If you are interested in making the exchange, the deadline is coming up soon. Your bumbo must be sent and postmarked by January 31st to qualify for the free exchange.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).
|
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
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:
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?
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, 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.
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.
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.
Formamides are used to soften the foam in the mats but are corrosive and can be deadly. Toxicologist Alfred Bernard explained:
“They are solvents, residues from the manufacturing process that stay in the product afterwards. They can be absorbed through breathing or through the skin. As a rule, children should not be exposed to these products.”
Belgium becomes the first European country to ban the mats and will impose a 20,000 euro fine for anyone found selling them. Jean-Philippe Ducart, a spokesman for a consumer watchdog said:
“They will be illegal in 2011 but in the meantime we ask that they be withdrawn from the market in the interest of public health and the health of children exposed to them.”
An EU-wide ban on the mats is expected within the next few years.
http://www.euronews.net/2010/12/11/belgium-bans-toxic-children-s-puzzle-mats/| The "What to Expect" Series by Arlene Eisenberg, et al | |
| comments by Kelly Bonyata |
The "What to Expect" Series includes the books What to Expect When You're Expecting, What to Expect the First Year and What to Expect the Toddler Years (plus some related books like What to Eat When You're Expecting, and so on).
Update: I've just looked through some of the breastfeeding information in the Third Edition (2002) of What to Expect the First Year. All in all, the general breastfeeding information is significantly better than in the first edition, but quite a number of inaccuracies and misinformation remain scattered throughout. The authors seem to have pushed their comfort level for breastfeeding up to around a year, but they continue to perpetuate myths such as breastfeeding being "exhausting" for mom, particularly when it comes to breastfeeding past a year. In addition, the moms whom I have worked with continue to mention that they go to the book with a question and come away feeling worried, inadequate and guilty.
The book What to Expect the Toddler Years (which has not been updated since the first edition) is very negative when it comes to breastfeeding a toddler, with many comments similar to the ones quoted below from the First Edition of What to Expect the First Year.
The first editions of the books (I've read through the pregnancy, first year and toddler books), give lip service to breastfeeding in the early months (though much of the info is quite outdated), but gets less and less supportive of breastfeeding as babies pass 6 months. Weaning is suggested well before 12 months. The authors also advocate letting baby cry (to do otherwise is "cowardly") and are very much against co-sleeping. Here is a quote from What to Expect the First Year (first edition):
By the end of the first year, however, scientists tell us that breast milk ceases to be adequate--not only is its protein content is insufficient for the older baby, but it suffers from a decline in several vital nutrients including zinc, copper, and potassium. In the second year, infants require the nutrients in cow's milk, and the mother who is still breastfeeding should recognize that although both she and her baby may still be enjoying the experience, breast milk can't be considered a major source of nutrition for her baby. Nor do babies past a year appear to need the sucking breast feeding provides. In spite of much speculation, there's no solid evidence that nursing past the first year--or even well into the second or third or beyond--hinders a child's emotional development. But it does seem that prolonged breastfeeding, like prolonged bottlefeeding, can lead to dental decay.
These statements are so full of misinformation, it's hard to know where to start! See Extended Breastfeeding Fact Sheet for referenced infomation on the nutritional and many other benefits of breastfeeding during the second year and beyond... Cow's milk is certainly not needed for anyone but baby cows... Some babies have breastmilk as their main source of nutrition well into the second year... There are many studies that show that the sucking need (as exhibited through continued pacifier, finger or thumb sucking) persists for several years in many children, with most stopping by age 4-5... There is good evidence that nursing into the second and third year (and beyond) has psychological benefits... There is no evidence that there is a link between extended nursing and dental decay...
http://www.kellymom.com/store/reviews/review_whattoexpect.html
 | Secrets of the Baby Whisperer: How to Calm, Connect, and Communicate with Your Baby by Tracy Hogg, with Melinda Blau Ballantine Books, New York ISBN: 0345440757 |
| reviewed by Mary Tatko |
The first time I read Dr. William Sears' warning against "baby trainers," I couldn't help picturing a man in a top hat sending beleaguered babies through a series of hoops. Now I can replace that image with the smiling face of "Baby Whisperer" Tracy Hogg, the apparent ringmaster in today's world of baby trainers.
In Secrets Of The Baby Whisperer: How To Calm, Connect, And Communicate With Your Baby, Hogg and co-author Melinda Blau promise to help new parents maintain balance by preventing a newborn from dominating their lives.
Sorting fact from opinion from flat-out fiction in this book's nearly 300 pages is something no new parent should have to do. But parenting advice sells, a fact attested to by the book's New York Times bestseller status, so you can bet plenty of moms and dads are trying out Hogg's suggestions.
