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)

There’s no such thing as a perfect mother, yet striving toward such an unrealistic and unachievable goal makes mothers feel guilt. Guilt, it seems, can be in any area of parenting – including baby products. A study recently conducted by Kelton Research indicates that guilt in response to name brand baby products is common – even to the point that several purchasing decisions are not based on logic or need but, rather, these emotional pangs.

Although brand name products have the upper hand to store varieties in regards to advertising, results from the Kelton study show:

• 58 percent of new mothers constantly think about items to purchase for their baby.
• 37 percent feel guilty about not being able to purchase name-brand baby products.
• 53 percent daily consider how baby products factor into their budgets.
• 59 percent are worried about their general finances.
• 75 percent spend less on themselves, including for entertainment, dining, and new clothes.

Anxiety about not doing the best, the study claims, induces guilt, but where is this feeling coming from? Advertisements focused on babies and parents get the blame, as they appeal to a parent’s emotions in regards to their child. Regarding the results, Sandra Gordon, national baby products expert and author of Consumer Reports Best Baby Products, 10th edition, stated to the press:

“This study sheds light on what moms are going through from both an emotional and economic standpoint. Moms are so intent on absorbing as much baby-related information as possible, and making the right purchasing decisions, that it can be easy to overlook inexpensive options that are just as safe and effective for their baby.”

On the other hand, name brand isn’t always an indicator of quality, and parents using advertising as a source for purchases spend more than they need to. In many cases, this amount could be going toward other areas in their budgets.

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.”

A new baby costs $12,000, while having a child up until 18 years old is $250,000 in present dollars. Because children are a significant expense to a couple or single parent, financial planning must be done before; yet, spending and saving habits also drastically change after a baby arrives, according to Citibank’s Women & Co. survey conducted by BabyCenter earlier in December.

The survey shows that a mother’s thoughts change after she has a child. Money is primarily on her mind, with parenthood coming in second. But, while this figure may cause some to say, “Pay more attention to your kids!”, the majority of new mothers (60 percent) find themselves making more daily financial decisions; 30 percent split decisions equally with a partner.

Financial decisions and responsibilities increase at the same time. These include deciding on new products, budgeting more, spending, managing savings, and financial planning. While mothers generally spend less on themselves than before, they seek out deals or coupons more. In fact, saving is considered more often, as well as rethinking financing and discussing spending with a partner.

Saving, additionally, shifts from paying off past debt to future planning. A new mother, as well as her partner, starts saving for a child’s education, begins to plan retirement, and is regularly thinking of strategies to lower spending.

Although her role in the workplace and, if magazines are any indication, getting her pre-baby body back are generally thought of as concerns and changes for new mothers, finances go through just as much of a change, if not more. About the results of the survey, Linda Descano, CFA(R), President and CEO of Women & Co., said in a statement:

“As every parent knows, having a baby changes everything – and finances are not an exception. The life change of a baby brings about new and substantial financial needs and questions. After having children, moms are increasingly taking charge of not just day-to-day spending, but also the longer-term planning of the financial future of their family.”

Have you decided on a name for your new baby yet? If not, check out the most common trends for baby names in 2011. BabyCenter.com published its list of the 100 most popular baby names in 2011 for girls and boys this week. Just like the past few years, names ending in –aiden are a trend for baby boys, while unisex-sounding “Madison” and “Brooklyn” are some of the top ones for girls. BabyCenter.com has the full list available, but here are the top 10 names for both genders. Note that spelling variations are not counted as separate names:

Girls’ Names
Sophia
Emma
Isabella
Olivia
Ava
Lily
Chloe
Madison
Emily
Abigail

Boys’ Names
Aiden
Jackson
Mason
Liam
Jacob
Jayden
Ethan
Noah
Lucas
Logan

Out of these, as BabyCenter.com points out, “Mason” and “Liam” had the most gains for boys. “Mason,” however, has semi-celebrity connotations. One of the Kardashian sisters, who seem to be everywhere these days, from television to advertisements, named her son “Mason Dash” in early 2011. Being the third most popular name for boys is likely a result of the reality television/socialite family’s influence. Yet, if you are thinking of a name for your child, “Mason” may seem dated in 10 years, after the Kardashians’ influence has waned.

