.png)
Wow, so much new and exciting stuff coming out in 2011 for babies and moms! I just got back from a week in Vegas visiting with hundreds of vendors in the baby industry and learning about their products. I look forward to posting about some exciting new ideas and even some revamps on old ones. Stay tuned!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Dangers of a Food Chemical: New Evidence Against BPA
From The Atlantic
America's most demonized food-packaging chemical, nationally debated and being considered for a federal ban under an amendment of the food safety bill, S. 510, may be even worse than anyone imagined, a new peer-reviewed study finds. This chemical is bisphenol A (BPA), a compound found in plastic bottles, cans, containers, dental sealants, and even on receipts.
Research published on September 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives concludes that the potentially hazardous chemical can enter the human body via multiple routes and is far harder for our bodies to metabolize than previously believed. The new study examined both mice and rhesus monkeys, the latter selected because they are good predictors of how the human body absorbs this type of chemical. Eighteen hours after exposure, the monkeys' blood still contained active BPA—a finding that suggests we have "grossly underestimated current human exposure levels."
BPA is everywhere, with the CDC concluding that more than 90 percent of Americans are chronically exposed. Such pervasiveness is, in the words of one of the study's seven authors, Dr. Frederick vom Saal, "nothing short of insanity." The University of Missouri endocrinologist also does not hesitate to use the word "scary," comparing today's use of BPA to the use of lead in paint a century ago.
New research removes another shred of doubt about BPA's safety in a debate conflicted with varying methodologies, a great deal of money, and heated emotions.Despite national debates over whether BPA harms humans—debates mired in politics, marketing, and industry lobbying—vom Saal has no doubt of the chemical's risks.
The risks of plastic have defined much of his life for the last 13 years. In the late '90s, vom Saal and his colleagues in the University of Missouri's Endocrine Disruptor Group were the first to show BPA's possible danger. BPA acts like estrogen, something scientists have known since 1936, but no one knew its potential harm until 1997. Vom Saal and his fellow researchers discovered how the chemical warped the reproductive systems of mice, enlarging prostates and reducing sperm counts.
Those initial studies slowly caused an international furor, and the studies multiplied. Vom Saal published more than 30 papers on BPA himself, and he became a spokesman for the plastic's dangers, traveling across the country to testify before legislatures and talk to national media. This September, he won a Heinz Award, worth $100,000, for his contributions to the BPA debate.
The velocity of the debate sped up during the last two years. The National Toxicology Program found "some concern" with the chemical in September 2008 (PDF of the report here), a concernmirrored by the FDA this January 2010 and the EPA in March. The scientific progress has been "astounding," vom Saal says, and has helped usher in a new paradigm of toxicology, one that works with endocrinologists in entirely new ways. The "total disconnect" between toxicology and endocrinology was, vom Saal explains, how BPA was misclassified as safe. Animal studies have linked BPA to health problems including unusual brain chemistry, obesity, attention disorders, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and premature puberty. A 2008 cross-sectional study with 1,500 humans found a significant correlation between BPA levels in urine and heart disease.
Courtesy of the University of Missouri
"At the NIH," vom Saal says, "you don't have debates about whether bisphenol A is causing harm. ... This is not a chemical you want floating around in your body at the levels you're seeing."
And why does a debate persist? Partly because we've yet to definitively prove that BPA harms humans. Several publications, including The New Yorker andThe New York Times, have investigated the methodology of the research behind BPA in recent months. But vom Saal advocates the same precautionary principle that NYU nutritionist Marion Nestle supported last month on the Atlantic Food Channel. "If you set the bar at proof of harm to humans," vom Saal says, "you have failed to protect the public health." Vom Saal supports a green chemistry solution, blending the sensibilities of public health and chemistry to ensure any replacement for BPA is safe. He points to Japan, which successfully phased out BPA a decade ago with little trouble.
With 8 billion pounds of BPA produced annually, industry has had a profound impact on the debate, which has stalled the passage of the national food safety bill throughout 2010. Yet vom Saal seems certain that there will be a day of reckoning. The companies know the hazards, he believes, and eventually court cases will confirm this. We also need to know what products contain BPA, he says—information we currently lack.
