Jessica Alba Designing Eco-Friendly Diapers
Filed under: Baby Bath Time, Baby Gear, Baby Health, Baby Safety, Parenting, Premier Baby Stores
Celebrity-created or endorsed product lines are often vanity projects, even when it comes to babies. That’s not always the case, however, and Jessica Alba is a recent example of a star with a genuine vision. Not out to build her brand with handbags, clothing, or fragrances, Alba, who has been absent from films for the past few years, debuted Honest.com, a website for eco-friendly diapers, last week. Profiled by the New York Daily News, the Machete actress described her intentions and motivations for her first entrepreneurial endeavor.
Honest.com, the website for Alba’s The Honest Co., offers a line of nontoxic, environmentally friendly diapers, biodegradable wipes, and organic bath and skin care products. Unlike many eco baby products, which frequently are colored beige or green, The Honest Co.’s adds patterns.
Alba explained that, after receiving a rash from a baby-safe detergent, she researched the chemicals in it, only to find that many were, in fact, not organic. Further finding out that flame retardants are added to breast pillows, she sought out truly green baby products, which were difficult to come across. She said:
“It was exhausting. I had a baby, I was working. I didn’t have time to go everywhere. And I get it. Everything has a green leaf on it or brown or beige. I’m like, just because it’s eco why does it have to be brown, beige, or have a green leaf on it?”
The actress developed the brand of eco-diapers in response, determined to offer truly environmentally-friendly baby products that are both affordable and attractive. At the moment, the diapers and other baby products appear to only be available for purchase online.
Finding eco-friendly baby products is a difficult task, but more options can be found on the internet. DadaBabyBoutique.com has a large selection of green baby toys, supplies, and diaper bags, and Rattlecake’s eco diaper cakes are perfect as baby shower gifts.
Just How Dangerous is Cosleeping?
Filed under: Baby Health, Baby Safety, Baby Sleeping, Parenting
You likely know a parent or two that ardently sticks up for cosleeping, regardless of CPSC warnings. Much like the bonding approach through baby-wearing, cosleeping makes breastfeeding easier for the mother, the mother gets closer to her baby, the parent and child gradually assume the same sleep cycle, and the baby falls asleep quicker. Yet, even with these supposed benefits, CPSC advises against cosleeping.
Simple standards and guidelines don’t quite hit as close to home as stories and experiences. A piece in South Carolina newspaper The State goes into detail about the hazards of cosleeping, particularly the innate ease at which a parent or older child can suffocate a baby.
How unsafe is a baby when surrounded by heavier people in an adult bed? Essentially, an arm or a leg becomes a suffocation hazard, extending over the baby and staying in place. Because infants have limited motor skills, pushing off a heavier person is impossible.
At the same time, co-sleeping, or use of a family bed, may be a greater cause of sudden infant death than previously believed. A baby who dies in a family bed is labeled with condition “Sudden Unexpected Infant Death Syndrome – Unsafe Sleeping Conditions,” which can also include letting a child sleep on a couch or armchair, in a crib with comforters or pillows, or in the same space with a dog.
In the past, at least in this area of South Carolina, infant deaths resulting from sleeping were labeled SIDS, but this condition indicates that the child was placed in a safe area. In order to now determine the cause of death, a coroner goes to the caregiver’s house and asks the individual to reenact the sleeping situation with a doll.
Cosleeping, however, isn’t a radical parenting approach, like baby-wearing; rather, it has been in practice with families for many years, going under other names. That doesn’t mean that it’s safe. Just like the playgrounds of metal equipment and blacktop of many adults’ childhoods, not all past situations and practices are safe for children; what was once the norm is now a hazard. Gary Watts, the Richland coroner quoted in the State, piece explained:
“My grandmother did it, my mother did it, and I know I did it. But it’s unsafe. At some point, you have to realize it’s a danger to the infant. If you want to have a child in the room – put him in a bassinet beside your bed.”
