Sometimes a Comment Launches a Post

I had to share this comment I received on my latest posting about nontoxic cribs and BPA-free baby bottles. Miranda wrote:

Isn't a better solution just not buying all this crap in the first place? If you cosleep, you don't need a crib or crib mattress. A bed with a towel thrown on is just as effective as buying a changing table. You don't need BPA-free bottles if you breastfeed exclusively.

I don't think she meant it to sound quite as harsh as it sounds, but I'm glad she posted this comment because it brings up an argument I find maddening. First of all, women who breastfeed exclusively also utilize bottles. As I told her in my reply, I breastfed my son exclusively for twelve months. He self-weaned and was moved directly on to cow's milk. However, I also pumped extensively (ask my husband--the sound of the motor kept him up at night) because I also had to leave the house from time to time without my son--client meetings, hair appointments, doctor's appointments, and so on. My mother watched him during these times and certainly couldn't breastfeed him herself. My son ate every two hours. I had to leave bottles of expressed breast milk for him, hence the BornFree baby bottles.

However, what I find much more disturbing is this idea (and I don't know that Miranda meant this idea to come across, but it's there) that if we'd only breastfeed our babies, we wouldn't have to worry about BPA or if we'd only change our babies on our mattresses, we wouldn't have to worry about formaldehyde. Such an argument lets chemical companies off the hook--let them continue using BPA, we'll just breastfeed our babies. And to hell with the babies who have to use baby bottles because, oh, their mothers are, say, single mothers who have to work in order to feed and shelter that baby. Or because their breastfeeding mama had to run out to do a chore and grandma needed a bottle. Such an argument is so inward looking that it rings horribly unfair. I would hazard a guess that the majority of mothers up in arms about BPA in baby bottles are breastfeeding mothers who care about all babies--formula fed or breast fed. We come together as a community to get rid of these toxins because they are what's best for all of us, not just those of us who chose (or even had the luxury) to breastfeed or co-sleep.

And it goes without saying, of course, that the vast majority of canned foods contain a BPA lining. If only we'd stop eating canned foods, then we wouldn't have to worry about this, right? What about the people who eat food from cans--pretty much everybody in the world, at least once in a while? Damn 'em. Let us not pressure the bottle makers and the furniture makers to use different components. What's left unsaid in this argument, too, is that the obstacles to breastfeeding are most numerous in the poorer classes of this society. Single mothers have to work; few workplaces make lactation rooms available. Two income households--same problem. Believe it or not, many women have to work in order to provide for their children, and they do not have the luxury at McDonald's or even at big firms, to retire to a lactation room and pump out a supply of breastmilk. Telling them that if only the'd breastfeed their children would be safe is disingeous and ungenerous. And this comes from a woman who was lucky enough to be able to breastfeed her baby for as long as he wanted.

Miranda's comment, innocent though it may be, did give me an excuse to post about this idea as well as the more minor issue of baby bottles = formula and breastfeeding = no baby bottles. Not only are those equations false, but a comment like hers suggests that we shouldn't even worry about the babies being fed formula for whatever reason--let them ingest the chemicals due to their mothers' "bad behavior."

The Frugal Nontoxic Mama

I was Safe Seal-ing my bassinet the other day and thought about a conversation I had with my youngest sister, who is hoping to become a mother soon. I was telling her about the new No Compromise crib mattress I had had to purchase for my baby's room--re-using my son's crib--and told her that Mom and I would chip in to buy her one for her nursery when the time came. She looked at me and said: "Just so you know, I won't be doing all the nontoxic stuff you do." I just stared at her: "What do you mean?" She responded: "I just can't afford it."

At first I bristled--wait, I can "afford it"? No, I'm part of a young family with only one member who is employed full-time. However, as I continued sealing my bassinet, I thought to myself--my sister is not the only one who thinks a nontoxic nursery is out of reach. The truth is, I can't afford "it" either, when "it" is the $2000 totally nontoxic nursing rocker from Q Collection Junior, their companion crib, which runs $1100, the Pacific Rim Crib at $750 plus, and so on. While I think it's very important that people buy these products so that there is demonstrated interest in the marketplace and, ideally, more products produced at affordable prices, I know few (no one, really) who can afford a nontoxic nursery at that price.

