Artificial Materials and Cloth Diapering

Artificial Materials and Cloth Diapering

by Marc Pehkonen, Lori Taylor
fuzbaby
FireFly Diapers

For centuries, naturally occurring absorbent materials were used for diapering infants. These were probably picked from local fibers, easily available, and could have included materials as diverse as moss and linen. Then, in the 20th century, the amazingly rapid development of artificial materials heralded an almost total switch in the West from cloth diapering to disposables. Highly engineered absorbent gels and processed wood pulp replaced reusable natural fibers. Although the vast majority accepted these changes as the inevitable (and even admirable) progress of technology, a small percentage continued to use cloth diapers.

Perhaps you are among those parents choosing to use cloth diapers because you reject the use of artificial materials. You may be concerned to see that such materials are showing up in popular cloth diapering products. Common man-made materials may be a health threat, including polyester fibers, vinyl and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane laminate (PUL), and durable water repellent finishes (DWR).

Introducing Polyester

Polyester was created in a laboratory just 60 years ago, during World War II. It gained popularity as an apparel fiber, particularly in the 1950s, under trade names such as Dacron. It may have become a joke by the 1970s, but it remains, in its various forms, one of the most popular fibers used in clothing.

Polyester is the artificial fiber most commonly blended with cotton, where it is added to reduce cost, speed up drying times, decrease the tendency to wrinkle and improve wear-resistance. Unblended, it is used in a variety of fabrics, including the ubiquitous polyester fleece. In addition, there is a new type of polyester fiber that is made from 100% recycled soda bottles (PET on the bottle stands for polyethylene terephthalate, or polyester). The argument is made that this is a plastic fiber that apparently helps the environment.

You might think, therefore, that water-repellant, 100% recycled polyester fleece would be a good candidate for a diaper cover, and that a soft, poly-cotton blend might make a good diaper. That such a combination would function adequately is not really at issue. The point is that polyester is not the wonder fiber its manufacturers claim.

The use of certain polymeric silicones as cosmetic implants ended in a successful lawsuit against Dow-Corning; the vinyl industry is the subject of mounting litigation (and a critical documentary, the independently-made Blue Vinyl, which aired on HBO in June 2002); and now even supposedly inert polyester is running into trouble.

Researchers at Tufts Medical School noticed that cancer cells being grown in the lab multiplied more quickly in polyester test tubes than in glass. It appears that polyester slowly emits phytoestrogens, which are endocrine disruptors, or compounds similar to estrogen, which can promote certain types of cancer. Enough people are worried about these chemicals that entire conferences are being held to discuss their possible effects. You can see the concerns of the scientific community reflected in this list of topics at a conference being held as we write: http://www.grc.uri.edu/programs/2002/enviend.htm

Polymer Chemistry 101

It is probably a good idea at this point to back up a bit for some chemistry 101. Basic polymer chemistry isn't too complicated, but for most people the manufacture of the plastics that surround us is a mystery, which no doubt suits the chemical producers very well. A working knowledge of the principles involved here will make us more informed users.

Polyester is only one compound in a class of petroleum-derived substances known as polymers. Thus, polyester (in common with most polymers) begins its life in our time as crude oil. Crude oil is a cocktail of components that can be separated by industrial distillation. Gasoline is one of these components, and the precursors of polymers such as polyethylene are also present.

Polymers are made by chemically reacting a lot of little molecules together to make one long molecule, like a string of beads. The little molecules are called monomers and the long molecules are called polymers.

Like this:

O + O + O + . . . makes OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Depending on which polymer is required, different monomers are chosen. Ethylene, the monomer for polyethylene, is obtained directly from the distillation of crude oil; other monomers have to be synthesized from more complex petroleum derivatives, and the path to these monomers can be several steps long. The path for polyester, which is made by reacting ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid, is shown below. Key properties of the intermediate materials are also shown.

The polymers themselves are theoretically quite unreactive and therefore not particularly harmful, but this is most certainly not true of the monomers. Chemical companies usually make a big deal of how stable and unreactive the polymers are, but that's not what we should be interested in. We need to ask, what about the monomers? How unreactive are they?

