If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
A few months ago, I stumbled across a press release entitled "Ready Made Inc. debuts new disposable baby bottle prototype at Smart Baby Expo."
And I quote, "The new biodegradable paper based design was a major selling point for parents who are concerned with the environmental impact of plastics and the threat of Bisphenol-A in plastic baby products."
You have GOT to be kidding me. Talk about a green wash! How on earth can this company tout this DISPOSABLE, FORMULA-FILLED bottle as "green" (and keep a straight face).
Now that 2010 has arrived, this product is going to be hitting the shelves, or to quote the manufacturer, "will be sold in stores throughout the US and be available to global humanitarian markets" (excuse me while I vomit). And so I thought I had better make you aware of it...
"Think about all the consumption of natural resources, landfill space, etc. that goes into the production, packaging and delivery of formula, a completely derived and unnatural product that, with adequate support and education, should be very rarely required. Consider this quote:
"If every child in America were bottle-fed, almost 86,000 tons of tin would be needed to produce 550 million cans for one year's worth of formula. If every mother in Great Britain breastfed, 3000 tons of paper (used for formula labels) would be saved in a year. But the formula is not the only problem. Bottles and nipples require plastic, glass, rubber, and silicone; production of these materials can be resource-intensive and often leads to end-products that are not-recyclable. All these products use natural resources, cause pollution in their manufacture and distribution, and create trash in their packaging, promotion, and disposal."
Plastic bottles and nipples are rarely recycled, take over 200 years to break down, fill up landfills and when burned, release toxic pollutants into our air... that we breathe... that our babies breathe.
Then, let's talk about the dairy industry. Most breastmilk substitutes are made from cows milk. The biological equivalent of walking up to a cow in a field and sucking on her tit. The mass factories that produce this milk contribute to a polluted environment in a myriad of ways. Here's a few:
- Cows excretion and flatulance produce 100 million tons of methane every year, which equals 20% of the earths total emissions. (Methane is the second most problematic gaseous contribution to the greenhouse effect and global warming).
- The fertilizers used to grow feed for dairy cows pollute rivers and groundwaters.
- The ammonia from cow pastures and slurry tanks cause acid rain.
- The clearing of land for pasture means deforestation, an increase in greenhouse gases, the destruction of animal and plant species and erosion of the soil. For example, each kilogram of baby milk produced in Mexico "costs" 12.5 square meters of rainforest.
Think Soy is better? Even the production of soy based formulas are detrimental to the environment:
- Soy formulas require just as much natural resources and energy to produce and package.
- In Brazil, forests are cleared and burned to create soy plantations. The soya beans are then used to feed cattle and as the base for soy based formulas.
- The growing of soy beans requires a high input of fertilizers and irrigation."
Sadly, according to Ready Made Inc, 85% of consumers surveyed at the Smart Baby Expo, a consumer trade show, said that they look forward to using the Ready Made bottle, with 20% of them stating that they would use them DAILY no matter what brand of formula came inside! Good GAWD people - the last thing we need is more disposables in our landfills! I mean convenience is one thing, but convenience to the point of drowning our planet in garbage is certainly another!
What I find most disturbing however, is that this bottle is also being targeted towards the developing world - to prevent the spread of HIV no less! Ready Made states in their press release that, "One-third of children in Africa with the AIDS virus contracted the disease from breastfeeding."
This is NOT TRUE.
According to Wikipedia, "The transmission of the virus from the mother to the child can occur in utero during the last weeks of pregnancy and at childbirth. In the absence of treatment, the transmission rate between a mother and her child during pregnancy, labor and delivery is 25%. However, when the mother takes antiretroviral therapy and gives birth by caesarean section, the rate of transmission is just 1%. The risk of infection is influenced by the viral load of the mother at birth, with the higher the viral load, the higher the risk. Breastfeeding also increases the risk of transmission by about 4%.
4%. Four percent. Not 33-1/3%. Not one-third. FOUR PERCENT. I guess they just got there numbers mixed-up there, right?