"The American Chemistry Council is winning the battle with money," vom Saal says. "When you have that much money, our Congress doesn't work. They are throwing money around like drunks. And it's pocket change to them."
Friday, October 8, 2010
Why Businesses Should Adopt Worksite Lactation Programs
from A Milky Way blog
With the new Breastfeeding Provision law that requires companies to provide time and a private place for moms to breastfeed and an emphasis on Health & Wellness in today's corporate environment, right now is the perfect time to encourage businesses develop work-place lactation programs. Working mothers want to breastfeed after returning to work. Businesses should want them to just as much. But why?
WHY EMPLOYERS SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEIR EMPLOYEES TO BREASTFEED
If 90% of families breastfed for six months the savings would be astounding - $13 billion in health care costs and the lives of 900 babies every year. This translates to an estimated annual savings of $350 to more than $500 per baby. This is significant as children are typically covered under an employee's health care insurance plan. There are also important health benefits for the mother, most significant of which for working mothers are lower levels of stress, lower risk of postpartum depression and less incidence of mastitis. It would therefore follow that working mothers who breastfeed would be more productive and would take considerably less sick time to tend to themselves and their babies.
WHY WORK-PLACE LACTATION PROGRAMS
Studies show that working full-time 3 months postpartum decreases breastfeeding duration by an average of 8.2 weeks relative to not working and returning to work is cited as a leading cause of early weaning. Corporate work-place lactation programs have been proven to improve breastfeeding success rates at the National Health Objective's six-month goal by an astounding 75%-80%.
Another compelling reason for companies to implement worksite lactation programs is increased employee retention. Limerick, Inc., a breast pump company and pioneer in worksite lactation programs since 1992, conducted a comprehensive study of their lactation programs that found that 94.2% of the moms who participated returned to work at the same company. Higher employee retention translates to losing less talent and less time and money spent re-training new employees.
Ernst & Young who uses Limerick's comprehensive lactation program scores in the Top Ten Businesses for Women year in and year out. Businesses with worksite lactation programs will have more appeal and will therefore be able to attract better talent.
We are convinced that companies who choose to provide their employees access to prenatal education, ongoing support from a Certified Lactation Consultant and a supportive work environment which provides both privacy and efficient breast pumps will see a great immediate and long-term return on their investment.
With the new Breastfeeding Provision law that requires companies to provide time and a private place for moms to breastfeed and an emphasis on Health & Wellness in today's corporate environment, right now is the perfect time to encourage businesses develop work-place lactation programs. Working mothers want to breastfeed after returning to work. Businesses should want them to just as much. But why?
WHY EMPLOYERS SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEIR EMPLOYEES TO BREASTFEED
If 90% of families breastfed for six months the savings would be astounding - $13 billion in health care costs and the lives of 900 babies every year. This translates to an estimated annual savings of $350 to more than $500 per baby. This is significant as children are typically covered under an employee's health care insurance plan. There are also important health benefits for the mother, most significant of which for working mothers are lower levels of stress, lower risk of postpartum depression and less incidence of mastitis. It would therefore follow that working mothers who breastfeed would be more productive and would take considerably less sick time to tend to themselves and their babies.
WHY WORK-PLACE LACTATION PROGRAMS
Studies show that working full-time 3 months postpartum decreases breastfeeding duration by an average of 8.2 weeks relative to not working and returning to work is cited as a leading cause of early weaning. Corporate work-place lactation programs have been proven to improve breastfeeding success rates at the National Health Objective's six-month goal by an astounding 75%-80%.
Another compelling reason for companies to implement worksite lactation programs is increased employee retention. Limerick, Inc., a breast pump company and pioneer in worksite lactation programs since 1992, conducted a comprehensive study of their lactation programs that found that 94.2% of the moms who participated returned to work at the same company. Higher employee retention translates to losing less talent and less time and money spent re-training new employees.
