posted
Went to a baby products safety demonstration yesterday. There were some really surprising things shared with the audience. I don't have independent verification of all this, but it just seemed really weird to me.
Baby walkers are apparently banned in Canada and most of Europe! I didn't know that! But they are still sold in the US because of strong lobbies.
The bad effects of walkers include: - injuries (even the "stationary" ones "scoot" around and some injuries have happened) - bowed legs (the support for babies in these things comes from the seat webbing and is extra wide, forcing the legs apart. - pigeon toed (the posture of kids in these things encourages the feet turning inward) - delayed walking (none the skills necessary for walking are developed). - misuse on children below 7 months of age (something about lack of neck support)
Anwya, it' was pretty weird listening to the litany for just that device.
Turns out we have NO government standards and product testing for baby items except car seats (and maybe something else, I can't remember). It was all eliminated in 1981. Since then, the only product testing is done by manufacturers.
Also, there are LOTS of recalls of this stuff, but the recall doesn't require the manufacturer to contact registered owners. They also aren't required to remove recalled items from stores -- merely stick a "repair kit" in the box and put it back out there. I don't know how true this is, but the instructor said that if you look up the model numbers of baby stuff that's on clearance, a lot of it has been recalled.
The "safety demonstration" on high chairs was really bizarre. They now come with belt systems that children can easily open? And they're so loose that kids aren't actually sitting in the seat but way forward? And to adjust for tipping hazards the instructions tell you to lower the "high" chair to the "lowest position" (about the height of a regular chair) once the kid reaches a certain size or activity level.
It was really weird.
Anyway, I guess my assumption that part of the high cost of stuff for babies was BECAUSE of all the safety testing. More likely it's just to cover lawsuits or something.
I definitely came away with the feeling that a lot of the products available in America are inferior, unsafe, and banned/not used in most of the rest of the world.
posted
The thing that bugs me is that I remember the wave of deregulation that went in on in the early 80's. The call for "market forces" being able to "correct" problems was rampant.
Here we are 25 years later and dangerous products are still on the market and the market force that's supposed to correct all ills -- informed consumers -- is FINALLY catching up with at least one of these products -- the baby walker.
How is that efficient? That's at least a generation between the knowledge of how bad something is, and the word finally percolating through the market to the point where the things are getting rare.
And yet, still, they aren't gone yet.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that this is because Americans do not value the health and well-being of their children as much as people in other countries do?
Because I do.
Here, we seem to care more about the well-being of big business and stockholders than about the safety of our kids.
We seem to care more about preserving an outmoded and expensive system of health care than offer universal health care to all children and expectant mothers. Our rates of infant mortality are shameful.
We seem to care more about voting down local school budgets and approving politicians who promote sound-bite, band-aid solutions to education than insisting on federally-funded education so that children can have a fair shot at success based on their merit instead of on their parent's ability to move into a neighborhood with good local schools.
posted
As an aside, I wonder how long we'll have neighborhoods with "good local schools" - or how far the bar will be lowered to carry the "good" descriptor.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We never used our baby walker. Our main living section is on the second floor, and there is a nasty set of stairs going down. I just never wanted to take the risk of someone leaving that door open for one second too long.
On the other hand, there are certain baby contraptions that I would like as an adult. One is the Johnny Jump-up, the one where they bounce in the doorway. Boy, that looks fun!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, cribs are much more regulated than they were before - the slats must be close enough together that the baby cannot fit her head through. Also, crib mattresses must be a certain firmness to prevent SIDS. Sleepwear is now snug fitting and sometimes flame-retardant to prevent SIDS and spontaneous combustion. Crib bedding is now made to fit snugly (again to prevent SIDS), which is very annoying when you have to wrestle it onto the baby's stiff mattress.
Tante, would you mind explaining why you wrote that our infant mortality rates are shameful? From what I've read, they're quite low.
I'd like to point out that the US has the very best neonatal care in the world and preemies are covered by Medicare if their parents don't have insurance or the insurance tops out (which often happens with micropreemies).
posted
Um... Hate to tell you this, but my mom says she's seen a huge amount of hyper-extensions and other injuries caused by the Johnny Jump-up...
It's on my list of "never to be used by my child." We have an Exersaucer, but I've never let anyone hand down a walker or jumper for our kids, despite numerous offers.
