©iStockphoto.com/ulkare

It’s unanimous. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted 5-0 in support of new standards to address the dangers posed by cribs—including risks associated with drop sides, mattresses, and slats. The standards are designed to eliminate gaps that allow a baby to fall out of the crib or become entrapped and suffocate.

The CPSC action comes on the heels of an announcement by Pottery Barn Kids that it is recalling more than 80,000 drop-side cribs due to concerns over entrapment, suffocation, falling.

Pending final approval by the federal commission sometime next year, the new standards would ban the sale of drop side cribs, require better mattress support, sturdier hardware, and better quality wood for crib construction.

According to CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, there were 36 crib-related deaths between November 2007 and April 2010. Defective hardware, gaps caused by poor mattress support, and use of inexpensive wood that allows crib slats to easily break are the biggest risk factors in drop-side cribs—factors addressed by the new standards.

The standards will have a rippling effect on manufacturers and retailers, with a spike in demand offset by an inability to sell the cribs already in stock that don’t meet the new standards. Hotels, motels, and child care facilities around the country will be forced to purchase new cribs that, for many, could prove unaffordable given the current economic environment.

“My biggest fear is that day care centers, in particular, will be stuck with no other option but to place babies in play yards or on floor mats—even temporarily—since the purchase of so many new cribs will be quite expensive,” said CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup.

Resellers will also feel the pinch. With people unable to donate cribs that fail to meet the new standards, the supply of used cribs will disappear for some time.

A final vote is expected in December 2010, with the new rules taking effect in the summer of 2011. A public comment period will begin shortly, after which the agency will assess the comments and decide if changes are needed.

In the meantime, the CPSC is asking consumers (parents and caregivers alike) to stop using recalled cribs, inspect the hardware to ensure that it is properly installed and not faulty, and check the mattress for gaps. Given the proven dangers, a play yard or a floor mat may be your best choice until a crib that meets the new safety standards is available and affordable.

©iStockphoto.com/Paha_L

Two new Pediatrics studies share disturbing information: there are increasing instances of young children swallowing batteries—especially 20mm-diameter lithium cell batteries found in remote controls.

What’s the big deal you might ask? You probably swallowed a quarter or two as a kid. I’m pretty sure my son ate a Band-Aid. But small batteries are not nearly so benign.

There are serious—even fatal—consequences to ingesting button batteries, which can lodge in the esophagus (the tube that carries food to the stomach) and cause severe tissue damage within just two hours. Even after the button-sized battery is removed delayed complications can occur including a hole in the esophagus, a tracheoesophageal fistula (an abnormal connection between the esophagus and trachea), and paralyzed vocal chords. The batteries can also cause narrowing of the esophagus (making it difficult to swallow) and excessive bleeding.

It’s clear that button batteries and their widespread use are the real problem, according to the study, “Preventing Battery Ingestions: An Analysis of 8648 Cases.” After analyzing the aforementioned cases that were reported to the National Battery Ingestion Hotline, researchers found that the majority of the batteries ingested (over 61 percent) were taken directly from household products, suggesting that their battery compartments are not childproof and are too easy to open. Almost 40 percent of the ingested lithium cell batteries were intended for remote controls.

In another study titled, “Emerging Battery-Ingestion Hazard: Clinical Implications” researchers suggest revised guidelines for treating battery ingestion—mostly that the battery needs to be removed immediately, and that doctors shouldn’t hesitate to order urgent radiographs (imaging tests) and look for delayed complications.

Researchers found more evidence that battery ingestions were increasing by looking at three data sets—56,535 cases from the National Poison Data System; 8,648 cases from the National Battery Ingestion Hotline; and 13 deaths in both medical literature and the National Battery Ingestion Hotline. The study found that in each data set, button battery ingestions rose (1 percent to 18 percent from 1990-2008) and serious complications were reported within two hours. Almost 30 percent of cases involving serious complications and over 50 percent of fatalities were misdiagnosed at first.

In “Preventing Battery Ingestions” researchers urge manufacturers to redesign household products, making the battery compartment more secure and harder to open. Meanwhile, we encourage our readers to check out our guide on choking prevention—and to put those remote controls in an out-of-reach place.