Ernst & Young who uses Limerick's comprehensive lactation program scores in the Top Ten Businesses for Women year in and year out. Businesses with worksite lactation programs will have more appeal and will therefore be able to attract better talent.
We are convinced that companies who choose to provide their employees access to prenatal education, ongoing support from a Certified Lactation Consultant and a supportive work environment which provides both privacy and efficient breast pumps will see a great immediate and long-term return on their investment.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Baby Names Decade by Decade
from Modern Mom
According to the Social Security Administration, the all-time top baby names, dating back to 1910, are James and Mary, with more than 8 million Americans bearing those names. During each decade, although names varied considerably for baby girls, there was much less variety in boys' names…
1910s
The names of British kings -- John, William, James, George, Charles and Edward --- along with Robert--were among the top boys' names. For girls, Helen topped the list in that decade, followed by Dorothy, Margaret, Ruth, Mildred, Anna and Elizabeth.
1920s
Boy babies were named for British kings again in the 1920s ---John, James, William, Charles, George and Joseph -- but Robert was in first place. Mary topped the list for baby girls, followed by Dorothy, Helen, Betty, Margaret, Ruth and Virginia.
1930s
More than 590,000 newborns were named Robert in the 1930s, followed by James, John, William, Richard, Charles --- and for the first time, Donald. Following Mary among the most popular girls' names were newcomers Barbara, Shirley, Patricia and Joan. Dorothy and Better were again on the list.
1940s
David was a new addition to the list of the most popular boys' names in the 1940s, which included James, Robert, John, William, Richard and Charles. The names Linda, Carol, Sandra and Nancy joined Mary, Patricia and Barbara on the girls' list.
1950s
James again topped the list of names for boys during the 1950s. Michael and David made it into the list, joining Robert, John, William and Richard. Both Deborah and Debra made the girls' list in the 1950s, as did Susan, joining Mary, Linda, Patricia and Barbara.
1960s
Mark joined the list of the most popular boys' names for the first time in the 1960s, joining Michael in first place, followed by David, John, James, Robert and William. The name Lisa, which had never made it into the top names for girls until the 1960s, came in at No. 1. Two other new names also made the list: Karen and Kimberly, joining Linda, Mary, Susan and Patricia.
1970s
Christopher and Jason appeared in the No. 2 and No. 3 spots, respectively, in the 1970s, following Michael.. David, James, John and Robert also made the list. Jennifer, Amy, Melissa, Michelle and Angela --all newcomers to the list -- were the most popular girls' names in the 1970s, along with Kimberly and Lisa.
1980s
Michael and Christopher topped the most popular boys' names in the 1980s along with the biblical names Joshua, David, Matthew, James and Daniel. Making their debut on the girls Top 10 were Jessica, Amanda, Ashley, Sarah and Stephanie. Melissa and Jennifer were holdovers.
1990s
Michael and Christopher again topped the most popular boys' names in the 1990s; Nicholas, Jacob and Andrew, new entries, joined Matthew and Joshua. New names Emily, Samantha and Brittany joined the top girls' names for babies, alongside Jessica, Ashley, Sarah and Amanda.
2000s
Although no new names appeared in the most popular boys' names in the first decade of the 21st century ---Jacob, Michael, Joshua, Matthew, Daniel, Christopher and Andrew were holdovers, the baby girls' names show a variety. Joining Emily are Madison, Emma, Olivia, Isabella, Hannah and Abigail.
According to the Social Security Administration, the all-time top baby names, dating back to 1910, are James and Mary, with more than 8 million Americans bearing those names. During each decade, although names varied considerably for baby girls, there was much less variety in boys' names…
1910s
The names of British kings -- John, William, James, George, Charles and Edward --- along with Robert--were among the top boys' names. For girls, Helen topped the list in that decade, followed by Dorothy, Margaret, Ruth, Mildred, Anna and Elizabeth.
1920s
Boy babies were named for British kings again in the 1920s ---John, James, William, Charles, George and Joseph -- but Robert was in first place. Mary topped the list for baby girls, followed by Dorothy, Helen, Betty, Margaret, Ruth and Virginia.
