More on Melissa & Doug recall... sigh

So it ends up that the US actually does have barium limits on toys introduced as part of the Feb 2009 overhaul (you might remember it caused a huge uproar on etsy due to testing requirements that put a lot of small crafts people out of business).
While the regulatory body hasn't been testing, the Canadian test results would put the toys above the current US limits as well, it's just not being enforced. I don't have the energy to retype it all and zrecommends says it best anyway:
http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/melissa-doug-imaginarium-toys-recalled-in-canada-appear-to-fail-us-limit/
That's likely to end up being a problem for M&D because while the testing requirements aren't in force, a company knowingly selling goods that are above the limits is breaking the law. And the line they've been giving retailers and concerned consumers is that it's only a problem in Canada and that they're "just" above the limit. Which kind of also sucks for US retailers because by extension they are also breaking the law.
Did I mention before how glad I am that we don't sell these? Sigh.

Shit happens... too much

With another wave of massive recalls this week, there's lots of chatter among parents about product safety again (not that it ever really goes away). In particular, many of the parents I talked are disturbed by the Melissa & Doug recall because it's a company whose brand is focussed on the wooden toys that many parents prefer at a price that makes them affordable.
Greenwashing is something that a lot of consumers are becoming increaingly aware of and particularly harsh about because it's a marketing tactic that strikes at the heart of their trust in the companies they buy from. Melissa & Doug makes their toys in China - they say that this makes it possible to sell toys at a price that families can afford and that they control their manufacturing process to prevent breaches like those that caused the massive Mattel recalls. 

So, let's get it out of the way first that no product is ever going to be 100% fail-proof all the time. It's just not. Things will break unexpectedly, there will bad batches and sometimes stuff just happens. I understand and expect that when say, a high chair is recalled due to faulty design or I need to install a new latch holder on my car seat. By large, companies who have these types of recalls have followed procedure and realistically no one has made any profit off the error (maybe the industrial designer?). 

The trouble with these toy paint recalls is that they expose a problem in a global supply chain that's proving very difficult to counteract. Relatively low but widespread contaimination can be dangerous very quickly for little bodies. While melamine isn't exactly good for the adults who consumed candies or other products made with the contaminated milk powder in last year tainted milk scandal, it wasn't deadly. It was deadly (or very harmful) for thousands of babies who drank it - both because they were exposed to more of it and because their bodies had a lesser capacity to deal with it. 

It doesn't take much lead, barium or mercury to have an effect on a child or infant - the way children play and are meant to play with toys means that they are greater risk of contamination upon contact. While national limits vary, the WHO established in 2003 that there are reasonable levels for these and other heavy metals in children's items. 

That doesn't answer the question of why it seems to be so difficult to rid children's products of these dangerous heavy metals - it just explains why it's important. 

To understand why lead and certain other heavy metals keep cropping up, we need to understand a little bit more about how paint works. Lead chromates are added to paint to improve the tone of certain hues like yellow and orange. These same additives make the paint less vulnerable to ultraviolet light, less prone to mildew and more durable against flaking. The lead additives are also very inexpensive and thus allow the production of a similar finish for considerably lower cost.
Other heavy metals have different functions - for example, barium in the form of barium sulfate is used as an inexpensive filler in paint manufacture, again allowing manufacturers to stretch the same volume of pigment over a larger area, resulting in lower costs.

Sounds great? Better performance, lower cost... what's to complain about? Well, nothing unless your kids are the ones playing with the toys in question. 

Lead is a well-known neuro-toxin - causing severe illness (even death) at higher doses. At low doses, exposure result in brain damage that may be irreversible, among other symptoms. All heavy metals build up in the body over time, so that the damage is cumulative - even more worrisome when dealing with children's toys. While this week's recall of Melissa & Doug toys referred to the acute signs of barium poisoning (vomiting, diarreha, cramps), there are also concerns over the long term links of barium to development of multiple sclerosis and other auto-immune diseases.

So that explains why it's bad for your toddler to exercise her new teeth on the toy whose bright yellow colour comes from lead chromates in a barium sulphate base and why the maker of the paints might have an incentive to make that paint anyway.

What it doesn't explain is how a respected brand who is subject to North American rules (both technically and ethically even if they weren't) ends up buying that paint even though the financial incentive at manuacturing ought to be well outweighed by the reputational and legal risk once the products reach consumers.

