A relatively popular baby product, Bumbo baby seats may go through a third recall. Could they be declared as dangerous as drop-side cribs? While parents now wait to hear if the supposedly-helpful baby seat is being recalled a third time, various consumer groups are requesting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to push the measure through. Although 4 million Americans have purchased Bumbos, the product from the South Africa-based company appears to have significant fall risks.

For parents unfamiliar, Bumbo seats were first recalled in 2007. The company claims parents were not using them correctly by placing them on elevated surfaces. The child, who wiggles around and potentially arches his or her back, falls out, hits the floor, and can experience a skull fracture. At the time, 28 fall-related injuries resulted in the recall of 1 million products. In response, Bumbo International put the following warning on all seats: “WARNING – Prevent Falls; Never use on any elevated surface.”

On the other hand, parents didn’t seem to get the message – or, more precisely, read the new warning. With Bumbos still placed on elevated surfaces, more children experienced injuries, and the CPSC issued a second recall in November 2011. The company, at the time, remarked that parents need to use the seat properly – on the floor, with the baby watched at all times.

Consumer groups, however, point out holes in this assertion, as some of the fall-related skull fractures did not occur from elevated positions. In fact, they claim, the babies were seated on the floor.

What do you think should be done about this baby seat? Should Bumbo redesign its product to be less fall-prone? Or should parents look elsewhere? If putting the child down for a few hours is a primary concern, several other baby seats, in better, if not safer, configurations are available.

Related articles

• Are Bumbo child seats safe? (necontact.wordpress.com)
• New Warning Issued For Bumbo Seats (lisabarger.typepad.com)

When a celebrity attaches his or her name to a product, be it vodka, a fragrance, or baby clothing, you wonder just how authentic it is – or if it’s simply part of a large branding strategy. Does having an associated celebrity name mean the item is somehow superior than, say, the standard item? While, at least in terms of fashion, the relationship gives the product an initial edge, it wears off at some point – particularly when a star’s power drops.

Jessica Alba is one of the more recent stars to attach her name to a product. In the past, we saw a proposed baby clothing line from Snoop Dogg and David Beckham, onesies sporting a quote from Kate Moss (“Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels”), and baby sheets from Saved by the Bell and 90210 actress Tiffani Thiessen. Alba, on the other hand, is introducing a line of eco-friendly diapers and other baby products under The Honest Co. Making its first appearance last week, Honest.com, the company’s website, started offering nontoxic, eco-friendly diapers, biodegradable baby wipes, and organic bath and skin care products.

For an actress who starred in television show Dark Angel and more recently in the Fantastic Four and Machete, such an endeavor seems odd; yet, in an interview with the New York Daily News, Alba talked about getting a rash after using baby-safe detergent. Upon researching the ingredients, she found that many weren’t organic, and while she found some truly eco-friendly baby items here and there, they were difficult to come by. To the newspaper, she explained:

“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 Honest Co.’s eco diapers are not only nontoxic, but they also come in colorful patterns and are affordably priced. Aside from her new line, other green baby products can be found through Rattlecake and Dada Baby Boutique.

To use a family bed or to not use a family bed – it’s many parents’ dilemma. Yet, for all the praise about bonding that family beds receive, the negatives are a precipitous downside – one, in fact, that negates all benefits. Putting the parents, possible older children, and a new baby in a bed together is said to synchronize sleep cycles and help the baby rest better, but the CPSC speaks against it, citing suffocation hazards.

Yet, the negative facets rarely register on an individual’s radar until a tragedy is recounted in greater detail. South Carolina newspaper The State did such a piece recently. Describing the experiences of one family in Richland County, the piece goes onto discuss why cosleeping is hazardous for infants and the possibility that cases diagnosed as SIDS may, in fact, involve dangerous sleeping arrangements.

If your child is 1 years old or younger, how strong is he or she? How well can he or she move? Even the most developmentally-advanced babies, however, find themselves trapped when a larger person in the bed rolls over or even accidentally lays an arm or leg across an airway. Because the child can neither move nor lift, he or she often suffocates.

Gary Watts, the Richland County coroner, quoted in the State piece mentions that more infant deaths may be attributed to cosleepin than previously assumed. In the event a child suffocates in the family bed, a coroner asks the caregiver to recreate the situation in order to rule out SIDS, which does not involve a dangerous sleeping arrangement. Aside from family beds, laying a baby to sleep on a couch or arm chair, in a crib with a comforter or pillow, or in a room with a dog are also considered sleeping hazards.

Some habits can be difficult to break, however – including cosleeping, which may have been used by families for generations. About this, Watts told the press:

“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.”

When a child starts sucking or chewing on a toy, dirt, germs, and choking aren’t the only threats you need to be concerned about. A report from the Environmental Health Strategy Center released on December 13 shows that 650 name-brand products, including baby toys, contain hormone-disrupting toxic chemicals, such as BPA and NPEs. For baby products, such well-known toys as PLAYMOBIL figures and Chicco rattles are made with BPA.

