The WHEN, NOT IF Milestone

I've always known that Joseph's first fall off of a piece of furniture (bed, couch) was an inevitable milestone that we'd someday reach, no matter how careful we are. Well, it happened today.

It must have been fate though. T.J. got home from a few days in New York city last night and his suitcase was out this morning. I had my mom's group coming to our house so I was "cleaning". By cleaning, I mean I threw everything in our room - including the suitcase with all of his stuff in it still. It ended up on the floor at the foot of the bed - right where I change Joseph. So, as I went to wet a wipe down in the bathroom, I hear a little ::thud:: and a slight "distress" cry from Joseph. My heart drops and I book it back the three steps to the bed and see him sitting/laying between the bed and the suitcase. He wasn't even hurt - just pretty surprised to find himself down there half-naked!

Thank goodness he wasn't injured and seemed to have fallen (or flipped) so he hit butt-first.

Diaper changes will henceforth take place on the floor - or he'll be coming along with me to the bathroom for wipe-wetting and diaper-dunking.

Struggling with toys

Yesterday we went and picked up three new toys for Joseph for Christmas. Well, he'll play with them now and we'll stick a bow on them and put them under the tree on Christmas morning. They are all big, plastic, loud, and bright. He's IN LOVE with them. ::sigh::

We'd love to only have safe wooden toys. We'd love for him to "use his imagination" all the time and play with wooden spoons. But the truth is, Joseph is drawn to the bright colors, lights, and sometimes the noise. The plastic works well because it's light and sturdy, and frankly, it's affordable.

So, we're making compromises. We do prefer non-plastic, for both the environmental impact AND his own safety. There are a lot of nasty chemicals [read: neurotoxins] in plastic. But at least from an environmental standpoint, buying these things used (which we did, and will do as much as we can) keeps these toys out of landfills, and doesn't require additional fossil fuel resources to make. And I don't know for sure, but I think used is better health-wise, too, as the plastic has had a chance to off-gas.

So our strategy is to buy safe, buy used, and buy LESS. I don't think it's a terrible strategy.

Spotted! Another babywearer!

I went to the Dekalb Farmer's Market today and got a tom of delicious organic produce, organic grass-fed beef, and free range chicken. Yum. It should make us feel significantly better than the slew of fast-food restaurant burgers we've been eating.

While there, I ran into several people who commented that they wore their kids (one guy in full Native American dress - very cool) and I even ran into a fellow babywearer! It was the highlight of the trip.

With summer arriving, it's a great time to support your local farmer's market*. You can find one near you at Local Harvest

And don't forget the "dirty dozen" foods you should buy organic. Here is the updated list from the EWG:

http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php

The Full List: 47 Fruits & Veggies

RANK	FRUIT OR VEGGIE	SCORE
1 (worst)	Peach	100 (highest pesticide load)
2	Apple	93
3	Sweet Bell Pepper	83
4	Celery	82
5	Nectarine	81
6	Strawberries	80
7	Cherries	73
8	Kale	69
9	Lettuce	67
10	Grapes - Imported	66
11	Carrot	63
12	Pear	63
13	Collard Greens	60
14	Spinach	58
15	Potato	56
16	Green Beans	53
17	Summer Squash	53
18	Pepper	51
19	Cucumber	50
20	Raspberries	46
21	Grapes - Domestic	44
22	Plum	44
23	Orange	44
24	Cauliflower	39
25	Tangerine	37
26	Mushrooms	36
27	Banana	34
28	Winter Squash	34
29	Cantaloupe	33
30	Cranberries	33
31	Honeydew Melon	30
32	Grapefruit	29
33	Sweet Potato	29
34	Tomato	29
35	Broccoli	28
36	Watermelon	26
37	Papaya	20
38	Eggplant	20
39	Cabbage	17
40	Kiwi	13
41	Sweet Peas - Frozen	10
42	Asparagus	10
43	Mango	9
44	Pineapple	7
45	Sweet Corn - Frozen	2
46	Avocado	1
47 (best)	Onion	1 (lowest pesticide load)

* The place I went today is not local, but we'll do that on Wednesday hopefully!