©iStockphoto.com/JoeBiafore

Parents already have plenty of reasons to choose organic foods for their babies, given the potential health risks–including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and mental illness that have been linked to the pesticides found in non-organic foods. While many of the health risks related to pesticides are unproven, some experts believe pesticides pose the greatest risks to infants and children.

A recent study linking pesticide levels in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, better known as ADHD, gives parents one more reason to choose organic.

Research
The purpose of the study, conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Montreal and published in the May issue of Pediatrics, was to examine the levels of a group of pesticides known as organophosphates in the urine of children ages 8 to 15 to see if there was any correlation between pesticide levels and the risk for developing ADHD. Organophosphates are a common pesticide used on non-organic fruits and vegetables that have been linked before with mental health problems.

“Previous studies have shown that exposure to some organophosphate compounds cause hyperactivity and cognitive deficits in animals,” says lead author Maryse F. Bouchard of the University of Montreal Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and the Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center. But this is the first time the effects have been examined among a large group of children.

To determine the children’s levels of pesticide exposure, the researchers measured the levels of organophosphates in urine samples taken as part of the much larger National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Samples from 1,481 children were available for analysis. After eliminating those children with other risk factors for ADHD, such as low birth weight, 1,139 children remained. The results were compared with the National Center for Health Statistics’ data on whether each of these children had been diagnosed with ADHD.

Results
Of the 1,139 children studied, 119 (or 10 percent) had been diagnosed with ADHD. The children with the highest concentrations of organophosphate pesticides in their urine were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD compared to those with the lowest levels. In fact, children who had high levels of a common indicator of organophosphate levels in the urine (dimethyl thiophosphate) were twice as likely to have ADHD as those children who had undetectable levels of the indicator.

“Our study found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity,” says Dr. Bouchard.

Recommendations
Although more research is needed, parents should be cautious when choosing foods for their babies. According to a 2008 report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 28 percent of frozen blueberries, 27 percent of green beans, 25 percent of strawberries, 20 percent of celery, and 17 percent of peaches (among other fruits and vegetables), contain traces of at least one type of organophosphate pesticide.

Organic fruits and vegetables can be expensive, so if you want to know which fruits and vegetables are the most and least pesticide-laden, the Environmental Working Group provides a handy list that you can use as a guide.

Researchers on this study were quick to point out that the findings are preliminary, and a clear-cut connection between ADHD and pesticides is still a ways off. But parents wishing to err on the side of caution might want to consider organic foods, especially when it comes to fruits and veggies.

©iStockphoto.com/jfmdesign

Ignorance is bliss. Or so they say. Remember the good old days, when you didn’t worry about what your baby’s bottle was made from? Glass, plastic…it didn’t seem to make a difference other than the look, feel, and style. That all changed in 2008, when the National Toxicology Program released its report on bisphenol A (commonly known as BPA), a chemical found in plastics. At that time, the government agency stated a series of concerns about the chemical used in many plastic food containers, including baby bottles. Among those concerns was that human exposure to BPA could cause brain, behavior, and prostate gland problems in fetuses, infants, and children. (See our previous post that addresses many of these concerns here.)

The resulting firestorm included a wave of alarming media reports about BPA…and a rush to dispose of baby bottles and other food containers made with BPA in favor of new BPA-free alternatives. Soon, “BPA-free” was a major advertising catchphrase as companies sought to profit from the controversy. Despite the media frenzy, the risks of BPA appear to be very real. And parents should remain vigilant in this time when BPA remains unregulated.

Two years later, researchers are able to tell us more about the risks of BPA. including a “growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.” And though it’s been known for some time, it is just starting to resonate with consumers that the resin lining the inside of many cans also contains BPA. Even canned foods can lead to exposure to the potentially harmful chemical for you and your children. In fact, recent tests in Europe found trace amounts of BPA lining beverage containers made by the likes of Becks, Fanta, Sprite, and Red Bull, though the levels found are currently considered safe.

BPA legislation update
Despite our increased knowledge of the risks of BPA, the government has done surprisingly little to protect us from these inherent risks. As the President’s report indicates, the use of BPA in food packaging, beverage containers, can liners, or any other use is unregulated by the government. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration is maintaining its position that exposure to low levels of BPA is safe.

