It seems that used bookstores that are disposing of older children’s books because they cannot afford to test them for lead content are over-reacting. I sincerely hope that this is the case. However, the guidance goes on,

However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.

So a reseller is not required to prove that their wares are lead-free…but if they should happen to sell products containing lead, they are in deep trouble. The question is, how are they to know which products are likely to have lead content? Here’s a nasty scenario involving a reseller of children’s toys and clothes:

• An overseas manufacturer ships toys made with lead paint to the United States (as happened recently).
• The importer fails to test them, as they are now legally required to do.*
• A parent buys the toy, and later sells it to Ye Olde Used Toy Shoppe.
• Another parent buys the toy, which turns out to contain lead.

The only case, it seems to me, in which the reseller can morally be liable is if the reseller had reason to believe that the toy contains lead. If, for example, it’s reported on the news that a shipment of Little Plastic Gewgaws (TM) contains lead, and the reseller has seen this news item, the reseller should clearly remove any suspect Little Plastic Gewgaws (TM) from their stock. If they sell the Little Plastic Gewgaws (TM) instead, it seems to me that they can be held responsible. Otherwise, the guilty party is clearly the importer who failed their legal requirement to test the toys.

Is this how the enforcement agencies or the courts would see it? I dunno. I’d like to think so.

* May I note, requiring that every individual toy be tested is asinine. Sampling is much more effective.