Update on CPSIA from my Senator

I don't think he really *gets* it, but I keep trying. The new guidelines he speaks about are not part of the law, so it just puts the onus on the store owner to comply with the letter of the law or risk fines by following their press release. Le Sigh.

Dear ______:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and its effect on secondhand retailers and other sectors of our economy. I appreciate hearing from you.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-314) passed the Senate, with my support, and became law on August 14, 2008. This act was created to further strengthen product safety laws and protect children, but in doing so, it could potentially have a negative effect on our economy, specifically on our retail industry.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has recently released updated guidelines regarding this act and how it may affect secondhand retailers. The guidelines specifically state that; "Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards."

I have included a copy of the release for your convenience or you can find the release online at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html.

Secondhand retailers play a very important role in our economy, particularly during tough economic times. Child safety is paramount, and we all must endeavor to provide safe and reliable clothing and other products to children.

I will follow the implementation of this law to assure that compliance does not place any undue burden on retailers and families. If you have any further questions or need additional assistance please feel free to contact me.

I just want to add that the problem is that he left this part out, putting it back on them to not sell things, even though above it said they don't have to test them. How can they be sure if it's not tested?:

"recalled children's products, children's products that will contain lead such as children's jewelry, painted wooden or metal toys, flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into small parts and dolls and stuffed toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children. "

End to Children's Thrift and Handmade Stores

I'm trying to raise awareness about the new Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which goes into effect on February 10, 2009. It's supposed to protect consumers from harmful chemicals being found in children's goods (pthalates and lead, for example), but the way the law is written it includes anyone who sells used or handmade items, as well. The testing would cost several hundred to a few thousand dollars PER ITEM, making it impossible for thrift stores and places like Etsy sellers to comply to the law.

If you are interested in this topic, you can read more about it here or here.

How You can Help (from this blog):

Please write to your United States Congress Person and Senator to request changes in the CPSIA to save handmade and used toys. Use the sample letter or write your own. You can find your Congress Person here and Senator here .

It only takes a minute, and the effects really are far reaching. You won't be able to legally sell, consign, or donate your own children's clothes under this law, much less buy from these outlets.

Walking the Walk

Here's another eco-baby article about toy buying. After we got our toys-for-tots, I had a small bit of guilt about the non-eco friendliness of them, but I think we did alright getting *active* toys at least - sports gear, sidewalk chalk, play-doh, etc... None of our toys required power sources, either. That was not an accident. T.J. and I both feel pretty strongly about providing toys for children that make them active and use their imagination.

It did make me realize how easy it is to forget about toy safety when you are concerned about what a child might actually want - and how hard it may be to balance the child's wants with both safety and earth friendliness. Since our target age was past the "eat everything" stage for the toys we bought, I feel all right about the options we chose. Even the packaging wasn't too over the top. If we had been buying baby stuff though I think I'd have made a bee-line for the wooden toys (with non-toxic paint!). That's a lot easier, too, as babies aren't concerned with brand names yet.

So, just a little realization (for me) that it's much easier to talk the talk than walk the walk with a lot of the ideas I've been touting on here. It doesn't mean we aren't going to do our best to be safe and eco-conscious, but I feel a bit like a wanna-be now rather than a true green mama! A good lesson in humility for me, I suppose.

It's here.

Please read this post from just about my favorite blog on eco living and natural parenting. I was going to post something very similar today, but she says everything about it that I would, and probably in a more eloquent way.

"News from the formula companies... and it's not good. i've been lucky enough to be able to feed lucy without any formula supplementation. though challenging at times, i'm so glad not to have to worry about stories like this. melamine has turned up in brand-name infant formula here in the united states. the same stuff that, you know, killed a bunch of dogs awhile back, and later put thousands upon thousands of chinese babies into the hospital (many of whom are still there). reports state that only trace amounts have been found in u.s. infant formulas, in levels that are for now being considered harmless. my take? melamine has been found in infant formula. enough said.

