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

NOTE: The Alpha Crib about which I write here was just recalled by the CPSC, along with almost every other dropside crib. DO NOT BUY THIS CRIB.

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.