Change seems to be coming, though, at least on the international front, as Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA) recently advised manufacturers, importers, and users of BPA to choose alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment.

Parents who are worried about BPA may get some protection from U.S. Congress in the form of a pending food safety reform bill, but exactly what effect that will have on BPA in food packaging is unclear. The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California recently proposed an amendment to the bill that would ban BPA from all food and beverage containers.

However, several powerful food industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, have bristled at this proposed amendment. Some have suggested that the five powerful manufacturers of BPA, who sell $6 billion worth of the chemical each year, might be behind this pushback.

How parents can protect their families
While waiting for the government to make up its mind about BPA, the best thing you can do is protect yourself is to follow the National Institutes of Health recommendations:

• Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from overuse at high temperatures.

• Avoid plastic containers that have a “#7” on the bottom. These are the ones that often contain BPA.

• Reduce your use of canned foods.

• When possible, opt for glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot foods or liquids.

• Use baby bottles that are BPA-free.

©iStockphoto.com/naumoid

If you’ve ever had a flu shot, you’ve almost certainly been asked, “Are you allergic to eggs?” I’ve always wondered what the options are for those who answer, “Yes.” Are they denied the vaccine? Are they left unprotected from the flu?

The answer is no. No, egg-allergic patients without anaphylaxis do not need to be denied the vaccine. No, they won’t be left unprotected from the flu. Children without anaphylactic reactions to egg may safely receive the flu vaccine, in a controlled fashion.

Research
In a study recently published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers from Children’s Hospital Boston analyzed data from the medical records of egg-allergic patients between the ages of 6 months and 18 years who were vaccinated during the 2002-2003 or 2008-2009 flu seasons. In 2002-2003, an egg-allergic patient who had recently experienced egg-induced anaphylaxis would not have been immunized. A patient classified as egg-allergic but who consumed egg-containing foods regularly would have received a full-strength dose. All other egg-allergic patients were subjected to skin-prick testing. If the test result was negative, the vaccine would be administered as two doses: the first dose would be one-tenth of the recommended dose; the second would be the remaining nine-tenths.

By 2008-2009, Children’s Hospital Boston no longer used skin-prick testing in this process. Rather, egg-allergic patients without anaphylaxis or egg consumption were automatically allowed the two-dose vaccine.

In all cases, patients were monitored for approximately 30 minutes after vaccination, and adverse reactions were treated and recorded in their medical records.

As Dr. Erica Chung explains, skin testing is “time consuming and possibly unreliable in identifying children who will tolerate the vaccine.” Therefore, in this study, she and her colleagues “examined the rate of vaccine adverse reaction during the periods both with and without a vaccine skin test” to determine if it were beneficial to patients.

Results
The researchers found near identical results for the group of patients who underwent skin testing prior to vaccination and the group of patients who did not. Of the 56 children who underwent skin testing, 95 percent tolerated the vaccine without serious adverse events. In the group of 115 children who did not undergo skin testing, 97 percent tolerated it. In other words, eliminating the skin testing did not affect the rate of adverse reactions, and egg-allergic children were just as likely to tolerate the influenza vaccine with the skin test as without it.

The majority of adverse reactions identified were redness and swelling at the site of the injection. Far fewer patients experienced systemic reactions, such as wheezing and rash. No patients in this study experienced anaphylactic reactions.

Recommendations
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends flu vaccination for all children between the ages of 6 months and 19 years, but recommendations for egg-allergic patients have varied. Vaccine manufacturers themselves list egg allergy as a contraindication for immunization.

As with so many decisions we make as parents, you’ll ultimately need to rely on your own judgment. But parents who wish to have their egg-allergic children receive the flu vaccine should:

• Discuss vaccination—especially the two-dose protocol recommended by Dr. Chung and colleagues—with their child’s health care provider. Find out if your health care provider’s standard is to administer the vaccine with or without skin-prick testing, and voice your preference.

• Make sure that the health care provider is equipped to deal with any adverse reactions which may occur. Dr. Chung and her colleagues note that vaccines in their study were administered by experienced staff equipped to manage possible serious adverse reactions.

