Friday Five - 5 Annoying Baby Products

Adiri Nurser: Yeah, so just because it looks like a breast does not mean that it is anything like a breast. Babies don't develop nipple confusion because bottles don't look like boobies, they develop it because the mechanics of bottle-feeding are completely different from those of breastfeeding. Period. Save yourself the very expensive cost of these (apparently leaky) bottles.


Car Seat Carrier: There are so many ergonomic problems with carrying a swinging infant car seat that I don't think we even need to address the fact that car seats are meant for transporting babies in cars and there's an increasing understanding of the dangers of leaving babies in seats for extended periods. To say nothing of the potential stress something like this might place on the seats. Just pick up you baby and check the seat.


Udder Covers: While I'm all for anything that helps breastfeeding moms, I can't accept that referring to my "udders" is anything less than stupid and demeaning. Same with Hooter Hiders. The one plus is that these loud, graphic patterns do bring attention to how many moms are breastfeeding out there - which is something you can miss when they just pull up their t-shirt and their baby nurses.

Baby Bling Pacifiers: Multiples issues here - first, what about a beautiful, angelic baby screams stuff a loud, sparkly plug in my mouth? Second, given that it is in a baby's mouth, are all these nooks and crannies really hygenic? And isn't it insane to spend $20+ on something that you are nearly 100% sure to lose?


Milk Maid Bottle Holder: With everything we know about human attachment, how is it even legal to sell these things? Put aside the obvious safety concerns with leaving an infant like this - this is inhumane. The 'argument' I've seen in favour of these is that they allow parents of multiples or parents with disabilities to feed their babies without extra help. I don't buy it - if an infant can't be fed with love, then you need human hands to help, not these.

On guilt and the breastfeeding police

There's a lot of guilt involved in mothering - not least when it comes to how and what we feed our babies. A constant tension among breastfeeding advocates is ensuring that mothers are getting the information they need to make the right decision for their babies, while respecting their authority as parents and not devaluing their experience. It's heavy emotional stuff - and never straightforward.

For some out there, enough has been said about breastfeeding - anything further is meant to guilt and shame mothers into making the consensus choice. I have trouble with this on a number of fronts.

First, the notion that every new parent knows about breastfeeding and the risks of formula is absurd to anyone who spends any time discussing these issues with mothers. Front-line contacts from obstetricians to nurses to family doctors and pharmacists ought to be the foundations for good decisions, but too often they provide information that is out of date, coloured by their own professional bias or simply incorrect. Mothers need accurate information about the importance of breastfeeding and how to maximize chances of success: somewhat by definition, this means being clear about the consequences of not breastfeeding.

Second, while I believe strongly that a woman must determine the use of her own body, the 'personal choice' argument isn't quite so strong to me when it comes to breastfeeding. A mother who has chosen to birth and raise her child takes with that joy a burden of care - a child isn't owned, she is entrusted. Every baby deserves to be breastfed - as parents, we do countless things that are hard, uncomfortable and intrusive to care for our babies and children. Breastfeeding through challenges is no different than enduring the aches, pains and indignities that pregnancy brings - except that the pay-off is immediate.

Third, because breastfeeding is the biological norm, practices that encourage breastfeeding are good for babies and mothers whether they are ultimately successful at breastfeeding or not. Birth practices that empower women to remain in control of their bodies and their babies, engaging experienced empathetic attendants and post-partum care that recognizes the unique mother-baby dyad are the first steps to avoid many of the problems that lead to frustration and failure of breastfeeding relationships. But they are also the first steps to nuturing the mother so that she can in turn nuture her baby and feel confidence in her competence in that new role.

Advocates for breastfeeding whether health care professionals, volunteers or simply interested parents end up taking a lot of flack that's largely undeserved. We don't get any kind of bonus for helping a mother to breastfeed, spending hours encouraging her or researching a particularly thorny issue. Nor, to my knowledge, are there any posses hunting down formula-feeding mothers in public places to shame them or door-to-door solicitors trying to recruit pregnant women. There are many more mothers needing help and support than public health departments, clinics and La Leche League volunteers can help - they don't need to hunt them down.