Can they do better at monitoring? Probably - but the essence of the issue is that mass production reduces cost by reducing the oversight needed on any one particular item. Does Mike Rainville in Middlebury, VT know more about what happens in his plant and his suppliers' plants than Doug Berstein does? Necessarily, yes, he does - and he can act on errors a whole lot faster. Then, again, Mike Lee at Sarah's Silks produces some products in China (and we sell them) and his dispatches from site visits show a very aware manufacturer who controls the critical pieces of his supply chain directly (ie: the dyeing) while creating beneficial economies of scale with home workers in China.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know where my dollars will get spent - on companies that absorb the full cost of their products, who have a personal stake in them and who mean it when they say 'from my family to yours'.

PJ solution revealed

I have a thing about natural fibres, especially for the kids and especially for nightwear. It turns out for us that this is a good instinct, because Isabelle gets awful, itchy rashes when she overheats at night. It only took us a whole winter to figure out that fleece footed pjs weren't good for her - we're a little slow on the uptake sometimes (I suspected shrimp).

I used to love a company called Hanna Andersson - still do for lots of things. Their playdresses are a staple around here. But since they were bought out a couple years ago, they've changed the fit on their famous "zippers" and long johns so that they're tighter than a wet suit on a whale.

Yes, before you start emailing me, I know it's a safety standard designed to protect kids from catching fire near open flames. I also know that instead of wrestling my little ones into skin tight cotton pjs, I could instead buy pjs made of polyester (but see above) or buy cotton ones coated in toxic chemicals many of which are known carcinogens.

So you can see why Isabelle is wearing pjs that are so small we had to cut the feet off and Tom prances around in his sister's pink nighties and old-style 'zippers' (in addition to his dad-inherited dandiness). My mom has also been called into duty to sew some pjs, but other than nightie, each one is a lot of work.

My dad came over today with 100% cotton pjs, not treated and I couldn't figure it out. They were called "loungewear" and were European brands (Petit Lem)! ah-ha! So that's the secret - I'm stocking up before the pj police figure it out!

Mother's Day Gifts on every budget, including $0

Top Gifts at 3 prices
The top gifts for any mom at three price points (for any giver, including those who can't yet count).
Bathtime...Alone
Free: A home-made gift certificate for an interruption-free bath at the time of Mom's choosing.
Under $10: Add one or two magazines. Think People, not the Economist, here. (Unless your mom finds the Economist relaxing, in which case, I'd like to meet her).
Under $50: Add some great bath essence or bath products. For a year's worth of inspiring bathtimes, give her a subscription to Mothering magazine.
Style in transition
Free: Take the ratty old underwear, spit-up stained t-shirts and bras that are like thongs to the post-pregnancy breast and get RID of them.
Under $10: One of those cotton scarves that are so a la mode this spring, some hair clips or even a pretty new lipstick/nail polish can go a long way to brightening up a dreary t-shirt and yoga pants wardrobe.
Under $50: Buying clothes for a body in flux (which is pretty much from conception to oh, menopause) is tough. Jeans that are tight in all the wrong places and shirts that bulge open over the lactating breasts are one thing, but just as demoralizing are the baggy pants and too big underwear! Stick to something that will freshen up her look no matter what point on the continuum she is: the Belleze Band is just the ticket with lots of style (and a hidden adjustible waist).
Looking for more ideas? Have some great ones to share?

No more monkeys jumping on the bed

How does that old nursery rhyme go? "One little fell off and bumped his head. Mama called the doctor and the doctor said..." Well, we had a minor furniture malfunction last week with our bed, but we thought we had it fixed (well, Dan had it fixed - I held the mattress up). But seven years, two pregnancies, two babies, a toddler, a preschooler and the occassional insolent dog later and our poor bed gave up the ghost...

Unfortunately, it gave up while I was nursing Thomas and Isabelle was next to me - but fortunately we were all awake and no one was hurt. Dan tried to repair it, but it's no use - the old king had just seen too much living, I guess.

On the upside, now that our mattresses are sitting on the floor, I've discovered that the low bed gives a really open zen feeling to the room - the old four-poster was fun, but I'm really thinking the next frame is going to reflect what's changed since that first bed seven years ago - we're steadier, we're simpler and, in every sense, we're closer to the ground.

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.