Toxic Chemicals Found in Brand-Name Baby Products
How safe are your baby’s toys? Not as safe as you think. On December 13, the Environmental Health Strategy Center put out a report identifying 650 brand-name products with hormone-disrupting toxic chemicals, including BPA and NPEs. Not relegated exclusively to baby products, the report reveals that common toys for young children, such as PLAYMOBIL figures and Chicco baby rattles, contain BPA.
BPA, we mentioned before, mimics estrogen, harming brain development and behavior in the process. The report mentions that 18 states have passed 70 laws regulating chemicals in products over the past decade, but a national measure, such as the Safe Chemicals Act, should be in place. Although only in initial stages at the moment, the Safe Chemicals Act would require chemical manufacturers to disclose health information and safety about compounds and restrict the most harmful. The act would replace the current Toxic Substance Control Act, which has had no changes in 35 years.
Although states are already enacting laws, companies found to have potentially-harmful chemicals in baby products are addressing the issue themselves. One is Johnson & Johnson. According to a November Associated Press article, Johnson & Johnson has been working to remove traces of toxic chemicals from baby products. In May 2009, Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo was found to contain two potentially carcinogenic chemicals, and the brand has experienced two-dozen recalls over two years. As far as improving the quality of baby toys, the company has since removed all phthalates from baby products.
Parents shouldn’t have to seek out green products to keep chemicals away from their children – especially those that harm development, like BPA. Enacting a national law regulating chemicals would be one step toward ensuring the greater availability of healthier baby products.
Reconsidering Childproofing Around the Home
Babies and toddlers, when left alone for a moment, get into everything. Although out of pure curiosity, this need to touch and explore everything is best done when a parent is present and alert. But if a parent isn’t paying attention every single second, how can a child stay out of trouble? A home needs to be childproofed.
Yet, the childproofing methods of yore, including outlet covers and baby gates, just aren’t enough, according to a parenting advice piece from the New York Times. According to the experts cited, homes have changing hazards and childproofing methods need to stay updated with them.
What new hazards should parents now think about?
• Cords are now considered strangulation hazards. Parents, in response, need to make sure their home is as cord-free as possible. Baby monitors, power tools, and even blinds need to be cord-free. Otherwise, the child can grab it and end up choking.
• Outlet covers are outdated, and parents removing them may forget to put them back in. Instead, experts recommend putting a horizontal slide plate over every outlet.
• Televisions and furniture can fall on babies and toddlers. Parents, to prevent any injuries, need to secure all such objects in their home.
• Homes have many small objects. As you look around your home for hazards, examine each small object and see if it can move through a toilet paper tube. If it can, it poses a choking hazard to a young child and needs to be kept out of reach.
As far as checking your home is concerned, examine it from a child’s level and make any necessary changes. But because each home has its own individual hazards, the experts suggest having a consultant come in to survey your home. All childproofing, as well, should be done before the baby arrives.
If you have childproofed your home, what advice do you have for new parents?
FDA Warns Against SIDS-Preventing Baby Products
No parent wants to find a child dead from SIDS, yet products that make claims to prevent the condition are not safe, according to a recent statement issued by the FDA. In general, the government agency tells parents to avoid commercial devices marketed to reduce risks for SIDS.
Most parents have likely come across such products. Regardless of brands, however, typical SIDS-preventing baby products come as wedges, sleep positioners, mattresses, sleep surfaces, bedding, pillows, or tents. Such products, in concept, position a baby to prevent rolling over and suffocating during sleep. Yet, the baby itself can slip out of such products, which may in fact end up suffocating the child. The FDA reports that 13 deaths from SIDS-preventing products have occurred over the past 13 years.
In its statement, the FDA goes on to say that such baby products are unnecessary and, based on the evidence, may be dangerous to a child. Additionally, manufacturers of these SIDS-preventing products, some of which state medical claims, are urged to remove all statements from packaging. As the agency has never approved a product to be SIDS-reducing or preventing, the FDA wants all manufacturers to wait until their products receive clearance or approval to put such claims on packaging.