We need to ask these questions because a small proportion of the monomer will never be converted into polymer. It just gets trapped in between the polymer chains, like peas in spaghetti. Over time this unreacted monomer can escape, either by off-gassing into the atmosphere if the initial monomers were volatile, or by dissolving into water if the monomers were soluble. Because these monomers are so toxic, it takes very small quantities to be harmful to humans, so it is important to know about the monomers before you put the polymers next to your skin or in your home. Since your skin is usually moist, any water-borne monomers will find an easy route into your body.

Polyester is the terminal product in a chain of very reactive and toxic precursors. Most are carcinogens; all are poisonous. And even if none of these chemicals remain entrapped in the final polyester structure (which they most likely do), the manufacturing process requires workers and our environment to be exposed to some or all of the chemicals shown in the flowchart above. There is no doubt that the manufacture of polyester is an environmental and public health burden that we would be better off without.

You may not feel comfortable putting a potential endocrine disruptor next to your child's most sensitive areas. What about some of the other fabrics and fabric treatments used in cloth diapering?

Vinyl and Polyvinyl Chloride

One widely distributed brand of cloth diapers uses PVC or vinyl for its diaper covers.

PVC is a polymer made from vinyl chloride monomer and often contains harmful phthalates as unbound plasticizers. Before you buy a vinyl diaper cover (or anything else made from PVC, especially for your children) consider some of the information available from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on vinyl chloride, the monomer for PVC or polyvinyl chloride. Pay particular attention to the "long-term exposure" sections.

Vinyl baby and children's toys are also very popular, but have raised significant health concerns. Search the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission website for references to vinyl, and see also the article in Mothering magazine, Issue #90, Sep/Oct 1998.

The independent documentary film "Blue Vinyl," which aired this spring (2002) on HBO, primarily dealt with the effects of vinyl siding on residential users and the workers who manufacture and install the siding. Remember, a diaper cover is in much closer proximity to more sensitive skin than vinyl siding and can contain the same off-gassing monomers.

Polyurethane Laminate (PUL)

Polyurethane laminate, or PUL, has gained great popularity as a fabric treatment. It is applied to the surface of a porous fabric (usually polyester, but also cotton) to provide a flexible, totally waterproof layer. Ultrex and Extreme, two woven fabrics commonly used in outdoor clothing, are also polyurethane laminates. PUL makes functionally good diaper covers--it is an effective barrier to liquids.

But what are the precursor monomers for polyurethane? Most are based on TDI, or toluene 2,4-diisocyanate, a highly toxic carcinogen. Again the Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have information about TDI, the polyurethane monomer.

NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards
International Chemical Safety Cards (WHO/IPCS/ILO)

Durable Water Repellant Finish (DWR)

Durable Water Repellant finish is a generic term (rather than a trademark) in the outdoor gear industry for a water repellant surface layer, usually sprayed onto the fabric. This layer does not completely fill all the fabric pores (unlike PUL), so the fabric remains breathable. Goretex is probably the most well-known example of a DWR-treated fabric and its treatment contains a fluorocarbon similar to Teflon. The outdoor clothing manufacturer Patagonia describes their DWR finish as "polyurethane" and recommends re-treating "once per season, or more often if the piece gets a lot of use or washing." (Patagonia Product FAQs)

Patagonia recommends the use of Nikwax for re-treatment, which is based on a compound called ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), blended with a mineral wax. It also contains small amounts of an acidified zirconium salt of a weak acid (acetic acid) and ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) to stabilize the emulsion. If you are interested in digging deeper, you could even read a patent for Nikwax or any proprietary formulation. (Nikwax patent).

Patagonia suggests re-treatment if the garment is washed frequently. They cannot expect their hiking garments will be washed as often as diaper cover would be. DWR treatment would not be effective as a barrier unless you keep a bottle or can of Nikwax handy to restore your cover every few washes.

So, What's the Harm? What's the Choice?

You might ask after reading all this, so what is the actual risk to our babies and families? What if we use some PUL or DWR or fleece for the outer parts of diapers and covers that don't touch the skin? How much of the monomers are actually given off? Has anyone performed a study on this?

The problem is that we are not aware of any such specific study. What we do know is this: The short-term risks of exposure to all of the chemicals mentioned is well documented. The exposure tests are usually performed on animals, since most people would not willingly submit themselves to those kinds of tests and would certainly not volunteer their children. Then exposure limits are estimated, usually for adult males. In some unfortunate cases, actual exposures from industrial accidents and the like have been used to refine these limits.

