Thursday, September 25, 2008

SIDS, daycare, and church nurseries

What do the three have in common, you may wonder? Let me explain.

After a recent order from a baby-related website, I received a notification in the mail telling me that my order came with a complimentary, one-year subscription to the magazine "Parenting". This magazine could more aptly be called "Lack of Parenting" or "Parenting Failures", but nonetheless, reading it makes for cheap comic relief after a hard day of real parenting.

Back to the subject at hand, though. The September issue featured an article called "Lost Babies", which deals with the subject of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is the diagnosis anytime an apparently healthy baby suddenly dies in their sleep of unknown causes during the first year of life (most deaths occur between 2 and 4 months).

First off, let me make it clear that I do think SIDS is real, that it is not entirely preventable, and that parents should never be blamed in the death of their child regardless of the circumstances.

Having said that, I think there are many factors that could reduce the incidence of SIDS. Some of the more well-known are putting babies on their back to sleep, keeping away cigarette-smoke, not using soft bedding, and breastfeeding exclusively. Personally, I am also convinced that sleeping next to Mom and Dad is infinitely important, and I am not talking about a bassinet by the bedside. SIDS is thought to be caused largely by an immature breathing reflex. If healthy babies do not get enough oxygen in their sleep, this reflex will kick in and make them yawn or turn their head to get more air. This reflex is also responsible for making sure baby doesn't "forget" to breathe once they go into a deeper sleep phase. By being tucked into bed next to its parent(s), the baby has a sort of "breathing pacemaker" by its side. Babies that sleep like that automatically fall into the same breathing pattern as the parent that they are snuggled up to, and thus do not forget to breathe. Also, babies have a reflex that causes them to take a deep breath anytime someone blows in their face, which Mom does all night long when she is breathing next to the baby cradled in her arms, face to face. Of course, there are safe sleeping practices that must be observed when sleeping next to a young baby, but I will not discuss those here.

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has also started recommending that all babies should be using a pacifier, which has been shown to reduce the incidence of SIDS by as much as 90%. To me, this further supports my theory that sleeping next to Mom is very healthy, because babies that do so spend their night using Mom for their nursing comfort rather than a binky. This has many benefits for mom and baby: Mom will have a good milk supply, and will have lots of endorphins in her system from the extra feedings, which will create a strong bond between her and the baby. She will also sleep better and never wake up groggy and sleep-deprived from having to get up for midnight feedings. The baby will grow faster, have a close bond to its mother, and will not be sucking on a plastic binky that may contain dangerous chemicals or be recalled for being otherwise dangerous. Baby will also not be taught to find comfort in material objects rather than in his real, human Mom.

The following information, however, was new and shocking to me. According to the article, "In the most recent AAP analysis, about 20 percent of all SIDS deaths occurred while the baby was in the care of someone other than a parent. One third of the infants died during the first week of childcare, and half of those deaths occurred on the very first day." Such was the case of the couple that was introduced in the article, whose 4-month old died of SIDS during an afternoon nap on his first day in childcare. The study suggested that being in an unfamiliar (which to a baby equals hostile) environment might interfere with the baby's sleep cycle, "so that when he finally does fall asleep, he sleeps too deeply". Going back to the binky theory, this would now make more sense because the baby is fooled into thinking Mom is near when she isn't.

So please, do not put your young baby in a childcare facility, and you might save his/her life.

What does that have to do with church nurseries? A lot. Many churches are now making nursery care mandatory for all babies in an effort to eliminate all distractions from the service. For one, I don't know what young baby is ever a distraction when all they do is eat and sleep, both of which are silent activities and can be done during a service.

It has always amused me that it is perfectly fine to whip out a bottle and pop it in baby's mouth in front of everyone, but that discretely breastfeeding under a shawl or blanket is considered obscene, when a bottle that is made to look and feel like the "real thing" is much more graphic than a mom who is completely covered. Here is a shock: everyone is naked underneath their clothes. GASP! So covering up with a blouse or dress is fine, but a (much more modest) shawl is insufficient? That doesn't make any sense. Of course, these squeamish people will be quick to point out that it is the ACT of breastfeeding that is offensive, even if no skin is ever visible. In fact, I have heard one pastor compare breastfeeding to the marriage act, which I can only call perverted. Other people say that there is nothing indecent about nursing a baby if Mom is covered, but it is still inappropriate in mixed company because it reminds men of the fact that women have breasts. To me, that is just as laughable. You mean there are men who DON'T know that?!? Those same people must not read their Bible very much, because it talks a lot about those subjects.