Why don't we focus our collective energies on supporting mothers so that their pain and guilt can be avoided entirely?

Drinking with the devil

Welcome to the Baby Feeding & Change Area... sponsored by Nestle Good Start. Huh? I guess I live in a relatively sheltered bubble where most people know (if not adhere to) the Nestle boycott and are marginally aware of the issues involved (even if they don't care about them that much).

But, man, does it ever give you a sense of the insanity of the commercial machine when you have a chance to see the world from the other side. Nestle and baby care are at complete odds - not just in the developing world, but here at home too. There's nothing wholesome about their products or the way they make them - but in so many places, they're the only voice.

I had an adorable interaction with a cashier at the Magic Kingdom - when she handed me the chocolate milk, it was Nesquik. Seeing my face fall (I had promised chocolate milk to restless kiddos outside in exchange for sitting in the stroller for 5 more minutes), she asked if anything was wrong. I said, "Well, I prefer not to buy Nestle products." Long pause. "Because there's a global boycott of Nestle, you see." Longer pause, then she answered, "Oh really? I never heard of that - why?" "Well, because their marketing practices especially of infant formula are in conflict with international rules and that harms babies." Longer pause. "Oh, uh, ok. The TG good milk is better anyway." With a smile. Gotta love the optimism.

On bottles and butt cream

The news has been full of studies about the chemicals we expose our babies to and what that might mean (if anything) for their long-term health. As a parent, I’m on constant watch for threats to my little ones and these types of studies strike real fear in me. What else are my babies exposed to that seems so innocent now, but will hurt them in the decades to come? Like so many things, are we whipping ourselves into a frenzy about relatively remote risks, while ignoring the obvious risks because they are too familiar?
I turn this idea around in my head a little. Why is bisphenol A news, when we approach what most parents put them (infant formula) as a simple diet choice? The infant formula has known and well documented risks, not of some vague far away serious illness, but of serious morbidity and increased mortality in the first year and throughout the child’s life. While bottle-feeding is sometimes necessary (bottles can have breastmilk in them) and bisphenol A does exist in all kinds of plastic items that older children are exposed to also, it does seem that the major source of exposure and concern is the frequent feeding of infants using these bottles.
The concern is increased by the fact that to make powdered formula safe, it needs to be mixed with very hot (just short of boiling) water, which increases the leeching risk. I saw segment on the CBC where mom bought was breastfeeding, but had purchased some “Born-Free” bottles for later: it was a reasonably good segment, but I was left wondering why a baby ever really needs a bottle and why that wasn’t the angle they chose.
Shortly after the big bottle study, came a study about phthalates and how babies exposed to powder, soap and creams containing these compounds show significant traces of them in their urine. Why is this surprising? Tiny little people have a very low body to surface area ratio – it makes sense that chemicals you apply to them will soak in at a higher rate. The risk of phthalates vs. the pesticides in their food or chemicals in their diapers and clothes seems skewed, although certainly the diseases associated with phthalates exposure are worrisome.

As with the bottle debate, there’s a legitimate use for creams and soaps, but it’s actually smaller than the marketing machine from Protor Gamble and Johnson&Johnson would suggest. Babies are bathed far too often, too soon: a bath shouldn’t become a daily activity until kids really get themselves dirty and even then, they’re rarely dirty enough to require the kind of cleaning power we apply to them. My daughter went her whole first year with a single bottle of Molton Brown Wash Baby Wash (which they don’t make anymore!) and Thomas is barely through his first bottle baby soap.

Butt creams can be handy for an occasional rash, but there’s just no good reason to lather a heavy cream all over a baby’s sensitive genitals – as my midwives pointed out, you are more likely to trap irritants than seal them out. A better method is to clean well, get lots of air on the bum and change promptly. The only time my little ones have suffered from much redness was when something they ate didn’t agree with them – and on those occasions, we’ll apply a small amount of Burt’s Bees cream, but almost four years into diapering, we’ve only been through two tubes (though we’ve lost plenty along the way).

So, in the end, while I worry what’s out there and in my home, I also feel safer in that I know that by approaching our diet, our personal care and lives with a simplified, less is more approach, we’re ahead of the game no matter what the next study says.