No Books for Children Under 2

It seems absurd to ban books for young children, right? But what if that were the outcome?

Believe it or not, there was once a time when a book in the hands of an infant, without close adult supervision, was considered a genuine safety hazard. Pediatricians and parents alike worried about real physical harm if young children were left on their own with a book. All kinds of things might happen:

• Choking: Wet paper disintegrating into pulp in a teething baby’s mouth.

• Physical Injury: Paper cuts on delicate fingers and lips, and heavy, sharp hardcover corners.

• Toxicity: Ingesting or being exposed to industrial printing inks loaded with heavy metals like lead.

Thankfully, there was no social media or rapid news feeds in those days to set off a fear-based media blitz claiming that all books cause harm, resulting in public health guidance advising “No Books Before Age 2.”

Back then, this issue was dealt with pragmatically. The immediate response was to educate parents on the potential dangers and on the importance of strict adult supervision. But this only solved the parent part of the equation. The pragmatic approach also called for industry reform - make books safer for babies!

Publishers were forced to examine how their materials and product design could be potentially harmful to young children. They were forced to be creative, to think carefully about design flaws in light of the young audience whose hands (and mouths) their books kept ending up in. And so, this led to some innovative safety features like soft books, rounded corners, non-toxic inks, and eventually the un-rippable board books we take for granted today.

In those years of “fear” and warnings over books, parents received not only education on the potential harms, but were also given safer options to choose from, pushing the industry forward to meet the demands of their marketplace.

Current guidance from children’s health organizations around the globe advises: No Screen Time For Children Under 2.

But lumping all screen experiences into the same category is a lot like saying “No Books For Children Under 2,” just because “the potential for harm and misuse” exists.

There’s no question that the children’s media landscape has been plagued by developmentally harmful content for infants and toddlers. It has even been suggested that in order for parent-trusted programs to remain relevant, they have had to integrate attention-capture production techniques… not because it’s what’s best for the child, but because it’s what’s necessary for the business.

It’s no wonder nearly all children’s media looks and sounds the same. Even content labeled “calm” and “slow” typically contains many other attention-capture techniques; tricks of the trade that producers have held close to the vest. The industry’s ability to spin and control the narrative, backed by a well-funded PR machine with reach into parenting sites, children’s health organizations, lobbying groups, and major media outlets, has left it completely unscathed… and much stronger in spite of “No Screen Time” policies.

The blanket ban on screens is a serious and neglectful symptom of a systemic failure; one in which commercial agendas dominate the digital landscape, screen time literacy and guidance are nonexistent, and the lack of actionable policy is propping up tech and media companies at the expense of the critical need for investment in research and development for safer public media options for children under 2.

So rather than advocating for screen time literacy and safer intentionally designed content and innovation, children’s health organizations have been dictating “No Screen Time” guidelines while ignoring a troubling trend in the data: screen use is beginning earlier and viewing times are lasting longer. After two decades of pushing “No Screen Time” guidelines out to parents, the problem is getting worse! Meanwhile, the children’s media industry remains unregulated and untouched, emboldened to compete for children’s full attention with little scrutiny or accountability.

It is actively harmful. By not pushing the children’s media industry to implement important safety changes in the same way that the book industry did, it forces parents to solely bear the burden. The organizations that are meant to guide families and protect children, the same ones who have the power to affect industry-wide safety changes, have instead opted to leave the industry untouched, choosing instead to set parents up for failure. It’s worth asking if shared incentives somehow align these organizations, institutions, and the media and tech industries. At a minimum, it is easier to fundraise off of problems than to fix them. Either way, the system remains broken.

What “No Screen Time” guidance fails to account for is that each family faces their own set of unique circumstances. The numbers cannot be ignored. We know that screen use among children under 2 is nearly universal. While I agree that children should avoid screens for as long as possible, I also understand that total abstinence is not realistic for every family. And even though I was well aware of the guidelines, as well as the potential for harm, I was still unable to avoid the screen time trap for our 6-month-old. All the fear-based screen guidance is actually causing a great deal of stress and anxiety for parents who have no trusted guidance or developmentally appropriate options to turn to when “no screen time” is not an option.

There’s no argument (here, at least) that the majority of screen content currently designed for children under 2 is harmful, and that the lack of screen time literacy and intentional co-viewing adds an additional layer of harm. But there is also research that shows that developmentally aligned content that is intentionally co-viewed with an attuned adult can in fact be beneficial. We need to look past today’s commercially driven children’s media and toward a future where intentionally designed public media is providing safer options for those who are unable to abide by “No Screen Time” guidelines. We need to demand the same evolution from technology that we did from print: adult-mediated co-viewing frameworks and evidence-based developmentally aligned product design built specifically for the architecture of a young child’s brain.

When we design with safety first, and provide the funding and infrastructure for novel research (as opposed to holding up the existing research that was conducted using commercial media), we can begin moving toward critically needed industry reform. We also need to provide parents with screen time literacy skills so that they can discern between developmentally harmful and developmentally aligned content. When parents are able to identify deceptive marketing and unfounded claims of “safe” “educational” labeling and advertising, they can move beyond the headlines to determine the substance.

Let’s stop shaming and blaming and disrespecting parents for not being able to adhere to a near-impossible standard. A standard set by organizations who are failing to take on the hard work of industry and policy reform. Let’s take a page from the lesson above and soften those edges, make sure the content is safe to ingest, and provide education that is not fear-based or misleading.

About the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL)

CMRRL advances the developmental well-being of young children within digital environments. We conduct research, develop evidence-based production frameworks, design screen time literacy resources for parents, educators, and practitioners, and advocate for policy reform. Our work proves that comprehension-driven design experiences engineered around children’s developmental needs yield far better outcomes than those that are capture-driven. We translate this evidence into actionable standards and tools, ensuring every child’s digital environment meets the same standards of health, education, and well-being as the physical world.

For more information, visit www.cmrrl.org or contact: WillMaurer@cmrrl.org