But it's actually really easy to provide a safe environment for your baby, and it's actually less expensive than buying new: used furniture. I just bought a different changing table off Craig's List, a Pali natural wood changer which contains particleboard. However, it has been owned by two different families over the course of about four years. It has sufficiently off-gassed. My son's crib was actually nontoxic to begin with, with zero particleboard or formaldehyde glue--but it was new and cost less than just about every other crib I looked at (the Alpha Crib from Dax Stores, manufactured by Million Dollar Baby, which makes lots of formaldehyde-free cribs). My new baby will be using this crib. Baby bottles without BPA are now the norm, and no more expensive than the old BPA-containing bottles. Yes, Burt's Bees baby wash is more expensive than Johnson & Johnson's, but spending eight bucks for a bottle that lasts about two months seems feasible when we are talking about the difference between a load of phthalates and zero phthalates. And of course, the one big "expensive" thing is the crib mattress. It was a big purchase for me with my first, and it was a big one for my second. In my case, I worked extra editing jobs to pay for it. For others, the answer might be setting aside $25-30 a month over the course of your pregnancy--that will bring you to the purchase price of about $259. When looked at from that perspective, it seems completely doable.

What isn't necessary, in my opinion, are organic fabrics. I urge the use of cotton, not polyester, because when it comes to baby items, polyester is often doused in PBDEs or fire retardant. But I just bought a crib set that has polyester bumpers. They "off-gassing" as I type.

I can't emphasize enough how great used furniture is when you're trying to construct a nontoxic nursery. Stores like Once Upon a Child stock used cribs that look like new, are not on the recall list, and are safe for your baby to sleep in. Craig's List is another great resource. Let's keep this stuff out of the landfill and keep the toxic fumes of formaldehyde-containing particleboard out of our nurseries. I can't tell you how many e-mails I get from parents saying--"so THAT is what the smell is."

Here we go again...

My second baby is due at the end of September and we have just finished moving our toddler into his new "big boy" room with his new "big boy bed." We bought a used toddler bed at a thrift store, which solves any off-gassing issues (although this bed was made entirely of solid wood, there was a dark stain that I can only assume was rather odoriferous when it was first purchased). He did take with him his No-Compromise crib mattress, the one I've gone on and on about. The recap: the No-Compromise crib mattress by Naturpedic is free of PVC/vinyl, PBDEs (toxic fire retardants), dust mite barrier, organic cottn, meets all standards, fits all cribs (and toddler beds), and is just all around wonderful. From one of my earlier posts about this mattress:

Crib Mattress
This one is easy. No-Compromise Crib Mattress. This one is widely available; I recently bought one as a baby gift for my sister-in-law off Amazon. They are PVC/vinyl-free, utilizing polyethylene instead (food-grade). They do not contain noxious fire retardants found in most crib mattress; instead the compay uses a fire protection system (detailed in exhaustive detail on the website) that is free from those possibly carcinogenic toxins. This is an expensive mattress. There is no question about that. But for me, it was what I splurged on because it gave me peace of mind. Maybe I didn't get that ridiculously expensive diaper bag, and I guess I didn't buy all the wall decorations and nursery accessories that I might have otherwise. But this mattress was, to me, far more important than any of those other nursery furnishings. One note: I noticed at Babies R Us that Serta is selling a "safe" baby mattress. I'm glad large companies are taking note of the dangers of polyurethane foam mattresses; but be sure to read the fine print and note if these companies are still dousing their mattresses in fire retardant.

Anyway, the new baby needs a new mattress, so I just ordered another No Compromise crib mattress, though this time I ordered their new "seamless" crib mattress--it was the same price but is more of a square shape and doesn't have the high side seams that my son's mattress has. I don't really see any advantage to this, but I thought I'd mix it up a little. I also decided to buy a No Compromise bassinet mattress this time around. My son didn't like to spend any time in the bassinet but I'm hoping my little girl will. I ordered both from Baby Earth, which offers free shipping.

In other nursery news, I've decided to repaint and will be using Olympic no-VOC paints (available exclusively at Lowes) as they are cheaper than other no-VOC paints and I have used them successfully in the past.