And I know that they have banned walkers and all, which is great, but Europe still has a ways to go on safety regulations, too; I am told that you can't even bring a carseat into the airport in France. I'm also told that in many European countries it's quite common practice still to use soft bedding and sometimes even pillows in cribs with infants under 1 year.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We borrowed a baby walker when JaneX was a baby, but she never actually sat in it. Instead, she pulled herself up on the outside of it and used it to cruise around the living room (no steps around for her to push it down). The living room was shag carpeted, so she couldn't push it far enough or fast enough to get hurt.
(For the uninitiated, cruising refers to a baby practice walking while holding on to an object, before the baby can actually walk. )
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Do you think that this is because Americans do not value the health and well-being of their children as much as people in other countries do?
Because I do.
Here, we seem to care more about the well-being of big business and stockholders than about the safety of our kids.
We seem to care more about preserving an outmoded and expensive system of health care than offer universal health care to all children and expectant mothers. Our rates of infant mortality are shameful.
We seem to care more about voting down local school budgets and approving politicians who promote sound-bite, band-aid solutions to education than insisting on federally-funded education so that children can have a fair shot at success based on their merit instead of on their parent's ability to move into a neighborhood with good local schools.
We should be ashamed.
[/soapbox]
I agree, and this is the sort of thing that FREAKS ME OUT!!! Maybe if by some fluke I have kids I'll move to Europe or Asia or something, I don't know. It's frustrating the way so many women don't even have good neo-natal care. I don't even have insurance so it would suck if I got pregnant someone! Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, was this safety demonstration also a pitch for a product that's supposed to be safer. Back in the dark ages when I was pregnant with my 2nd child (after 1981) we were invited to a free demonstration that a high chair company was putting on for pregnant couples. They served us dinner (which was the main reason we went - free food) and then gave us an extremely hard sell for their products... the main one was a high chair that was supposed to replace 6-8 other pieces of baby gear, including a walker, a bath and a lot of other cr*p that I never used for my first baby and certainly didn't intend to buy for my 2nd. Their pitch was that you could buy their overpriced product (it was over $1000 IIRC) OR you could spend even more for all of the other things that you HAD to have or you'd be an unfit parent.
I raised 6 children (well, almost, my "baby" is 15) without ever owning a walker, a swing, a "jumper", a playpen, a bassinet or lots of the other junk out there. I went through several car seats, strollers and cribs, one high chair, and a baby sling. I never even really carried a diaper bag most of the time, since I was nursing and how much room do you need for a couple of diapers and a small package of wipes?
As long as people keep believing you NEED all that stuff, there will be people willing to provide it, and to scare the cr*p out of you or to make you feel like an unfit parent if you don't spend your life savings on items to keep your baby "safe".
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Um... Hate to tell you this, but my mom says she's seen a huge amount of hyper-extensions and other injuries caused by the Johnny Jump-up...
It's on my list of "never to be used by my child." We have an Exersaucer, but I've never let anyone hand down a walker or jumper for our kids, despite numerous offers.
I never said I had one or wanted one for my children. I said I wanted one for myself.
When invented, I will keep in mind the dangers of using my Johnny Jump-up. Maybe I will invent a neck brace for it.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Car seats and cribs are the two things that are regulated.
Yes, it was also a pitch for their product -- although it was only $350, not over a thousand. We didn't get dinner, though, just three certificates for free photo sessions and pictures at JC Penny Studios.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When invented, I will keep in mind the dangers of using my Johnny Jump-up. Maybe I will invent a neck brace for it.
Good. You might also want to make sure it's adjusted properly and that you don't spend too much time in it-- to help prevent the afore-mentioned hyperextension!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am hoping it will build my thigh muscles. I am telling you, the Adult Jumper would sell. Maybe I shall name it the John Jumper. More mature. Well, not really, when you bring the potty jokes into it.
Hmmm. Must think of new name.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most baby products are really parent convenience products. Babies really need very little- if you drive, a car seat, but after that very little- some diapers, and probably a sling. We had a high chair because my BIL insisted on buying us one, and at one point someone gave us a changing table, which is a great place to store all my yarn.
Want to make your baby really happy? Get him boxes. Lots of boxes.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! So true. You realize this more the second time around. "Why did I need all that stuff, again?"
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tante, Bob--where have market forces led us?
The idea is that the cost of damage lawsuits would be one market motivation to keep dangerous products off the market.