©iStockphoto.com/andy_lim

In May, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) approved a new federal safety standard for infant bath seats. This is the first mandatory standard for infant and toddler products issued by the CPSC as required under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

Intended for use in sinks and tubs, infant bath seats provide front and back support for babies 5 to 10 months of age. Since 1983, infant bath seats have been implicated in 174 deaths and 300 serious injuries, many due to babies being left unattended.

In a warning to parents, the CPSC cautioned, “Young children can drown quickly, even in small amounts of water. Never leave a child alone, even for a moment, near any water. Always keep a young child within arm’s reach in a bathtub. And never leave a baby or toddler in a bathtub under the care of another young child.”

Under the new federal standard, infant bath seats must now provide greater stability to prevent seats from tipping over, smaller leg openings to prevent babies from slipping out of the seat, and larger warning labels alerting parents that bath seats are not safety devices and that infants should never be left unattended in a bath seat.

According to the CPSC, no baby bath seats on the market meet the new standards—the kitchen sink and bathroom tub are looking better all the time.

©iStockphoto.com/kate_sept2004

Swim caps in hand, I walk my 10-month-old to the neighborhood YMCA for swimming lessons. “Today’s the day we learn to float like a rubber duck,” I say. Ahh, floating—the next step on the journey to becoming a water safe baby. I signed my son up for swim class because my friend insisted, saying babies need to get accustomed to the water at an early age. Which would make sense if we lived near a body of water—natural or man-made—but we live in New York City; sprinklers substitute for pools and the nearest beach is an hour away by train. But, I figured, the lessons can’t hurt. Still, every Saturday on the walk over to the Y I think to myself, “Is Paul too young for swim lessons? What if he swallows the pool water? What if he slips from my grip?”

And it got me thinking: How early is too early for a baby to get in a pool? Is there an ideal age for learning to swim? Knowing that drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional death in children ages one to nine with the highest rate of drowning occurring in children under the age of four, should swimming lessons be on the to-do list of every toddler?

Until recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that children be at least four years old before taking swimming lessons. But in a revised policy statement the AAP now recommends that parents consider the individual needs of each child rather than focusing on a specific age.

If you decide to put your baby in swim class, know that while swimming lessons may reduce the risk of drowning, the lessons are no substitute for constant supervision when children are in or around water. So before you immerse your baby in any water-related activity, update your knowledge of pool safety beginning with a visit to the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission’s Pool Safely campaign website—the first-ever national public education effort to reduce child drownings.

The AAP also has a list of tips for keeping kids water safe:

• Provide continuous supervision. Don’t take your eyes off your child even for a second.

• Install a barrier fence with a self-latching gate to separate the pool area from the house and the rest of the yard. (This goes for portable or inflatable pools as well.)

• Install proper drain covers and safe vacuum systems to prevent children from injuries or from getting trapped on the bottom of the pool.

And, if you’re taking your children to public pools this summer, be especially aware of your children swallowing pool water. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies gastroenteritis (and the vomiting and diarrhea that follow) as the most frequently reported recreational water illness. In 2008, over 10 percent of 121,000 routine pool inspections found high levels of bacterial contamination, with the highest number of safety violations in kiddie pools—surprise!

For more pool safety tips check out the AAP website—make your summer fun and safe.

That said, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Vaccinations: A Balanced Look at the Pros and Cons by Michael Joseph Smith and Laurie Bouck, gave me pause. It’s straightforward intentions are well-written in a way that anyone can understand—hence the title. The book has one plain and simple mission: tell readers why they must vaccinate their children. The book, which advocates sticking to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ vaccination schedule, was published in late 2009 and remains relevant during a time when more and more parents are delaying or outright refusing vaccines for their children.

In fact, 39 percent of parents refused or delayed vaccines in 2008, up from 22 percent in 2003, according to a new study by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the University of Rochester, and the National Opinion Research Center. The main reason? Fear. According to the study: fear of efficacy; fear of too many shots at once; fear of possible side effects including autism (despite the fact that the 1998 study that linked vaccination and autism has been fully retracted).