Of course not all her advice contradicts the basics of attachment parenting (which itself is a parenting style that varies from family to family). And I share her fondness for such things as cloth diapers and infant massage. But so much of what Hogg serves up as wholesome, commonsense guidance for mums and dads (she hails from the U.K. and likes to play up her "Englishness") is so obviously counter to natural parenting, and breastfeeding in particular, that this book should come with a warning label.
The backbone of Hogg's parenting system, a "structured routine" she calls E.A.S.Y., has four components: the amount of time she prescribes for eating (25 to 40 minutes every 2 � to 3 hours), activity (45 minutes), sleeping (one half to one hour), and you (an hour or more for mom while the baby sleeps). While she acknowledges that the exact amount of time will vary from baby to baby and with the baby's age, she makes it clear that following a schedule such as the one she outlines is crucial to preventing "chaos in the house."
When she lays out the case for her E.A.S.Y. parenting routine, Hogg takes a couple of paragraphs to dismiss rigid schedules and on-demand feeding, setting herself up as a champion of the reasonable middle ground between these two "extremes."
When Hogg states that feeding on demand simply makes babies demanding and that parents who do so will be giving up their own lives, anyone who knows what attachment parenting is and is not probably will put the book down.
Those who keep reading should, as Hogg herself recommends more than once about other people's advice, take what they read with a grain of salt.
On the issue of breastfeeding, Hogg again plants herself on self-proclaimed middle ground. She laments the "controversy" over feeding choices and sympathizes with new moms who must wade through "huge propaganda campaigns." (I would think her attempt to equate the efforts of volunteer organizations such as La Leche League with the money-driven marketing of formula companies must be insulting to many readers, regardless of their feeding choices.)
Even as Hogg congratulates herself on her "even-handedness," she manages to vastly understate the benefits of breastfeeding while giving considerable ink to the merits of formula, which, she informs us, "is more refined and chock-full of nutrients than ever."
The section of her book titled "Making the Choice" reads more like a defense of formula than an objective overview of feeding choices. Among other things, she poo-poos bonding as a reason to breastfeed, complains that the health benefits of breast milk have been overblown, warns that nursing mothers must carry an extra five to 10 pounds to ensure proper nutrition for their babies, makes a point of emphasizing that studies merely suggest - not prove - that breastfeeding might offer women protection from a variety of health problems, and maintains that women concerned about body image might be better off using formula since breastfeeding can leave them "flat as pancakes" or "sagging."
Hogg seems so eager to make up for the breastfeeding advocates who are, she implies, out to make mothers who choose formula feel guilty, that she can't seem to discuss breast milk without plugging formula in the same breath:
"The proverbial bottom line is that while it is good for a baby to have some breast milk, especially during the first month, if that's not the mother's choice or if for some reason the mother can't breastfeed, formula-feeding is a perfectly acceptable alternative - for some, the preferable alternative."
When it comes to the practical how-to's of breastfeeding, Hogg provides nuggets of accurate information, but she offers up numerous duds as well, including such incorrect or incomplete information as:
Another low point in the book is Hogg's take on nursing toddlers: "My feeling is that when mothers prolong nursing, it's almost always for them, not for the baby." She follows this statement with an anecdote about a mother who was (gasp!) still nursing her two-and-a-half-year-old. Because her husband was not supportive, she was doing so behind his back - obviously not a good situation. To make a long story short, the mother came to her senses, weaned the baby, and "was automatically a better parent, a better wife, and a stronger human being."
The strangest line of thinking comes in a sidebar titled "Feeding Fashions" in which Hogg points out that, though breastfeeding is "all the rage" today, "in the postwar decades . the majority believed that formula was best for babies." She fails to mention the reasons for formula's rise, the consequences of the trend, or that the world health community now is in near-unanimous agreement that breast milk is best. Instead she shares this bizarre thought:
"As this book is being written, scientists are experimenting with the notion of genetically altering cows to produce human breast milk. If that happens, perhaps in the future everyone will tout cow's milk."
Hogg goes on to quote a 1999 article from the Journal of Nutrition that suggests formulas may one day be so advanced they will meet babies' needs better than human milk.
I'm not sure where to file that last bit of information, but there is at least one thing this book makes clear: If you're looking for a baby trainer, you can skip the circus and turn instead to Tracy Hogg. If it's accurate parenting information you seek, look elsewhere.
-- Mary Tatko is the stay-at-home-mom of 19-month-old Jake.
Mary comments:
As you can see, I mainly focused on the chapter about feeding choices, though there was plenty I could take issue with in her chapter on sleep. As you might imagine, Hogg is not a fan of shared sleep. She sets up her recommendations about sleep in the same way she takes on other issues: She dismisses those whose views are "extreme," then presents what she claims is a "middle-of-the-road, commonsense approach." When she's getting ready to pitch her system for "sensible sleep," she cites Dr. Sears, La Leche League, and "Mothering" magazine as the extremes on the family bed side of the issue. (Dr. Ferber is her example of the other side.) And while she encourages those for whom such practices work to "by all means stick with it," she warns that "extreme practices don't work for many people."