1930s
More than 590,000 newborns were named Robert in the 1930s, followed by James, John, William, Richard, Charles --- and for the first time, Donald. Following Mary among the most popular girls' names were newcomers Barbara, Shirley, Patricia and Joan. Dorothy and Better were again on the list.
1940s
David was a new addition to the list of the most popular boys' names in the 1940s, which included James, Robert, John, William, Richard and Charles. The names Linda, Carol, Sandra and Nancy joined Mary, Patricia and Barbara on the girls' list.
1950s
James again topped the list of names for boys during the 1950s. Michael and David made it into the list, joining Robert, John, William and Richard. Both Deborah and Debra made the girls' list in the 1950s, as did Susan, joining Mary, Linda, Patricia and Barbara.
1960s
Mark joined the list of the most popular boys' names for the first time in the 1960s, joining Michael in first place, followed by David, John, James, Robert and William. The name Lisa, which had never made it into the top names for girls until the 1960s, came in at No. 1. Two other new names also made the list: Karen and Kimberly, joining Linda, Mary, Susan and Patricia.
1970s
Christopher and Jason appeared in the No. 2 and No. 3 spots, respectively, in the 1970s, following Michael.. David, James, John and Robert also made the list. Jennifer, Amy, Melissa, Michelle and Angela --all newcomers to the list -- were the most popular girls' names in the 1970s, along with Kimberly and Lisa.
1980s
Michael and Christopher topped the most popular boys' names in the 1980s along with the biblical names Joshua, David, Matthew, James and Daniel. Making their debut on the girls Top 10 were Jessica, Amanda, Ashley, Sarah and Stephanie. Melissa and Jennifer were holdovers.
1990s
Michael and Christopher again topped the most popular boys' names in the 1990s; Nicholas, Jacob and Andrew, new entries, joined Matthew and Joshua. New names Emily, Samantha and Brittany joined the top girls' names for babies, alongside Jessica, Ashley, Sarah and Amanda.
2000s
Although no new names appeared in the most popular boys' names in the first decade of the 21st century ---Jacob, Michael, Joshua, Matthew, Daniel, Christopher and Andrew were holdovers, the baby girls' names show a variety. Joining Emily are Madison, Emma, Olivia, Isabella, Hannah and Abigail.
Stroller Recalls: Valco Baby and Tike Trech
Valco Baby Recalls Jogging Strollers Due to Strangulation Hazard
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of Product: Valco Baby Tri Mode Single and Twin Jogging Strollers
Units: About 12,000
Importer: Unique Baby Products USA LLC, of Brooklyn, N.Y.
Manufacturer: Valco Baby, of Brooklyn, N.Y.
Hazard: The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller can allow an infant’s body to pass through and become entrapped at the neck by the grab bar, posing a strangulation hazard to young children when a child is not harnessed. When using a stroller, parents and caregivers are encouraged always to secure children by using the safety harness and never to leave them unattended. To learn more about the importance of stroller safety, download CPSC’s safety alert: www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5096.pdf
Incidents/Injuries: None reported.
Description: This recall involves the grab bar on Tri Mode Single and Twin strollers. “Valco Baby” is printed on the head rest and the padding on the footboard. The grab bar is optional and can be removed from the stroller. The stroller’s model numbers are located on a white sticker on the left hand side of brake bar. The recalled strollers with the affected grab bars are listed in the chart below.
Model Numbers
RUN6140
RUN6141
RUN6142
RUN6143
RUN6144
RUN6145
RUN6146
RUN6147
RUN7710
RUN7711
TRI8800
TRI8801
TRI8802
TRI8803
TRI8890
TRI9103
TRI9104
TRI9105
TRI9106
TRI1033
TRI1034
TRI1035
Sold at: Juvenile product stores and websites including www.amazon.com between November 2007 and March 2010 for between $480 to $700.
