twinutero

Our children may be among the last to consume bisphenol A (BPA) with their milk and formula. Or so we hope.

Since I wrote on using Medela baby bottles, public pressure to ban BPA has heightened and the availability of BPA-free baby products has soared.

And then… one of the biggest producers of polycarbonate bottles and the strongest defender of BPA safety, Nalgene, launched a line of BPA-free drinking bottles. Read more commentary on Z Recommends.

And now… Health Canada has announced that it is “taking action” on BPA. The department has completed its risk assessment, which focused on infants and newborns, and is proposing a ban on polycarbonate baby bottles.

Here is the story according to the Globe and Mail.

Here is Health Canada’s offical news release of April 18. Make of it what you will.

Also see information on BPA from the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment.

Something that connects my previous posts on toxic substances and outdoor activities: the garden hose. I bought a new one last week so I could water the garden and fill the kids’ wading pool without dodging spray from the various holes in our old hose.

The new one worked wonderfully. As I was gathering the packaging for recycling, however, I read the back of the label. It carried the following warning, “This product contains one or more chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.” The warning lends a whole new meaning the company’s slogan, “The last hose you’ll ever buy.”

I searched the web and learned that most garden hoses carry similar warnings, and unless it is clearly stated otherwise, they are not designed for drinking. Adults generally don’t drink from the hose. Kids, on the other hand, can’t resist. Even if they don’t slurp from the hose, they gulp from the pool. Once again, lead is the culprit. It leaches from the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) used to make most garden hoses. I suspect that the fungicides used to protect hoses from rotting also contributes to their carcinogenicity.

Here are a couple of good websites on the topic:
Consumer Reports. 2003. Dare you drink from a garden hose?

Ann Lovejoy. June 2007. Do you know what’s really in that hose? Seattle Post Intelligencer

Both of these sites are based on U.S. information. I went in search of a “safe for drinking” garden hose here in Canada. The major hardware box-stores (Home Depot, Rona, Canadian Tire) had no idea what I was talking about. Locally owned shops (an environmental store, an organic gardening center, and our neighbourhood hardware store) were no wiser. I checked the labels on half-a-dozen hoses for sale in these shops. All carried warnings against drinking – and all of the warnings were printed on the back of the label (which I had to rip off to read). It is unlikely that anyone would see this before buying, if at all.

I finally found a drinking-water safe, FDA-approved hose at a marine supply shop. The hose is meant for RVs and boats but works just as well for the garden. About thirty seconds after hooking up and turning on our new non-toxic hose, the water was flowing straight into Jon’s mouth….

Okay. Enough on toxins. My next post is on family mealtimes. With three kids under three years old, the only thing toxic about mealtimes is the dining room floor.

In my earlier post on nursing and bottle feeding, I wrote that we use only Medela bottles, largely because they are made from polypropylene rather than polycarbonate. The latter contains bisphenol-A, a chemical that mimics estrogen and has links to developmental and neurological abnormalities as well as cancer.

Since that post, the Globe and Mail has published several articles on bisphenol-A and sales of glass baby bottles in Canada has soared. It’s still a fringe market – you won’t find glass bottles at Babies ‘R’ Us. Yet the growing popularity of non-polycarbonate bottles is a clear sign that many parents are concerned about bisphenol-A.

Feeling somewhat vindicated (I have been called neurotic about such issues), I scanned the kitchen for more polycarbonate. The Brita pitcher. We filter all of our drinking water through the Brita. In part, it’s habit. Brita’s advertising has been so effective that it now seems reckless to fill a water glass straight from the tap. We also use Brita because our house was built in 1909. We replaced lead water pipes inside the house when we renovated, but the pipes from the city mains into our house are still lead. There may be controversy over the health effects of bisphenol-A but there’s no controversy over lead. Its neurological effects, especially on children, are well documented. Brita claims that their filters remove 90% of lead.

So, with my vast amount of spare time, I tried to determine (1) if Brita pitchers are made from polycarbonate and (2) if we really need to filter our drinking water.