Absolutely! Anytime a sick baby is able to take anything by mouth, it should be his mother's milk. Mom's milk provides antibodies specifically tailored to fight baby's illness, and is quickly and easily digested.
Temporary weaning, besides depriving baby of antibodies to fight the illness and the most easily digestible food source available, can make life miserable for both mother and baby. Nursing is extremely comforting to an ill baby and a major part of the healing process. Mom would have to pump to maintain milk supply and then there would still be some risk that supply would drop somewhat. Not pumping would put mom at risk for breast infection and extreme discomfort.
| Colds and congestion |
If baby has a cold and is congested, it can make breastfeeding difficult. However, it is almost always easier for a sick baby to nurse than to take a bottle. If your baby has a stuffy nose and is having a hard time breathing and nursing at the same time, try the following:
Sometimes moms are advised to limit or discontinue breastfeeding because milk increases mucus production. This is not good advice for two reasons:
| Baby refuses to nurse when sick |
Some babies may refuse to nurse when sick (particularly if something like a sore throat or pressure from an ear infection makes nursing painful for baby). If this happens, try different nursing positions - particularly those where baby is upright - and keep offering to nurse at least every hour or so. See also: What to do about a nursing strike. Rest assured that your baby will return to nursing when he feels better. Here are some things to try if baby is too uncomfortable to nurse:
| Vomiting and Diarrhea |
Another time when moms can be unsure about whether to continue nursing is when baby has diarrhea or is vomiting. Frequent and loose stools in a breastfed baby is not necessarily diarrhea. Here is more information on normal stooling patterns for breastfed babies: What Are Baby's Stools Supposed to Look Like? Diarrhea in a breastfed baby is diagnosed when a baby has 12-16 stools per day (or more often than the baby's regular stool frequency), watery stools, and an offensive odor to the stools. Just one of these symptoms does not in itself mean the baby has diarrhea.
The current recommendations when vomiting or diarrhea is present in the breastfed child are as follows:
The use of an oral rehydration therapy such as Pedialyte is a sound recommendation for a formula-fed infant who is vomiting or who has diarrhea, but using this in place of breastmilk offers no benefit to the breastfed baby. Human milk is a natural fluid, unlike formula and other milk products, that again is easily and rapidly digested.
Forego the Pedialyte as long as baby continues to nurse well and as long as there are no signs of dehydration. If baby is showing signs of dehydration, talk to your doctor. Following are signs of dehydration:
Babies who are allowed to continue breastfeeding through an illness such as this are less likely to become dehydrated than those who are taken off the breast. Continued nursing also provides your child with precious antibodies that will prevent the illness from worsening and speed healing. Nursing is also very comforting to your child, which is healing in itself.
Breastfed babies sometimes need oral rehydration therapy (Pedialyte, etc), though far less often than artificially fed infants. The World Health Organization recommends continuing to breastfeed during and after oral rehydration therapy. Research shows that babies lose more weight and actually have more stools during diarrhea when they are deprived of breastmilk.
Sometimes moms are recommended to withhold breastmilk "because it is a dairy product." Breastmilk is NOT considered a dairy or milk product (mom is not a cow!).
Anytime there is diarrhea (in adults as well as babies) it can take a while for the bowel to heal and the stools to get back to normal. So even if you identify the problem and take corrective action, you may not see favorable results for a few weeks. This is because if the bowel gets irritated it is harder for the bowel to digest lactose - the undigested lactose then actually creates more irritation and runny stools... it can be tough to turn around at times. There is usually an inflammatory response with diarrhea - that is the part that takes time to heal. When the cause of the problem is removed (when baby recovers from the illness), the gut will heal even if the baby is still fed breastmilk. More here on secondary lactose intolerance.
| Breastmilk vs. Pedialyte |
When baby is sick, moms are sometimes told to discontinue or restrict breastfeeding and substitute an oral rehydration therapy such as Pedialyte. This outdated practice has been shown to offer no benefits to the breastfed baby, and can even delay healing.
Your milk has four things that your baby needs even more than usual when he's sick:
See the section above for more information on the use of Pedialyte in breastfed babies - Breastfed babies sometimes do need oral rehydration therapy (Pedialyte, etc), though far less often than artificially fed infants. The World Health Organization recommends continuing to breastfeed during and after oral rehydration therapy.
Here is the link: http://kellymom.com/health/illness/baby-illness.html
Page last modified: 11/09/2010
Written: 02/23/2002
What I like about it:
All I could find online was a lame picture of the case... HERE is a link to Walmart's site with a picture of the actual teething toy.
A friend of mine recommended this option & her baby loves it:
Why I like the Nuby brand a little more:
(I think he was about 3 weeks in this picture)
(This is Colin at 5 weeks in the Moby - He loved it and would usually fall asleep in it! He still loves it, even now!)