By reminding parents of the “pros” to immunizations, this book attempts to eliminate these fears; though it makes a misstep in its subtitle, which hints that it takes the “cons,” whether real or perceived, seriously. For example, the chapter called “Do Vaccines Cause Medical Problems?” could have been one word long: “No.” Readers who are unsure of vaccines may expect a certain transparency, one that gives credence to parents’ fears—maybe something along the lines of Robert Sears’ The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision For Your Child which allows for delaying or skipping vaccines altogether. But this book might as well be an official CDC guidebook. Any “cons” are quickly debunked as myth.

Because of this, readers who already have strong anti-vaccination views will bristle at the book, but still might enjoy reading at least the first (and possibly most interesting) part of the book, which tells the story of the very first inoculation—Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, administered to a young boy in England in 1762. Jenner, a surgeon’s apprentice, noticed that the milkmaids who caught cowpox became immune to smallpox. Cowpox was a less severe disease than smallpox, so Jenner collected “biological material” from a cowpox-infected milkmaid and injected it into the young boy, thus making him immune to smallpox, too.

But, in the pages that follow, the book treads familiar territory: the difference between live and inactive vaccines; how vaccines are made; how they are delivered; and how they actually work. What sets it apart from other books on the subject is the authors’ ability to explain everything you need to know about vaccines clearly and without misinformation.

According to the authors—Smith, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville and an attending physician at Kosair Children’s Hospital; and Bouck, an established medical writer—concerns over vaccines are unfounded. One of the last sections of the book addresses common vaccine concerns and controversies.

Concerned about autism? Don’t be. Aluminum and formaldehyde? Don’t sweat it—your kid gets enough of it normally in the environment as it is, and at higher quantities, too. DTap does not cause SIDS. No link has been found connecting asthma rates to the number of vaccines children receive. There is no connection between hepatitis B vaccination and the onset of multiple sclerosis. Researchers have not found that vaccinations can cause diabetes. Multiple vaccinations? More vaccines than parents got when they were small? No worries. Today’s vaccines contain significantly less antigens than those of yore, so your kids are actually exposed to fewer antigens than you were, despite the increase in their number of shots.

That said, there is a chapter called “When Vaccines Harm or Fail.” It would be more aptly titled, “Vaccines Don’t Harm or Fail, Except for Extremely Rare Adverse Events Which Might Not Even be Related to the Vaccine in the First Place.”

As excerpted from the book: “On rare occasions, vaccines can cause problems. Vaccine-preventable illnesses have become much less common in the United States because so many people are vaccinated against them. Every vaccine, however, has some risk of causing a bad side effect.”

And that’s the crux of it all.

Choosing not to vaccinate is risky. But getting vaccinated isn’t without any risks, either—as baby gooroo has said before, “Few things in medicine work 100 percent of the time. Few things in medicine are risk-free. Researchers are working continually to improve the safety of immunizations.”

Apparently, more and more parents are simply unwilling to take those risks, however statistically small they may be.

Take the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine (MMRV). The combined shot is meant to maximize vaccine coverage—getting one shot during one doctor’s visit is more convenient for a lot of parents, especially for low-income families, who are more likely to be delayed or lacking in vaccinations than higher-income families.

But there are problems with the MMRV, as illustrated in the CDC’s recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The MMRV is no more effective than the plain old MMR, and no formal studies on the MMRV’s clinical efficacy have been performed. What is known is that the MMRV carries a higher risk of fever, rash, and febrile seizures—a kind of seizure the report says is common and not even particularly dangerous, but would no doubt be terrifying to witness. The CDC surveyed physicians in 2008 and parents in 2009, and found that neither group was terribly in favor of the MMRV: 67 percent of family physicians and 59 percent of pediatricians said they’d definitely or probably recommend the MMR and varicella vaccines separately; only 9 percent and 21 percent, respectively, would definitely or probably recommend the MMRV (24 and 20 percent, respectively, said they’d leave it up to the parents).

As for the parents, 41 percent said they’d accept the MMRV vaccine for the first-dose vaccination if the pediatrician recommended it; 31 percent said they’d refuse. According to the MMWR report: “Mothers who reported that they would refuse the MMRV vaccine said they were unwilling to accept any additional risk over that of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine, regardless of how small.”