Instead, we have a wave of Torte Reform that takes a few high profile frivolous lawsuits, tells the world this is the norm, and demands that we limit the corporate cost of dangerous merchandise.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I agree. It's one of those things that makes me really angry about the tort reform movement. Instead of finding a way of dealing with frivolous things, lawmakers seem to just be listening to business lobbies who are the ones keeping the products from being banned in the first place.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
and then, yes, the USA has a pretty shocking death rate for infants, when you consider our resources.
It's also pretty shameful how corporations take precedence over well-being and health of any person other than corporations . . . which, as I recall, are somehow granted legal personhood in the law . . .
All babies really need is mom's milk, loving arms and care, and decent medical care. Parents need good medical care and family/social support for raising a child.
Nowhere in history has it ever been said -- or proven -- that a child needs specialized equipment (exclusing certain medical advances) to survive and thrive beyond healthy, loving caregivers who can give the infant the time and attention they need.
posted
The US does not have significantly high infant mortality rates - we just have much more stringent reporting than other industrialized countries. For example, in many European countries, the death of an infant before term is reported as a miscarriage. In the US, babies past viability (24 weeks) are reported as infant deaths. They also have different standards of stillbirths vs. live births.
quote:Large differences in infant mortality are reported among and within industrialised countries. We hypothesised that these differences are at least partly the result of intercountry differences in registration of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths vs. live births.
quote:International comparisons and rankings of infant mortality should be interpreted with caution.
-Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P., Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Canada
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I had no idea that this stuff was this dangerous.
I had an unregulated crib, a walker, a basinnette, and a playpen as a child, and I'm fine.
I did have a question though, to the person who was saying that America didn't care about its babies... Did you mean the American population in general, or the politions, or every person in the US?
I mean, I know that there are the big bad evil corperations that run the country under the guise of 'republican' <Grin>, but if enough people died, I think that the public would be aware. It could just be me, living in the boonies of Kentucky, but our news station reports the lamest stories, and the death of any infant would be big news around here. And if there was a shocking trend...
And, I don't know about any other states, but me and my sibblings all have insurence from the state of Ky, and my mom, who is mentally ill, has ten doller co-pays for very expensive medicine for her mental health. So, not having insurence isn't much of a problem around here... Unless you're a senior citizen, or a diabetic (or both)
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: ... Sleepwear is now snug fitting and sometimes flame-retardant to prevent SIDS and spontaneous combustion. Crib bedding is now made to fit snugly (again to prevent SIDS), which is very annoying when you have to wrestle it onto the baby's stiff mattress.
emphasis mine, spontaneous combustion people can't possiblely be a serious concern, for babies or anyone else.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My pediatrician very stringently told us not to use walkers. He also did not advocate putting shoes on a baby until the baby could walk. He said babies learn to walk much better and faster when barefoot. Of course, when we took them outside in cold weather we'd put on socks, and some soft, velcro type covers with tread on the bottom instead of shoes.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had an unregulated crib, a walker, a basinnette, and a playpen as a child, and I'm fine.
This is the same type of argument that is often used by people upset about seatbelts. The number of deaths in cribs is small each year. That does not mean that a crib doesn't include hazards that can be addressed.
Slats that are too wide, supports that weaken and give way, putting stuff in there with the baby that could cover airways in an infant too young to turn itself...
All of this has been implicated in infant deaths. Just because every infant placed in such situations hasn't instantly died isn't a reason not to deal with the problems.
spontaneous combustion
Mrs. M, thanks for the correction of information. I hate that when the definitions of measures vary from place to place and the numbers are cited without caveats. It happens a lot in my field of traffic safety, by the way.
It would seem worth noting that the CDC doesn't correct our international standing on their website, instead ascribing our low standing to higher infant mortality among ethnic groups.
quote:nfant mortality is used to compare the health and well-being of populations across and within countries. The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000. The United States ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality in 1998.1 This ranking is due in large part to disparities which continue to exist among various racial and ethnic groups in this country, particularly African Americans.2
Examples of Important Disparities Infant mortality among African Americans in 2000 occurred at a rate of 14.1 deaths per 1,000 live births.2 This is more than twice the national average of 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. The leading causes of infant death include congenital abnormalities, pre-term/low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), problems related to complications of pregnancy, and respiratory distress syndrome.3 SIDS deaths among American Indian and Alaska Natives is 2.3 times the rate for non-Hispanic white mothers
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
