Congress. Specifically, the Commerce Committee which Waxman heads.

But he's more interested in the approval of groups like US PIRG than the approval of the likes of us.

[Former_Member]

I'm starting to think the government WANTS us to be dependent on imports. I understand we owe China quite a bit. Maybe this is how they'll recoop their loan. Force every american citizen to only purchase items made in China.

[Former_Member]

Lost,
it's Sooo incredibly easy to see conspiracies in this isn't it.

I'm afraid to let my mind run in that direction, as I think I'd reach a conclusion where I'd just give up.

Lets make this issue about democracy, and the public who is affected directly and indirectly by this law having a voice in the process.

[Former_Member]

If we lose our right to a legal livelihood, making items that are safer than most of our homes, and the city tap water...

maybe it means that democracy is officially dead.

[Former_Member]

Exactly! We have been losing our right to choose ever so slowly over the last 15-20 years.

Must wear seatbelt!
Must wear helmet!
Must put child in car seat/booster!
No one under 12 in front seat!
Must only smoke in designated area!
Must strip search at airport!
Must not take scissors or knitting needles into courthouse!

The list goes on. Limitations, limitations, control, control.

I hope and pray democracy will survive!

[Former_Member]

I just listened to the whole meeting. I still can't believe that question with respect to the lead paint. Guess they think that Paint manufacturers use the same manufacturing plants for both types of paint. Very doubtful. And I am sure that a printer is going to go out and get pigment from those paint manufacturers. Yeah, right!

[Former_Member]

I am satisfied that the government feels that they can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves. Basically, they want us to work for them and they will give us everything we need.

[Former_Member]

are you implying.... socialism!?

[KateHendersonQuilts]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes. When I tell people in Australia about this law they just look at me like I am making things up.

[Former_Member]

These meetings seem to be very selective in who is invited to testify. The publishers meeting left out any representative from the Print on Demand publishers. Since they use laser printing, the actual print process is very different from the ink and press process used by the publishers present at the meeting. When the question was asked at the end by CPSC as to tests on laser printing, the answer given was not direct - as no one there uses it. This is one thing that put a snag on a quick answer to exclude "all" children's books - and they can't say ink and press books and not laser books because there really is no way to tell the difference by looking. This is not to say that laser prints are not just as safe - they are - but no one was there to give a definitive answer to that.

[Former_Member]

I noticed that too, pastperfect. However that Chris guy who's in charge of making sure the inks his company makes are up to code, said that in the past he did have to check toner for laser printers too and that at the time his company still made toner, it fell within the required safety guidelines.

Would have been helpful to have a representative from a print-on-demand printer there, though (such as lulu.com), I agree. I'm not sure who all was invited to the meeting, but they did say it was a public meeting, so I'm assuming that anyone who knew about it could come.

Hopefully this will at least give publishers a foot in the door towards eventual exemption. It just stinks that everyone has to take time out from running their businesses to combat this law and probably waste a lot of money attempting to "comply" until it is fixed. If ever.

That's why I'm secretly hoping that Feb 10 rolls around, nothing gets resolved and all libraries DO have to pull their kids books off the shelves for a while. The public outrage at that time would be tremendous and might finally embarrass Washington into doing something about this law, fast!