While banned from baby bottles in some states, such as California, BPA can be found in items ranging from soup cans to receipts – and now baby products. BPA mimics estrogen in the body and can harm a child’s brain and behavioral development. In addition to California, 17 other states have enacted laws against such chemicals in products over the past decade, and a national measure, the Safe Chemicals Act, is in the works.

If it passes, the Safe Chemicals Act would override the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is now 35 years old and has never been revised. Once in place, the Safe Chemicals Act would require chemical manufacturers to disclose health and safety information for compounds and to control harmful substances.

While states are taking on this responsibility for now, companies, such as Johnson & Johnson, are addressing recalls pertaining to chemicals. According to the Associated Press, Johnson & Johnson announced in November that it is removing traces of chemicals from its baby products all over the world. The realization to change began in May 2009, when two possible carcinogens were found in the brand’s popular Baby Shampoo. Additionally, two dozen other products were recalled over two years. Although Johnson & Johnson is still improving, the brand mentioned it has removed phthalates from baby products.

Environmentally-friendly baby products are difficult to come by. Yet, removing chemicals from a baby’s space is crucial. Parents should be able to create such a space for their children, and hopefully the Safe Chemicals Act will allow them to do so.

No parent wants to lose a baby to SIDS. As a result, a market for SIDS-preventing baby products has sprung up. Recently, however, the FDA decreed that they have not approved any SIDS-preventing baby products. Parents, in response, should stop using them, while manufacturers should remove all claims on their packaging.

Most parents have come across SIDS-preventing or reducing baby products or may have even purchased them. If, on the other hand, you aren’t familiar with such products, the full scope of them involves wedges, sleep positioners, mattresses, sleep surfaces, bedding, pillows, and sleep tents. But, no matter the type of product, the concept is the same: the item is designed to keep the baby in a fixed position to prevent suffocation. Declaring them dangerous, the FDA mentioned in its statement that babies can slip out of these positioning products and end up suffocating. In fact, they state, 13 deaths resulting from SIDS-preventing baby products have occurred over the past 13 years.

Aside from parents, the FDA addresses manufacturers of such products. Because no claims can be supported thus far, the FDA requests that all statements touting SIDS-reducing properties, even from medical professionals, be removed from packaging until the product is cleared or approved by the government agency.

As far as proper positioning is concerned, what should a parent do? Parents need to stick with a basic approach: the FDA states they should put the baby on its back in an empty crib. Items like crib bumpers, stuffed animals, and other soft toys left in the sleeping area all pose suffocation hazards. Aside from what’s in the crib, parents should be aware of what’s around it – particularly cords. Babies may grab at monitor cords and can end up strangling themselves. To prevent this from happening, parents are advised to keep all cords at least three feet away from a crib.

When you’re a parent, finding safe baby furniture and toys is a challenge. While being “flame retardant” is a desired quality for baby products, especially for mattresses, the chemicals used are not. In fact, common chemical chlorinated Tris – found in both furniture foam and baby products – leaches out and ends up in dust around the home. You and your child, as a result, end up ingesting and inhaling it unwittingly.

While chlorinated Tris was once removed from baby pajamas in the 1970s for fear of cancer, the chemical is still practically omnipresent through furniture and other flame-retardant items. As a result, creating a chemical-free environment for your child is difficult and expensive. California, however, is considering adding the common flame retardant to its state list of carcinogens.

With the toughest regulations for flammability, California enforces its the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, or Proposition 65. Proposition 65 is in place to prevent cancer- or birth defect-causing chemicals in the water. Chemicals that meet Proposition 65’s requirements for carcinogens end up on an annual list.

The EPA and CPSC have both declared chlorinated Tris a carcinogen, and the chemical has been associated with cancer in factory workers and lab animals. Manufacturers, on the other hand, don’t think that this is enough evidence to warrant labeling chlorinated Tris a carcinogen. If the chemical ends up on such a list, all products containing it, when sold in California, will come with a warning label, one similar to those added to cigarettes or alcohol.

How does this affect you as a parent? As you might have found, finding baby products free of synthetic flame retardants is not easy. At the same time, you want a safe and chemical-free sleeping area for your child. If the chemical ends up on California’s list, identifying such products will become easier for parents.

Don’t you wish your child knew about sharing and would just stop saying, “That’s not fair!”? Your child may, in fact, be fully aware of fairness and sharing, according to a recent study from the University of Washington. The study, which involved showing videos and then sharing toys, showed that children as young as 15 months in age recognize unfairness.

Scientists, before, had shown that 2 year olds are capable of recognizing sharing and fairness, but the new study indicates that children identify them at younger ages. In the University of Washington study, a group of 47 babies were shown two videos: one of food being divided evenly between two people, and another of food being divided unevenly. As the babies watched, some stared at the video of food being divided unevenly. Babies, according to scientists, stare when surprised by something.

The second portion of the study was more interactive. The babies were given two toys each, and the researchers indicated that they would like to have one. Two-thirds of the babies offered to share, but how they did it was not uniform. Some babies offered their preferred toy to share, and this group was labeled as “altruistic sharers.” Other babies offered their least-preferred toy, and this group was dubbed “selfish sharers.”