Answering the first question was not straightforward. Brita should get the most-annoying-website award. I emailed them, explaining my concerns about bisphenol-A and asking what tests had been done on Brita pitchers. They responded (within 48 hours as they promise) that “the reservoirs and pitchers are made either from NAS (a Styrene based plastic) or SAN (Styrene Acrylonitrile).” I am not a chemist; I assumed they were trying to tell me that the pitchers do not contain bisphenol-A but wasn’t sure. I asked for clarification. The second response came by regular mail about ten days later. The cover letter stated that the information I requested was enclosed. It wasn’t. Other than the cover letter, the envelope was empty. I emailed once again and got a quick response: “Brita pitchers do not contain bisphenol-A”. Seemed like a lot of work for an answer that Brita should have been happy to provide.

READ APRIL 2008 UPDATE ON BISPHENOL A

The second question, whether or not we should filter our drinking water, was easier. Our city tests household water as a free service. We provided samples of flowing tap water, as well as water that had been sitting in the pipes for half an hour. The results took about a week. Turns out that the lead level in our water is 1.2 parts per billion. The maximum acceptable concentration set by Health Canada is 10 ppb, and water leaves our city treatment plant at 0.5 ppb. So, while our water is considered safe, the old lead pipes are adding to the amount of lead that we are consuming.

Is it still worth running our water through (rather expensive) Brita filters? According to the city employee who tested our water, yes. While there are guidelines for “safe” levels of lead in our bloodstream, toxic effects of lead have been reported in children at well below these levels. For infants and children there is essentially no safe dose. Drinking water is only one source. For families living in older homes like ours, lead paint is no doubt a more significant source. I could write a long and repetitious book about my efforts to rid our house of lead paint. Ask my husband. The bottom line is that any reduction in lead exposure is worth the effort if you have young children. According to our helpful city employee, under normal circumstances, Brita removes about 60%, not 90%, of lead, and only if the filter is changed regularly. If the filter is old, the lead content of the water in the pitcher could actually be higher than that in the tap.

And what about the safety of NAS and/or SAN plastic? And PVC water pipes? And bisphenol-A in the lining of baby formula cans? No wonder I am – not – neurotic.

Some useful reading:
Having Faith. An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood. 2001. Sandra Steingraber.

In Harm’s Way. 2000. Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility

August 9, 2007 article on bisphenol-A and phthalates in baby bottles from ENN.

On a bitter, rainy day last March, I began dreaming of spring and became desperate to get out of the house. I had all three kids: Alex and Jon, then 16 months, and Thomas, two-and-a-half. Where could we go to burn off toddler energy and get a much-needed change of scenery? I decided to try one of the indoor “adventure playlands” on the outskirts of our city. I had never been, but had heard from other parents that it was safe, children loved it, and that I could probably just relax as the kids explored tunnels, climbed the jungle gyms, and slid into pits of balls.

Apparently, every parent in the city had the same idea that day. There must have been forty thousand kids in that playland, all running, yelling and jumping. I was overwhelmed. Thomas and the twins were overwhelmed. I scurried around like a complete obsessive, trying to track the three of them. Thomas still got lost – twice. I found him crying face-down on the carpet. Alex and Jon could negotiate the ramps, tunnels and slides, but really, really hated the ball pits where all ramps, tunnels and slides seemed to end. I couldn’t blame them. The pits were alive with kicking, flailing toddler limbs, and were very difficult to exit.

After an hour or so, I corralled the boys back into the stroller. They were exhausted and not unhappy to be leaving. I was a mess, and thrilled to be out of there.

This never-to-be-repeated experience coincided, ironically, with my discovery of Last Child in the Woods, a book by Richard Louv. The subtitle of the book is Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Louv describes how kids are becoming dissociated from everything wild and green. Play is moving indoors or into bordered areas and structured activities where it can be constantly monitored for safety. Some schools are even shortening recess in favour of more “productive” time inside. Louv objects to this trend and so do I. The book is at once compelling, alarming and obvious. It is part of a growing literature and movement toward environmental education, schoolyard greening, and more unstructured play for kids.

I do, however, have three words to add to this conversation:
Winter.
Toddlers.
Multiples.

I would love for my kids to enthusiastically explore the outdoors. While I wouldn’t set any toddler free in a forest or vacant urban lot, I agree with Louv that even very young children benefit from being outside, free to roam, touch, fall down and get up again. The problem with having three kids under three years old, is that they tend to roam in three different directions. It’s almost impossible for one adult to take three toddlers to an unenclosed area, safely.