They might as well just climb into bed with Nestlé as far as I'm concerned. And I won't be the least bit surprised if the brand of formula that indeed ends up in those bottles IS Nestlé!
The truth is, on December 1, 2009 the World Health Organization (WHO) updated their HIV recommendations on preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Tanya from Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog explains...
"In the past, it's been the recommendation that women who are HIV positive not breastfeed as long as formula feeding is "acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe".
Many women in developing countries don't have access to clean water, much less the resources to purchase formula, and not breastfeeding puts their infants at a high risk of death and disease. In one recent study of 14 developing countries, not breastfeeding resulted in over 325 deaths per 1,000 births compared to 35 deaths per 1,000 births among breastfed babies.
That's why breastfeeding, even though it may mean that a child becomes infected with HIV, is considered safer than not breastfeeding in much of the developing world. Both feeding options carry significant risks, but a child is far likelier to die early in life if he is not breastfed.
So, until today, the recommendation has been that women in developing countries feed their babies breastmilk substitutes only if it is "acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe." Otherwise, exclusive breastfeeding is recommended during the first six months of life, to be discontinued as soon as is feasible thereafter.
This has been a really difficult recommendation to follow, for several reasons. Exclusive breastfeeding (considered the safest method) is relatively rare. Weaning from exclusive breastfeeding to no breastfeeding at six months, as you can imagine, is extremely difficult. And women face significant stigma when not breastfeeding. Unlike the US, many developing countries never lost the "breastfeeding culture", and not breastfeeding is considered a give away that a woman is HIV positive.
But recent research has shown that when HIV positive mothers take antiretroviral drugs while breastfeeding, it reduces the risk of transmission dramatically. Access to ARVs has increased significantly in recent years. Accordingly, the WHO has changed its recommendation:
WHO now recommends that breastfeeding continue until the infant is 12 months of age, provided the HIV-positive mother or baby is taking ARVs during that period. This will reduce the risk of HIV transmission and improve the infant's chance of survival.
"In the new recommendations, we are sending a clear message that breastfeeding is a good option for every baby, even those with HIV-positive mothers, when they have access to ARVs", said Daisy Mafubelu, WHO's Assistant Director General for Family and Community Health."
I for one would NEVER buy a disposable baby bottle. If people say that it would be convenient "on occasion" to use such a product, then I say it wouldn't be too inconvenient "on occasion" to use a reusable and recyclable BPA-free plastic or better yet, glass baby bottle and wash it and dry it and use it again and again and again. And then I would pass it on to another mom. I really have a hard time throwing anything in the garbage. I donate clothing and household items that we no longer need or want; I have made the switch to LunaPads reusable menstrual products and the Diva Cup; we are avid recyclers and composters; we use reusable grocery bags and stainless steel water bottles; we buy organic as much as we can; and the list goes on and on... Then you hear about a company like Ready Made and it undermines you and everyone else that is trying to make a difference in our society... in our world.
And now that I'm researching this further, I've found many other companies selling pre-sterilized, single-use, disposable baby bottles - albeit not filled with formula - such as Steribottle and Vital Baby, to name just two. I had to stop searching as I kept finding more and more!
I also had to laugh that the Vital Baby bottle was labeled "from 0 months" and yet had a fast flow nipple. And then parents wonder why the baby has "reflux". But I digress...
Please know that I am not attacking mothers that formula feed, whether it is by choice or by necessity. Rather, I am upset with companies like Ready Made that skew the facts and bring questionable products to market all in the name of the allmighty dollar. They simply don't care about anything else than their bottom line, but try to make you believe that they are being socially responsible. If they really want to help the HIV pandemic, why don't they develop a truly green product and then donate a percentage of their profits to purchase the ARVs that these HIV positive mothers so desperately need? Nestle? Did you hear that?
So tell me how you feel about single-use baby bottles, either empty or filled with formula. Tell me what you think about these companies that attempt to green wash us. Tell me all about what you're thinking. (And if you see the Ready Made bottles in stores, please let me know!)blog comments powered by Disqus