But, if a parent is looking to reduce risks of SIDS, what are his or her options? Although a study indicated that some babies may be predisposed to SIDS because of serotonin levels, general rules of thumb for putting a baby to sleep are clear the crib of any object and put the baby on its back. SIDS-reducing products aside, a crib should not contain any stuffed animals, toys, or crib bumpers, as a baby could roll over and end up suffocating on one of these surfaces. Additionally, cords from baby monitors, lamps, or other devices should not be within reaching distance of the crib.
Recall of Bugaboo Bee Strollers
A brand associated with luxury baby products, Bugaboo introduced the $1,500 Donkey stroller earlier this year. Yet, just recently, the high-end stroller brand experienced a recall of its Bee model.
The Bugaboo Bee presents a tipping danger, resulting from a front wheel that sticks when swiveling. Because of an earlier shimmying problem for the same part, the brand switched a metal bearing with a plastic one.
All recalled models were sold from January to September 2011. In terms of what to do, Bugaboo has provided directions for parents. To sum up the major points:
• Parents can continue using the stroller as long as the front swivel wheels are locked for the time being.
• A repair kit is being issued to those who registered with the brand.
• Those who did not register, however, can fill out a request form online for a repair kit.
• The repair kit sent out will include a wheel replacement set with metal bearing wheels to prevent sticking.
Bugaboo also has a newer Bee model available, but this, too, still may have a shimmying problem. If you have the newer Bugaboo Bee stroller and the front wheel still shimmies, contact the brand for a washer ring set and instructions for correcting the issue.
In regards to the recall, Bugaboo issued a statement. They wrote:
“The safety and wellbeing of our customers and their children is paramount to Bugaboo. Previously this year we found that, although non-swiveling wheels affect the driving experience, we believed it did not affect the safety of the stroller.
“However, the latest safety assessment by an independent expert concluded, following further tests, that there is a small chance that the stroller’s front wheels could jam, which could make the stroller tip over.
“In light of this we believe that the safety profile of this product is inadequate and not up to our quality standard. We take this very seriously and therefore we immediately stop shipment and sales of the Bugaboo Bee.
[…]
“We believe that these metal bearing swivel wheels will be the solution to the non-swiveling issues some Bugaboo Bee customers are experiencing and remove any potential for tip-over and the risks associated with tip-over.”
California May Include Flame Retardant on List of Carcinogens
In recent news, California may decide to include a common flame retardant chemical on its list of carcinogens. How, exactly does this apply to baby products? While the chemical, chlorinated Tris, was once added to babies’ and children’s pajamas but removed in the 1970s, it is still present in crib mattresses.
Chlorinated Tris is the most common flame retardant added to furniture foam and baby products in the United States, but the EPA and CPSC have declared it a carcinogen. Worse, the flame retardant leaches out of furniture and ends up in dust, and you and your child end up inhaling and ingesting it unwittingly. The chemical, as well, has been associated with cancer in factory workers and lab animals, although manufacturers state that not enough evidence supports such claims.
California, if you are unaware, has the strictest flammability standards in the country and recently banned BPA. The state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, also known as Proposition 65, is in place to protect residents from chemicals in drinking water that could cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and the governor yearly publishes a list of chemicals that meet Proposition 65’s requirements for cancer-causing or reproductive toxicity. Chlorinated Tris may end up on that list.
If the chemical does, it won’t be banned from furniture and baby products outright. Rather, products that do contain it will come with a warning label, much in the way that cigarettes and alcohol do.
Such an initiative will make identifying baby products with carcinogenic flame retardants easier. Because a baby spends about 70 percent of its first year sleeping, it could be highly exposed to chlorinated Tris and its effects. Parents looking to create a chemical-free sleeping area, as a result, have turned to products like Naturepedic organic cotton crib mattresses to stay away from toxic and artificial flame retardants.
B.O.B. Stroller Recall in U.S. and Canada
A recall of B.O.B. strollers was announced yesterday in the United States and Canada. 439,000 B.O.B. Trailers, Inc. jogging strollers are being recalled for choking hazards in both countries, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada.
More specifically, this model of stroller, manufactured between November 1998 and November 2010, has an embroidered logo patch for Ironman® or Stroller Strides® on the canopy that detaches. The patch, if loose, poses a choking hazard to the child in the stroller, and so far, six instances of children putting these patches in their mouths were reported. Two out of these includes gagging or choking, although no injuries occurred. The patch can be found on all single and double jogging strollers by B.O.B.