Manufactured in: China
Remedy: Consumers should immediately remove the grab bar from the stroller and contact Valco Baby to receive a free replacement grab bar.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Valco Baby at (800) 610-7850 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, visit the firm’s website at www.valcobaby.com or email at recall@valcobaby.com
Tike Tech Recalls Jogging Strollers Due to Strangulation Hazard
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of Product: Tike Tech Single City X3 and X3 Sport Jogging Strollers
Units: About 800
Manufacturer: Tike Tech Ltd., of Toronto, Ontario
Hazard: The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller can allow an infant’s body to pass through and become entrapped at the neck by the grab bar, posing a strangulation hazard to young children when a child is not harnessed. When using a stroller, parents and caregivers are encouraged to always secure children by using the safety harness and never to leave them unattended. To learn more about the importance of stroller safety, download CPSC’s safety alert: www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5096.pdf
Incidents/Injuries: None reported.
Description: The recall involves the grab bar on Tike Tech Single City X3 and X3 Sport strollers. “Tike Tech” is printed on the footrest and on the back of the stroller on the left and right sides. The ID codes are located on the interior left side frame. The following ID codes are included in this recall:
ID-Codes
TT-18-01
TT-18-02
TT-18-03
TT-18-04
TT-18-05
TT-18-06
TT-18-07
The grab bar is optional and can be removed from the stroller.
Sold at: Juvenile product stores nationwide and websites including www.amazon.com from October 2009 through February 2010 for about $300.
Manufactured in: China
Remedy: Consumers should immediately remove the grab bar from the stroller and contact Tike Tech to receive a free replacement grab bar.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Tike Tech at (800) 296-4602 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or email the firm at recall@tiketech.com or visit firm’s website at www.tiketech.com
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Baby Star Sale!
Why do we love Baby Star? Besides the super cuteness factor, there’s much more to this great company. Born out of the desire to balance style and functionality, baby star strives to create essential items for both baby and parent in a clean, simple and modern way. All of baby star's products are made out of combinations of 100% cotton and formaldehyde-free fabrics, making them safe for baby and the environment. baby star believes in responsibility, sustainability and creating safe products for children.
Enjoy 30% off plus free shipping from baby star from 10/1/10 - 10/ 26/10. enter code BOO30 at checkout. start your holiday shopping early at these amazing fabulous stupendous prices. Get some organic goodies for your favorite baby, buy shower gifts or just get a tote cause it is so super cute and such a great value! After all, savings is the new black and you are so chic. enjoy!
Baby star is open 24/7 at www.babystar.com
notes = only one code per each order and free shipping is for US only please.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Protein Scones
Found this great recipe and my two year old loved it! The almond flour is a wonderful source of protein and the oatmeal adds fiber. I think they turned out a little more like cookies than scones, but however you make them they are tasty (and easy to make)! I doubled the recipe so I could have some for the freezer, and they went quickly so it’s a good thing I did. I think chopped walnuts instead of the cranberries or chocolate chips or even in addition would also be wonderful.
1) Heat oven to 350 degrees.
2) Coat 2 large baking sheets sheets with vegetable oil spray.
3) Combine all ingredients in a large bowl and stir until well blended: 2 1/2 c. almond flour, 1 c. liquid egg whites, 3/4 cup vanilla whey protein powder, 1/2 c. granulated Splenda or 6 tsp. granulated Stevia, 1/2 c. old fashioned oats, 1/2 c. dark chocolate chips, 1/2 c. dried cranberries (or raisins), 1 TBS cinnamon and a dash of nutmeg.
4) Place 2-inch spoonfuls of batter on baking sheets and bake until peaks begin to brown, 15-18 min.
1) Heat oven to 350 degrees.
2) Coat 2 large baking sheets sheets with vegetable oil spray.
3) Combine all ingredients in a large bowl and stir until well blended: 2 1/2 c. almond flour, 1 c. liquid egg whites, 3/4 cup vanilla whey protein powder, 1/2 c. granulated Splenda or 6 tsp. granulated Stevia, 1/2 c. old fashioned oats, 1/2 c. dark chocolate chips, 1/2 c. dried cranberries (or raisins), 1 TBS cinnamon and a dash of nutmeg.
4) Place 2-inch spoonfuls of batter on baking sheets and bake until peaks begin to brown, 15-18 min.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)