The effects of long-term exposure are more problematic to predict than short-term; often symptoms take years, or even generations, to show up. Long-term studies of the effects of all the monomers mentioned in this article are still underway. Remember also that these chemicals may respond very differently when used for diapering--the long-term studies are considering only the action of these chemicals in water or air. The presence of urea, ammonia, and the salinity of urine may alter the behavior of monomers in unpredictable ways. In the meantime, wool, hemp, and cotton, particularly when grown and processed organically, are not carcinogens.

The main focus here has been the possible health risks of using these materials. Remember also, that continuing to use these materials supports the industries that produce them. That means continued consumption of the world's oil, mineral and energy resources and continued pollution of our air and water. It also means continued exploitation of chemical workers around the world, especially in countries with low safety standards. The fate of these materials after we are done using them also needs to be considered. Are they biodegradable, reusable, recyclable?

There are many reasons to consider the natural alternatives to artificial materials. Wool is breathable, and micro-absorbent, and naturally moisture repellant (but can be treated with lanolin if necessary, but please don't use Nikwax, despite manufacturer recommendations). Wool makes wonderful diaper covers. Cotton and hemp are both highly absorbent and hemp especially can be grown easily without pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Cotton is not so easy to grow organically, but every year more acres are being converted from conventional production. It is becoming widely available as a diapering fabric. Ask for organic cotton specifically.

As you can see, there's no good reason to use petroleum-based products like polyester, PUL or PVC in your child's diapers when natural fibers work so well and pose no health risks. Choose natural materials, manufactured with minimal processing under fair labor environments.

http://www.diaperpin.com/clothdiapers/article_artificialmaterials.asp

Breasts for Babies

Breasts sell beer but for heaven's sake, they shouldn't be seen feeding babies! (tongue in cheek)

A great article on this topic:

http://www.lifetimemoms.com/multicultural-moms/blog/breasts-to-sell-beer-good-breasts-to-feed-baby-bad?cmpid=PaidMedia_Outbrain_LTM_AllChannels

I’m not really sure why breasts can be openly used to sell beer and entice you to eat chicken wings at Hooters, but when they are used in their actual context—feeding a baby—people get all Puritanical.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

This week another breastfeeding mom, who was covered up, was forced to stop feeding her four-month old in the hallway of Washington D.C., DMV office when two (GASP!) female security guards told her to stop because it was indecent.

Simone Dos Santos, a lawyer herself, was waiting for a traffic hearing and stepped out into the hallway to breastfeed when the guards approached her, though she was covering her baby with a jacket.

"I was shocked, upset and angry that by providing food for my son, I was being treated like a criminal," she said in recent news reports.

As an attorney dos Santos knew that legally she had rights -- 28 states as well as D.C. exempt breastfeeding from public indecency laws.

But it’s a shame that the laws of common sense don’t govern most people. And it is our rights as mothers and the health of our babies who ultimately suffer when women are made to feel uncomfortable when performing the biological norm for infant feeding.

Breastfeeding is what our bodies were made to do. And breast milk is the best preventative infant health we can give our babies. Feeding our young used to be as natural and instinctive as it is for any other animal, but somehow we’ve lost our instincts and our choices about our babies first food are more based on cultural norms than research or facts.

And the oversexualization of the breast hasn’t helped. Breasts are everywhere: on billboards, in magazines and spilling out of skin-tight attire. Bathing suits have grown skimpier by the year. I wonder if any of those female security guards have purchased those tiny bikini tops they are now marketing to 9-year-old girls? Women spend much money to make their breasts bigger, bouncier, rounder and or more perky, but everyone forgets this one indisputable truth: that they are merely mammary glands – fatty tissue with milk ducts designed to feed babies.

Wake up women! Society has told us that it is perfectly acceptable to show our breast on their terms—pushed up, dangling, with a beer, in a wet-T-shirt contest, or parading around a pole, but to show our breasts to feed our babies is indecent!!

I really can’t take it anymore.

Yes, I am a unapologetic first food advocate. I believe that every baby should have fair and equal access to the best infant nutrition possible. But women can’t make those decisions clearly, with this type of hypocrisy and hype crowding the issues. And that makes breastfeeding an issue for every woman.

If we can reclaim our breasts from the advertisers and marketers maybe then we can use them for our babies without being made to feel uncomfortable. Are you ready to get your breasts back?