Out of these two groups, the altruistic sharers were more likely to stare at the video of the food being divided up unevenly. Selfish sharers, on the other hand, were more inclined to look at the video of the food being divided up evenly. Regarding the results, Jessica Sommerville, who led the study, mentioned:

“Our findings show that these norms of fairness and altruism are more rapidly acquired than we thought. The infants expected an equal and fair distribution of food, and they were surprised to see one person given more crackers or milk than the other.”

Unless you live in a handful of states, finding BPA-free baby products can be a challenge. Although some bottles, cups, and toys are labeled “BPA-free,” many aren’t, and how do you know which ones are safe? Some parents, taking a different approach, look for glass or steel bottles and dishware, but in California, finding BPA-free baby products may soon become easier.

Banning BPA has been visible to the public since 2006, when San Francisco passed an ordinance banning BPA in baby products. A year later, however, the ordinance was overturned. In the present, legislation to ban BPA in baby products, The Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act (AB1319), was proposed and is being voted on next week. Should the legislation go into effect, baby bottles and sippy cups made or sold after July 2013 would be required to be BPA-free.

Adults, as well, are concerned about BPA exposure, but children are at a greater risk. Present in items ranging from plastic coating to cash register receipts, BPA mimics estrogen, and its effects have been associated with hormonal and behavioral issues, such as early puberty, hyperactivity, prostate and breast cancers, infertility, and obesity. About the effects of BPA on children, CEO and director of Healthy Child, Healthy World stated:

“Children are uniquely vulnerable to toxic exposures. They are typically exposed to more toxics per pound of body weight. Their immature systems are less capable of excreting the toxics. And, perhaps most importantly, they are still developing, so exposures that may have no impact on an adult can create a domino effect of biological disruption in a child.”

Unless you can trust that all plastic baby products in your area are BPA-free, opt for glass or stainless steel items, including bottles, cups, and dishware, for your child and yourself instead.

When a mother leaving a baby in a stroller outside of a restaurant for 10 minutes makes the news and babywearing is a growing trend, where’s the middle ground for being watchful of your child without being overprotective, indulgent, or selfish?

Parents may never know, but a child health expert out of Australia gave them another facet to worry about: carrying children forward. So, what’s the big deal? According to Professor Catherine Fowler, sourced in a Daily Mail piece, a child “suffers” in such a position and may later turn into an anxious adult:

“Imagine if you were strapped to someone’s chest with your legs and arms flailing, heading with no control into a busy shopping center – it would be terrifying. Outward-facing baby carriers and prams give babies a bombardment of stimulus, creating a very stressful situation. In not considering our baby’s perspective, we are inadvertently quite cruel to children.”

Who knew that such a slight action could scar a child into adulthood? But not everyone is impressed. In fact, other experts cited in the Daily Mail’s piece are incredulous to Fowler’s statements and, rather, think that a child facing its mother all the time gets bored.

Parents may never find the fine line between suffering and boredom for their children, but some are getting on board with the theory that a child close to and facing its mother bonds well. Babywearing is the result. Profiled in a piece in The Lufkin Times, babywearing allows a child to be close to its mother at all times, helping with bonding, and her hands are free to do ordinary tasks. Additional supposed assets of babywearing include calming fussy or colicky babies, less crying, and a more restful child.

Regardless of which experts you agree with, there are many options for baby carriers, including wraps, slings, and even strollers, that allow a child to face forward or backward.

Fire-retardant chemicals, in concept, seem beneficial. After all, in theory, they should slow a fire’s spread and save more lives. Yet, at the same time, many fire-retardant chemicals are toxic and can be found in items ranging from furniture to clothing to baby products. Because going green is beyond a trend and, at this point, has become a necessary lifestyle, USA Today ran a piece recently about the hazards of fire-retardant chemicals in baby products.

Fire-retardant chemicals are so omnipresent that even the dust in your house has traces of them. If you consider the habits of a baby, including sleeping and putting objects into his or her mouth, exposure to fire retardant chemicals seems unavoidable. In fact, such chemicals are found in the polyurethane foam in baby mattresses; up until the 1970s, they were added to baby clothes, until a study showed that these substances cause cancer in animals.

According to the USA Today article, the concentration of fire-retardant chemicals in toddlers and preschoolers is three times the amount in adults. While such chemicals are harmful to people of all ages, they can affect behavioral and brain development in children, lower IQ, or result in learning products.

But, is the addition of such chemicals even necessary? According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2009, fire-retardant chemicals worsen emergency situations, as materials like polyurethane foam release the chemicals into the air during a fire. Although California, the state with the most strict fire standards, has made an exception for baby products, a significant amount of furniture is still made with fire-retardant chemicals: 56 percent of infant carriers, 44 percent of car seats, and 40 percent of portable cribs.

Finding baby products free of these chemicals is difficult but not impossible. Baby mattresses are a particular concern, as a child sleeps for 70 percent of its first year, and Naturepedic makes products that are organic and free of toxic chemicals. Containing no PVC, vinyl, or phthalates (a plastic softener), Naturepedic baby mattresses are tested for chemical emissions and are Greenguard certified. Each baby mattress has a 100-percent food-grade polyethylene waterproof surface, organic cotton filling, and a non-toxic and naturally-derived fire barrier system.