the findings make me sad for formula-feeding mommies, many of whom want to breastfeed exclusively but aren't able to, for whatever reason. the simple act of feeding a hungry baby (be it by bottle or by breast) shouldn't come with doubt, worry or guilt. if it's not melamine in formula or bpa in bottles, then it's the presence of dioxin and other nasties in breast milk, appearing in concentrated doses due to the ever-rising prevalence of chemicals in our society.

did generations past have to deal with these types of worries? overhanging guilt of things that simply could not be avoided? where did society fall off, letting our tiniest members come in contact with questionable chemicals and known carcinogens? this all goes far past formula--to baby shampoos and lotions, baby diapers, baby clothing, baby food, baby toys. something is just not right with this picture, and the very worst part is that despite all that i know about all of this, i can't shove my daughter into a bubble. she's exposed. i may have reduced her exposure, and i will try my hardest to continue to do so to a reasonable extent. but lucy, like every other baby in america, is exposed. and there's nothing i can do to change this."

I don't know what else to say about this. It's truly a travesty, and concrete evidence that our own coporations care more about profit than the health of our children, and frankly that the government doesn't care, either. A sad, sad day.

More bad baby stuff

I've heard about this for a while on some message boards that I'm on, but it's mainstream now (ever-vigilant Aunt Debbie tipped me off), so I thought I'd post it:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/24/baby.clothing.rashes.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is warning parents about Carter's Inc. baby garments with tag-less labels after about 400 babies who wore the clothing developed rashes on their backs.

The warning applies to the fall 2007 line, which includes about 110 million garments, said Mary Drayna, a manager for the Atlanta, Georgia, company. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said Friday that children should stop using these garments if they develop a rash, but the agency did not announce a recall of the product line.

Drayna said the affected clothing includes knit items such as body suits, shirts and pajamas. She said the items have prompted about 400 reports of baby rashes, but she could not comment on how serious any of the rashes were or if any required hospital visits.

The garments were made in various foreign countries, and they were sold at Carter's retail stores and at department and national chain stores, according to CPSC. The clothing appeared on the market in fall 2007 and could still be on retail shelves, although Carter's has released other products since then, Drayna said.

The company's online announcement said it had received reports that some babies with sensitive skin could be allergic to the heat-transferred, or tag-less, labels used in baby clothing.

"It appears that a very small percentage of children can be allergic to one or more ingredients in the labels. The solid, rather than stenciled, background on the fall 2007 labels appears to have produced a more pronounced and noticeable reaction among those children who are most allergic to the ink," the announcement said.

Also, the company's internal review of the product found "no indication that the labels contain any known skin irritants or abrasive chemicals, or that such a rash is anything beyond a rare allergic reaction to an otherwise safe product."

Toy Safety

Today there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about plastic toys that contain chemicals called pthalates. They have been found to be harmful to children, and are being banned in the U.S. as of February 2009. If you are planning to buy toys for babies (including DomerBaby!) PLEASE take this into account during the next few months. Retailers are marking down prices on these toys, making them even more tempting to buy. THEY ARE NOT SAFE.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122472242723860917.html

If you are looking for safe toys for babies and children, look for wooden, natural fabric, and metal toys. Think retro! Some great online stores are:

Oompa
Moolka

I'm sure you can find local stores that sell good quality toys as well... even large retailers carry them! So, consider this your PSA of the day!

I'm so confused!

The most confusing thing I have run up against in all of my pregnancy and birth research so far: The car seat.

You wouldn't think it'd be that hard, right? But there are so many issues. Do you want an infant seat or a convertible? Will the convertible fit the baby right away? Will we even be able to remove an infant bucket from the back of a 2-door car? What happens when DomerBaby grows out of an infant seat and needs the convertible? Will it fit in our car? Why is one brand $300, and others $40. What makes it special? Does my baby need the Mercedes of car seats? Is there a safety difference, or are they just preying on us poor, unsuspecting new parents?

Why do they make these damned things so enormous, anyway?!?!

I long for the days when we didn't know any better and my parent's let me and Deb share the front seat so long as we were buckled. The new recommendation is that children under 12 (and I've seen 15) do not sit in the front seat. I'm doomed to be a chauffeur forever. Of course that'll end the fighting over who gets the front seat, at least!