Well, of course they are unwilling to accept any additional risk. Does that surprise anyone?

Recently, a pediatrician wrote an article about how his approach to dealing with reluctant vaccinators has changed over the years. Instead of refusing to work with such parents, he now listens, commiserates, offers flexibility, inspires trust—and, maybe, eventually convinces the parent to vaccinate. Nearly all the comments for the article were written in favor of delaying or completely foregoing vaccinations.

It’s easy to understand why some parents’ faith in vaccine safety wavers. Consider the rotavirus vaccine. An earlier incarnation of it was taken off the market due to reports of intussusception (a sometimes life-threatening folding of the intestines), then replaced with another vaccine. That vaccine was temporarily suspended just last March, and now, this month, the Food and Drug Administration has reversed that decision, declaring Rotarix safe.

Regardless of the reasons behind those decisions, that’s a whole lot of back-and-forth for a parent already freaked out about vaccines.

The questions remain: Are you a negligent parent if you don’t vaccinate? Are you putting your community at risk if you don’t vaccinate? If you read this book, you’re likely to think so. Having known several parents who chose to delay or forgo vaccinations, I feel it’s simply a matter of deciding which risk—disease or side effects—a parent is more comfortable with. It doesn’t take a genius to see why parents are confused and conflicted about vaccinating their children; and it may take more than an easy-to-read book to convince them to do so.

©iStockphoto.com/Mike_Kiev

Attention all beachgoers! With Memorial Day right around the corner, the timing couldn’t be better. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released its fourth annual Sunscreen Guide touting the best and worst sunscreens on the market. And it should come as no surprise—only 8 percent of the 500 available beach and sport sunscreens made the recommended list.

Why so few? The EWG attributes it to exaggerated SPF claims and a better understanding of the hazards of some sunscreen ingredients—including data possibly linking vitamin A used in 41 percent of sunscreens to an increased risk for skin cancer (albeit in mice not humans). Products with high SPF rating mislead people into thinking they can stay in the sun longer because they are better protected. But even products with a high SPF rating provide little protection against harmful UVA radiation. Out of 1,400 sunscreen products including beach and sports lotions, sprays, creams, moisturizers, make-up, and lip balm, only 39 beach and sports products earned EWG’s “recommended” rating. Those recommended by the EWG for babies (over the age of six months) include California Baby, Little Forest, and thinkbaby. For a complete list of recommended sunscreens, click here.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to finalize regulations for sunscreens (despite its promise to do so in 1978). FDA officials estimate that the regulations may be released next October. Manufacturers will then be given a year or more to comply with the new rules, which means the first federally regulated sunscreens will not be available commercially until the summer of 2012 at the earliest—time will tell.

For now, do your research on ways to protect yourself and your children. A hat, and a lightweight long-sleeve shirt and pants are the safest ways to avoid the sun’s harmful rays. But when protective clothing isn’t an option, choose a sunscreen with an SPF rating of 15-50, reapply it often, and stay in the shade if possible. Click here for more sun safety tips from the EWG.

©iStockphoto.com/ArtisticCaptures

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is making sleep safety a key initiative in 2010, mandating a new federal safety standard for cribs. According to CPSC chairman Inez Tenenbaum, the Safe Sleep campaign seeks to inform parents about sleep hazards, soft bedding hazards, and recalls through videos and educational materials. Recently, the CPSC released a new Safe Sleep for Babies poster. It includes the usual guidelines for parents: put your infant to sleep on his or her back, use a firm, tight-fitting mattress, and never use pillows or comforters in your baby’s crib. But the new poster has an added warning about positioning devices (also called wedges).  These items, which were developed in the 1970s, are heavily marketed to new parents as a way to prevent SIDS because they purportedly encourage back—or side—sleeping. The problem? Side sleeping is not recommended; babies have an increased risk of accidentally rolling onto their stomachs when placed in the side sleeping position. Wedge devices certainly aren’t necessary and, in fact, can be deadly as they may cause suffocation by obstructing the baby’s nose and mouth. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) offers more tips on reducing you baby’s risk of SIDS.