Breastfeeding is vital to a baby. It has become optional in our freak society with science supposedly making life "easier and better", but God never intended for that. He designed for Moms to feed their children, not Nestle. To me, giving a baby formula on a physical level is like reading to him out of a false Bible on a spiritual level. The Bible is called the "sincere milk of the word", and babies should be fed with sincere milk both physically and spiritually. If exclusively breastfeeding Moms should only do so in the privacy of their home, than they would never ever be able to go anywhere, including church, because most young babies need to eat at least once per hour.

Back to the church nursery. Young babies are not allowed in the service because they like to nurse, the thought of which sends most independent Baptist pastors into convulsions. Older babies are not allowed because they might coo, or look at other people in the room and distract them by smiling at them. Young toddlers might drop a toy, say something, or need to go to the bathroom. On and on the list goes.

Nobody seems to care that Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14) and "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:16). They seem to never have read that "when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:14). I wonder why all three times Jesus used the word "suffer" - could it be because babies and young children can, in fact, be distracting at times, but we are still supposed to put up with it?!? What a strange thought. My kids were very distracting to me throughout the day today, but the thought that I should just leave them at a daycare center instead never crossed my mind. You just learn to put up with it. I find adults just as distracting at times. They have coughing fits, whisper during the service, dig through their purse, and are not just allowed but actually encouraged to yell out during the service ("Amen!" "Preach it, brother!" "That's right!" etc.). So an adult yelling out loud is not distracting, but a baby is? Why are children not allowed in church (which is not the building, but the general assembly)? Don't they need to learn more than anyone else, and aren't they the most likely to believe what is taught from the Bible?

If anyone who reads this thinks that our services must be a pandemonium because all children of all ages are in the services, they should listen to the sermons. Outbursts from children are very, very rare, and always very brief. We do have a "mother-baby room" at the back of the auditorium that has a rocker, a swing, toys etc. where Moms can step out while still being able to see and hear the service without being heard themselves. That being said, nobody is ever expected to use it, and the room is empty at most of the services.

In spite of claims of how clean, nice, and loving church nurseries are, I have to yet see one that is. Nursery workers are "hirelings", and a hireling is just that - a hireling and not a loving parent. Back when we were going to a big church in Indiana I heard of several young babies that had died in their newborn nursery, some while we were there. In fact, 3 more died in the year after we left. While some of the ladies in the older nurseries were sincerely friendly, such was not the case with the newborns. The Nazi in charge of the nurseries had picked the meanest, oldest matrons to care for these babies. The routine was the same for each baby at each service: feed, change diaper, put down in crib or swing to sleep. Crying babies were left to soothe themselves and were not carried, rocked, or otherwise comforted, and is it any wonder that the babies who had died were found lying dead in their crib after crying themselves to sleep. Just the thought makes me shudder. This same church issued photo ID cards (they looked much like a driver's license) for babies who due to medical reasons could not be in the nursery (such as a permanent, contagious disease). These babies and their parent(s) were then confined to a glass-enclosed extension of the main auditorium that was soundproof but had the service transmitted via speakers. I think we were the only parents to hold this precious card, other than the family whose daughter was born with a heart defect. She was not allowed to cry much because it could have strained her weak heart to the point of death, which made her ineligible for the loveless nurseries. This same little girl died shortly after she was finally put in the nursery at age 1 - but of course, there is no connection, right?!?

Another argument against telling people where they or their kids have to be during church is found in James 2:3: "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:" I am well aware of the fact that gay in the Bible has a different meaning than it does today, but isn't it ironic that most churches will in fact allow homosexuals in their service and treat them kindly and respectfully, but ban the babies from church? "Stand thou there in the hallway outside the auditorium" and "Sit here under my footstool in this back office" (or worse yet, the closet behind the restrooms) are all places where I have found myself with my babies.