Oh and the next time I see a man with boobs topless, I’m calling the police. Who's with me?

Treatment for Colic

There has been a lot of research, recently about possible causes of colic and how to best treat them. Many scientists now believe that colic has roots in digestive upset. An article in the NY Times was published not too long ago about the possible benefits of using probiotics for infants to help treat colic symptoms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/15really.html?_r=1&ref=health

An Anthropological and Psychological Assessment of Current Infant Care Practices

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201112/dangers-crying-it-out
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/crying-dangerous-kids-one-expert-says-222400379.html

Is Crying it Out Dangerous for Kids?

If the link between parent and child is strong enough that kids can "catch" their parents' stress, it may stand to reason that babies crave the physical connection that comes with a cuddle. It's something that plenty of parents are more than happy to provide during the day but, when it comes to bedtime, the modern emphasis has been on teaching good sleep habits -- and giving mom and dad a break.

Most sleep-deprived parents get to the point where they're willing to try almost anything in order to get a good night's rest. While some decry it as cruel, others have had success with the "cry it out" method -- teaching babies to "self-soothe" by letting their nighttime crying go unanswered.

But is "crying it out" about establishing independence? Or is it just a way of making those early years easier for parents?

In an article published this week in Psychology Today, one researcher says that crying it out could be dangerous for children, leading to a lifetime of harm.

"A crying baby in our ancestral environment would have signaled predators to tasty morsels," writes Darcia Narvaez, an Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Collaborative for Ethical Education at the University of Notre Dame. "So our evolved parenting practices alleviated baby distress and precluded crying except in emergencies."

When babies are stressed, their bodies release the hormone cortisol, which can damage or even destroy neurons in their still-developing brains, researchers at Yale University and Harvard Medical School have found. That can lead to a higher incidence of ADHD, poor academic performance, and anti-social tendencies.

Human babies are hardwired for near-constant holding, breastfeeding, and having their other needs met quickly -- the hallmarks of Attachment Parenting, Narvaez points out -- in order for their brains to develop properly. Even Dr. Richard Ferber, whose sleep-training method is commonly called the Cry It Out Method, says that he never intended parents to completely ignore their babies' nighttime tears.

"I've always believed that there are many solutions to sleep problems, and that every family and every child is unique," he said in an interview with BabyTalk. "People want one easy solution, but there's no such thing. I never encouraged parents to let their babies cry it out, but one of the many treatment styles I described in my book is gradual extinction, where you delay your response time to your baby's wakings. I went to great pains in the second edition to clarify that that treatment is not appropriate for every sleep issue, of which there are many."

What he does encourage is teaching children to soothe themselves during normal nighttime wakings. But many parents extend his advice to include all bedtime-related crying. That's the type of crying it out sets kids up for stress-related problems, trust issues, anxiety disorders, reduced brain function, and a lack of independence, Narvaez writes. And since the problems are on a genetic level, they can't necessarily be fixed later in life.

"In studies of rats with high or low nurturing mothers, there is a critical period for turning on genes that control anxiety for the rest of life," Narvaez writes. "If in the first 10 days of life you have low nurturing rat mother (the equivalent of the first 6 months of life in a human), the gene never gets turned on and the rat is anxious towards new situations for the rest of its life, unless drugs are administered to alleviate the anxiety."

Could a lack of nurturing explain our "Prozac Nation?" Narvaez points out that she's witnessed the long-term physical effects of it firsthand.

"I was raised in a middle-class family with a depressed mother, harsh father and overall emotionally unsupportive environment -- not unlike others raised in the USA," she writes. "I have only recently realized from extensive reading about the effects of early parenting on body and brain development that I show the signs of undercare -- poor memory (cortisol released during distress harms hippocampus development), irritable bowel and other poor vagal tone issues, and high social anxiety."

The lack of nurturing, and the prevalence of parents who put their own needs in front of their kids', may be to blame for the mental and physical health problems that are plaguing the United States now.

"If we want a strong country and people," she writes, "we've got to pay attention to what children need for optimal development."

The original link to the article by Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D. Associate Professor at the University of Notre Dame, published in Psychology Today can be found here.

The link to the research done at Harvard & Yale on infant stress can be found here.

Learning Styles

I found this video and it really struck a cord with me.

We are all different. We have different talents and we learn differently.

I think its important to remember that, even when we consider our little ones who are always learning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8limRtHZPs