Notes from a Desperate Industry

Some heroic soul who attended a brainstorming session between plastics industry executives gave the notes of that meeting to a reporter at the Washington Post. Concerned about the viability of BPA-containing plastics, they apparently huddled for hours and tried to figure out how to keep more states from legislating bans, keep consumers from learning about (or believing)the research that links BPA to a host of negative health effects, and how to essentially keep BPA on the market. The notes are both chilling and pathetic.

An example for how to scare mothers--whom they identified as their key target because of their passionate concern for the health of their babies--was particularly absurd: ask them "do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" This is linked to the potential BPA ban many states are considering for food containers. The industry is even more trouble than one might think if they actually believe this would be an effective strategy. The term "fear tactics" was used in the meeting, unsurprisingly.

One of the more heinous details is this one: "Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA,' " the notes said."

Words fail me. Read more about this inside baseball on the Washington Post, linked here.

Minnesota Bans BPA (Or: Why I'm Proud to Be a Minnesotan Today)

Some of you may have followed the saga of the Toxic-Free Kids Act and BPA Ban that has been ongoing here in the state of Minnesota for a few years now. Healthy Legacy, an advocacy nonprofit out of Minnesota that has worked tirelessly--and I do mean tirelessly--to keep BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups, and to limit our children's exposure to phthalates can take credit for helping Minnesota become the first state in America to ban, outright, the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. In addition, the Toxic-Free Kids Act creates a system by which the state must address the problem of toxins found in children's products (a daunting task, one that the FDA has not been up to).

The reason this victory is so sweet is because the last time the Minnesota legislature passed legislation like this, our governor, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed it, for reasons that still remain unclear to me. However, this time, the bill passed again, overwhelmingly, and it when it reached his desk, Pawlenty signed it into law. I applaud him for reversing course on this. I believe he said, last time, that the "science wasn't in." In the year that has passed, the science has proven almost conclusively that Bisphenol-A is leached from baby bottles and sippy cups containing it in amounts that are clearly problematic. In fact, more than 200 studies have shown that even in low doses, BPA is linked to reproductive problems, cancer, heart disease, and neurological issues. As you are probably well aware, the Bush-era FDA found BPA risk-free--but that finding was blasted when it became known that the agency, for some truly bizarre reason, chose to use only American Chemistry Council-funded studies of the chemical. The American Chemistry Council is the industry group for the chemical industry, which has a huge stake in keeping BPA on the market.

The Toxin-Free Kids Act is another groundbreaking piece of legislation. There is currently near-zero federal oversight in the use of new chemicals in household products, including, amazingly, children's products. That's why you end up with formaldehyde in children's bath soap or 1, 4 dioxane. That's why you end up with lead in toys and phthalates in everything from lotions to teething rings. This key piece of legislation, which Pawlenty signed into law, forces the Minnesota Department of Health to evaluate chemicals used in consumer products and gauge their toxicity levels.

What makes all of this so exciting is the push these laws in Minnesota will undoubtedly give Feinstein and Markey's bills in Congress, banning BPA from food and beverage containers.

I Want This...

Trying to escape news of Swine Flu, I have been looking for an "eco-friendly" (read: formaldehyde-free) nursery rocker. I didn't have one of these when I nursed my son, and as a result, was always trying to find a comfortable position in which to nurse. Most often, I ended up in bed, which is fine. But we just finished up my two-year-old son's new room, moving him out of the nursery and into his big boy room, and I am thinking about the new baby's room. We've got the crib covered--the excellent nontoxic Alpha Crib from Dax Stores, which I've written about before. We have a leftover changing table (Jardine, I think?) which was not a "green" product but which has probably off-gassed more than enough. Now I want that glider I never had.

And of course, I have to find one that is $2,000 and gorgeous. And I want it. Bad. It's the Alberto Winged Glider, part of the very cool Q Collection Junior line. The company makes truly eco-friendly and lung-healthy furniture products for nurseries, and they are priced accordingly. Even their changing tables top $1,000. But they know their stuff. This isn't simply "We use FSC-certified wood (but use formaldeyde-containing glue to put it together!)". It's the whole she-bang.