Aside from this change, Aiden, Jayden, Caden, and Brayden all seem to be holding strong. While a recent trend, these –aiden names may not disappear for a while. For girls, on the other hand, popular names like Sophia, Emma, Emily, and Abigail are all distinctly feminine, but Brooklyn, Madison, Addison, and Peyton all sound fairly unisex, if not like names of places. Although model Brooklyn Decker is popular at the moment, this name, too, might sound dated in a few years. And, what kid wants a name sounding too much like a borough of New York? Tacking on a middle name of “Heights” or “Bridge” would approach Moon Unit Zappa proportions of ridiculousness. Before picking a name, think about connotations and meaning.

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.

Babies and toddlers like to explore, but curiosity can result in a child climbing onto furniture or touching an outlet. While parents should be watchful of their young children, they can’t observe a child every minute, and as a result, a home needs to be effectively childproofed. But the baby gates and outlet covers of years past are no longer effective, and homes now pose unique hazards. To address these and get you up to date on the latest parenting advice, the New York Times published a piece about new rules for childproofing.

Consulting experts, the author touches on a handful of points all parents preparing for a new baby, or a second child, need to address. Childproofing ideally should be done before a child arrives, and parents need to consider:

• Going cordless. Babies and toddlers want to touch everything, including cords. Cords, unfortunately, pose a strangulation hazard, no matter if they are on a baby monitor or power tool. While parents should have as few cords in a room a possible, those are present need to be at least three feet away from a crib.
• Children climb on furniture. To prevent falls or worse injuries, secure all furniture, televisions, and other large objects in a room.
• Outlet covers pose choking hazards. Parents, as well, may forget to put them back in after taking them out. As an alternative, install horizontal-sliding outlet plates.
• Viewing a space from the perspective of a child. What would a baby want to touch and put in its mouth? What could be a small – or large – hazard? Examine the space and check for any small objects that pose choking hazards. As a rule of thumb, if an object can fit through a toilet paper tube, it’s a choking hazard.
• Have a consultant examine your home. Because each property is different, yours poses unique hazards that even you may not be aware of.

What parent doesn’t want their child to get ahead in reading, learning new words, or math? At the same time, toy manufacturers take advantage of this desire and convince them that their toy is the one to accelerate a child’s skills or boost intelligence. Yet, with evidence showing the ineffectiveness of Baby Einstein, some are questioning the claims of baby toys with similar intentions.

Countless toys for babies and toddlers are geared toward learning new words, reading, math skills, and problem solving, but how many of them truly work? Researchers question the claims made by each manufacturer, but at the same time, nonbiased studies cannot be performed on every toy on the market. Additionally, proving that the particular toy increased or advanced a child’s skills is difficult.

How and if a toy works notwithstanding, marketing for educational baby toys is unregulated. As a result, manufacturers can make practically any claims – even improbable ones like Your Baby Can Read’s. About the lack of regulation, Russ Heimerich, spokesman for the California Department of Consumer Affairs, explained:

“Nobody checks the ads and says, ‘No, you can’t say that.’ That would be prior restraint. Unless it’s doing someone harm or grossly misleading, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the people making the claim.”

If a parent wants to help their child learn new skills but doesn’t want to fall into the toy manufacturers’ traps, what can he or she do? The Early Years Institute President Dana Friedman recommends choosing simple toys and limiting computer and television screen time:

“Generally speaking, the simpler the toy, the more complex the play. The more complex the toy, the more simple the play. You want to find toys where children have options for what they do with it. If it’s a toy that can only be used in one way, don’t get it.”

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.”