Thomas is almost 32 months old now. He knows to stop at street corners, to stay on the sidewalk, and to turn around when I say so. But I wouldn’t bet his life on him following directions while I run after his younger brothers. I know a nanny who cares for toddler twins and refuses to leave the house at all. It seems extreme, but toddlers get restless in a stroller and are very hard to herd when they’re on the loose.

Even with two adults, it can be challenging to keep track of three young children. We recently took our kids to a nearby farm. They loved it, but the day was not without minor trauma. Jon fell head-first off the bunny observation stool; Thomas lathered himself in fresh cow dung; Alex massaged his gums on the animal enclosures. All of this happened while we were trying to prevent a similar or worse event.

I am hoping that outdoor adventure, summer and winter, will get easier as the kids get older. Last year, the twins were immobilized by their snow gear, and even Thomas was frustrated by cumbersome mittens. (It’s surprisingly hard to get toddlers’ thumbs into the right section of the mitt, and trying to play without an opposable thumb inevitably leads to tears.) I have not-too-distant plans to teach them to skate, ski and build snow caves. I hope to take Thomas camping this summer, and get all three kids into the backcountry before long.

For now, I am limited by the number of available hands, and our urban location. Limited, but not incapacitated. We’re lucky enough to have a fenced-in backyard where the kids can play almost independently. I am teaching them about the garden. Thomas has helped to plant seeds and transplant seedlings, and he knows where to find berries and bugs.* We have a bird feeder. Alex often asks to see the “boods”, and Thomas can recognise chickadees and cardinals. And, often to my own, short-term, detriment, I don’t discourage them from splashing in puddles, playing in the dirt or feeding the garden ants. It’s not wilderness, but for now, it’s wild enough for me.

*An inspiring book for gardening with kids is Roots, Shoots, Buckets and Boots by Sharon Lovejoy.

With three kids in diapers, poop happens a lot in our house. Here’s the scoop on cloth versus disposable diapers for multiples.

For their first six months, our twins were diapered in generic disposables. It seemed the easiest and cheapest option, and I couldn’t muster the energy to explore alternatives. My conscience prodded me each garbage day, however, as I sent several bags of paper, chemicals and human excrement to the landfill. I finally decided to switch to cloth.

We had used cloth diapers – on and off – for our first son so I knew what was involved in sorting, washing and drip-drying. I also knew I was not up to the same for three kids. I found a diaper service in the yellow pages, and signed on. We now get seventy cloth diapers delivered, and the soiled ones picked up, for just under $20 a week – about what we had been spending on disposables.

Do cloth diapers work as well as disposables? No, unfortunately. The chemicals in disposable diapers are super-absorbent and unless a BM is deposited, a paper diaper can last three or four hours. Outrageously expensive diapers like Pampers Cruisers last even longer. Disposables are convenient. They also linger in landfills for about five hundred years.

Cloth, on the other hand, is a little less convenient but much more virtuous – or so I hope. Our diaper service uses “prefolds”, one of the simplest diapers on the market. (And a confusing term as they aren’t obviously folded at all. They’re flat squares of multi-layered cotton.) Prefolds are used with wraps, more elaborate versions of the plastic pants that I wore as a baby. Much depends, I have found, on the quality of the wrap. Here’s a quick review of the brands we have tried:

-Bummis Whisper wraps with Velcro: Good at preventing leaks but the Velcro is rough and sometimes leaves scratch marks. That would make me cranky!

-Mother-ease wraps with Velcro: Good fit and good leak prevention but same scratchy Velcro and a tight waist-band. Looks uncomfortable.

-Bummis Whisper wraps with snaps: Scratchy Velcro problem solved.

-Nikky: Super-soft cotton and great fit. Not as good at leak prevention as Bummis.

-Fuzzi Bunz: The ultimate cloth diaper. Soft, snug, and very absorbent. They are designed for use with Fuzzi Bunz insert pads, but also work well with prefolds. The only deterrent is the initial cost of over $20 per diaper.

With a good wrap, the twins are comfortable in prefolds for about two hours. We use lots of barrier cream (Zincofax, Aveeno, Peneten) and have had only one serious diaper rash so far.

These diapers don’t work as well for our two-year old. One pee and he’s soaked, trousers and all. While this helps with toilet training, on a daily basis it’s frustrating for everyone. So we still use disposables for our older son, as well as on the twins at night and during long outings. Nonetheless, with the diaper service, we have cut our weekly landfill contribution from three garbage bags to about one. Now, if only our municipality would get a composting program….