So I see this gorgeous piece of furniture and now I'm trying to think of all the ways I can make some extra money to make this mine. Even with the fiction prize and two fellowships I recently won (yes, after several drought years, someone finally took pity on me)I can't funnel the money to this purchase; considering the fact that we just learned how much we're going to have to shell out for Hudson's first year at Montessori school, I can safely say this will remain a chair of my dreams. But for anyone out there who can drop $2,000 on a nursery rocker and wants one that is beautiful and truly nontoxic, check out the Alberto Winged Glider. Know that each one is made to order, so you need to order 6-8 weeks in advance. There is also a $200+ delivery fee.

Childhood Obesity Linked to Phthalates: from today's Times

From today's New York Times:

Child Obesity Is Linked to Chemicals in Plastics
By Jennifer 8. Lee
Exposure to chemicals used in plastics may be linked with childhood obesity, according to results from a long-term health study on girls who live in East Harlem and surrounding communities that were presented to community leaders on Thursday by researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center.

The chemicals in question are called phthalates, which are used to to make plastics pliable and in personal care products. Phthalates, which are absorbed into the body, are a type of endocrine disruptor — chemicals that affect glands and hormones that regulate many bodily functions. They have raised concerns as possible carcinogens for more than a decade, but attention over their role in obesity is relatively recent.

The research linking endocrine disruptors with obsesity has been growing recently. A number of animals studies have shown that exposing mice to some endocrine disruptors causes them be more obese. Chemicals that have raised concern include Bisphenol A (which is used in plastics) and perfluorooctanoic acid, which is often used to create nonstick surfaces.

However, the East Harlem study, which includes data published in the journal Epidemiology, presents some of the first evidence linking obesity and endocrine disruptors in humans.

The researchers measured exposure to phthalates by looking at the children’s urine. “The heaviest girls have the highest levels of phthalates metabolites in their urine,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai, one of the lead researchers on the study. “It goes up as the children get heavier, but it’s most evident in the heaviest kids.”

This builds upon a larger Mount Sinai research effort called “Growing Up Healthy in East Harlem,” which has looked at various health factors in East Harlem children over the last 10 years, including pesticides, diet and even proximity to bodegas.

About 40 percent of the children in East Harlem are considered either overweight or obese. “When we say children, I’m talking about kindergarten children, we are talking about little kids,” Dr. Landrigan said. “This is a problem that begins early in life.”

The Growing Up Healthy study involves more than 300 children in East Harlem, and an additional 200 or so children in surrounding community.

The phthalate study follows a separate group of about 400 girls in the same communities, who range in age from 9 to 11.

One thing researchers have found is that the levels of phthalates measured in children in both studies are significantly higher than the average levels that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have measured for children across the entire United States.

The findings may presage a new approach to thinking about obesity — drawing environmental factors into a central part of the equation. “Most people think childhood obesity is an imbalance between how much they eat and how much they play,” Dr. Landrigan said.

But he thinks the impact of endocrine disruptors on obesity could be more significant than many people believe. “Most people think it’s marginal,” he said, paling in comparison with diet and exercise.

But he likened it with the impact of lead on a child’s I.Q. “Lead never makes more than 3 or 4 percent difference in margin, but 3 to 5 I.Q. points is a big deal,” he said.

Of course, at this stage, researchers cannot say if the exposure actually causes obesity, simply that it seems to be linked. “Right now it’s a correlation; we don’t know if it’s cause and effect or an accidental finding,” Dr. Landrigan said. “The $64,000 question is, what is causal pathway? Does it go through the thyroid gland? Does it change fat metabolism?”

The National Children’s Study, which will follow 100,000 children from across the country from birth to age 21, will look more broadly at endocrine disruptors and other issues.

“Some of the clues that come out of East Harlem will actually be pursued in the larger one,” Dr. Landrigan said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Landrigan advised people to reduce their exposure to phthalates as a precautionary measure. “You can’t avoid them completely, but you can certainly reduce their exposure,” he said.

It’s somewhat difficult to do, since many things do not contain labels identifying phthalates, and in the case of perfumes they can simply be labeled as “fragrance.”

Phthalates are found in certain personal care products (like nail polish and cosmetics), though recent regulation has encouraged companies to reduce or eliminate them.

They are also found in common everyday objects, including vinyl siding, toys and pacifiers. A number of environmental Web sites, including The Daily Green, have advised certain strategies, including learning to recognize the abbreviations for certain common phthalates and to prefer certain kinds of recyclable plastics over others.