This recall isn’t the first for B.O.B. this year, however. 357,000 units were recalled back in February because the canopy drawstring also posed a choking hazard.
According to the CPSC website, consumers should stop using these strollers immediately, until the canopy patch is removed. CPSC also states that the company will be supplying kits for removing said patch. For additional information, CPSC suggests contacting B.O.B. directly (contact information is on the CPSC site).
For concerned or confused parents, B.O.B. has its own website with visuals of the recalled features. This particular model will no longer be available through stores and selling it, as of the recall, is illegal.
If you fall into either category, you have two options – waiting for the kit to remove the patch or purchasing a new stroller. Considering this particular model by B.O.B. has been recalled twice this year, purchasing another jogging stroller may be the best option. Rather, if you like this particular stroller, wait until the company offers repair kits and, in the meantime, use any other stroller you have at home.
How to Carry a Baby in a Sling
Carrying children in slings creates a better bond between the parent and child, insists supporters of babywearing, but at what cost? A recent article in Australian newspaper The Age draws attention again to the fact that, if a baby is carried incorrectly in a sling, he or she can suffocate to death. The newspaper quotes experts telling parents to be watchful of their babies in slings.
As The Age mentions, not all parents are aware of the safety hazards of baby slings. Still, the Australian Competition and Consumer Committee, which issued the warning about slings, is developing safety standards for these popular baby carriers.
As we discussed before, baby carriers can face forwards and backwards, but how a baby is positioned is crucial. If you own a sling and are uncertain about how to use it, keep in mind the following points, courtesy of New York Times’ Motherload, and watch the video below:
• The baby should be in the same curved position as it is in your arms. The sling should not be loose enough that the baby moves away from the parent.
• The baby’s head should be close enough for the parent to kiss without bending.
• The sling must be tight enough around the parent and baby.
• The baby’s face should always be visible – never covered by fabric.
• When using the sling, parents should not feel back or neck pain. Otherwise, the carrier is being worn incorrectly.
A bond between the parent and child is important but not at the expense of the baby’s safety. Although instructions may not accompany a sling, find out beforehand how to position and carry a baby. If you need visuals for the steps above, watch the following video below for putting on a baby sling and positioning your baby inside:
Should You Bring Young Children to Restaurants, Bars, Concerts?
In July, McDain’s Restaurant in Monroeville, Pa., decided to ban children under 6 years of age. Their reasoning? Children disturb other customers and are loud. Because children, unlike the elderly, are not a protected class, banning them is legal.
Parents, of course, disagree. Such rules, they argue in an editorial from PennLive.com, will reduce business and ultimately punish responsible parents.
But, at the same time, what constitutes a “responsible parent”? One who takes a child outside when he or she starts screaming? One who makes sure a child behaves well around adults? Or one who does not take his or her children to adult-oriented places and events, such as concerts and bars?
Tony Hicks, a writer for the Costa Contra Times argues for the former. Detailing his experience at a recent Katy Perry concert, which, in design only, appears kid-friendly, Hicks takes a stance that some spaces, such as concerts late at night, simply aren’t for young children – who should be in bed, rather than be brought along. Additionally, he states that toddlers and young children should not be exposed to the drunken and disorderly behavior, drugs, and sexual atmosphere of many concerts:
The bottom line is that some concerts shouldn’t be open to kids of a certain age. I could see taking a 12-year-old to Katy Perry; maybe even a 10-year-old. But 2 and 4? That’s why they have “Sesame Street Live,” the Wiggles, “Disney on Ice” and Justin Bieber, who’s kind of like a Muppet with better hair. Kids aren’t supposed to be our little party buddies. They’re supposed to be home, getting a good night’s sleep. They have plenty of time to get their eardrums blown out at concerts later in life.
Do you agree with Hicks, that some spaces should be reserved only for adults? Should children always be brought along? And, should restaurants be put in the same category as Slipknot or Katy Perry concerts?