There are other arguments against nurseries, such as the perverts and pedophiles who are always quick to volunteer to watch the kids, or the never-ending cycle of diseases being passed around.

Why is it acceptable to drop your child off four times a week for Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night services and for soul-winning, but it is wrong to put him/her in daycare five times a week to go work a job? If leaving your child in the nursery means risking him/her dying, being molested by a worker or hurt by another bratty child, and at best coming home with (sometimes very serious) diseases, why does everyone do it even though the Bible says it is wrong?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Great recipe

A reader of my blog sent me the following recipe for a German Plum Cake. Having grown up in Germany, I have tried many different versions of plum cake, and I honestly have to say this is the best I have ever had. Although I have not tried it with any other fruit yet, I have been told this recipe works equally well with apples or cherries. It really is worth a try! Here is a picture of my cake fresh out of the oven:


PFLAUMEN KUCHEN

2 cups flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/4 teaspoon salt
4 Tablespoons butter
1 cup sugar
1 egg
3/4 cup milk
1 teaspoon vanilla
Italian prune plums*

Sift together flour, baking powder and salt. Set aside.

Cream sugar and butter until smooth and creamy; add egg and vanilla, beating until creamy. Add flour and milk alternately until well blended. Spread batter in a lightly greased 9x13 pan. Cut plums in quarters, removing pits. Lay fruit in rows, skin side down on batter. Make rows crowded with fruit.

Streusel

1/2 cup sugar
1/4 cup flour
3 Tablespoons butter
1 teaspoon cinnamon**

Mix all ingredients together, and crumble through fingers. Sprinkle evenly over batter and fruit.

Bake at 350 for 40 minutes.

*The only store in my area that carried this kind of plums was Whole Foods. The conventionally grown kind were on sale for only $.99/lb. These plums are only in season for a couple of weeks each year, so if you want to try this cake you would need to make it right around now. Here is a picture of Italian prune plums to give you an idea of what to look for:


**My plums were pretty tart, so I omitted the cinnamon from the streusels and instead sprinkled the plums generously with cinnamon-sugar before crumbling the streusel topping on top of them.

The cake tastes great by itself, but you can also add some vanilla ice cream or whipped cream and sprinkle with more cinnamon-sugar.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Important safety recall

Infants Strangled to Death in Simplicity Bassinets: CPSC Urges Consumers To Stop Using Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 Convertible “Close-Sleeper” Models

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is urging parents and caregivers to stop using convertible “close-sleeper/bedside sleeper” bassinets manufactured by Simplicity Inc., of Reading, Pa. CPSC has learned that on August 21, 2008, a 5-month-old girl from Shawnee, Kan. was strangled to death when she became entrapped between the bassinet’s metal bars. This is the second strangulation death CPSC has learned of in the close-sleeper bassinets. On September 29, 2007, a 4-month-old girl from Noel, Mo. became entrapped in the metal bars of the bassinet and died.

CPSC is issuing this safety alert because SFCA Inc., the company which purchased all of Simplicity Inc.’s assets at public auction in April 2008, has refused to cooperate with the government and recall the products. SFCA maintains that it is not responsible for products previously manufactured by Simplicity Inc.

The Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets contain metal bars spaced farther apart than 2 3/8 inches, which is the maximum distance allowed under the federal crib safety standard. The metal bars are covered by an adjustable fabric flap which is attached by velcro. The fabric is folded down when the bassinet is converted into a bed-side co-sleeping position. If the velcro is not properly re-secured when the flap is adjusted, an infant can slip through the opening and become entrapped in the metal bars and suffocate. This warning does not cover bassinets produced in recent months that have fabric permanently attached over the lower bar.

Due to the serious hazard these bassinets pose to babies, CPSC urges all consumers to share this safety warning with day care centers, consignment stores, family and friends to ensure that no child is placed to sleep in a Simplicity convertible bassinet covered by this warning.

The Commission voted, using its new authorities in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, to release this warning upon making a finding that the health and safety of the public require immediate notice.



Friday, September 12, 2008

All-natural baking

This is an adjunct to yesterday's post on all-natural cake decorating. Of course, you have to have something to decorate, which is what this post is about.

Sure, you could just use ready cake mix and frosting out of a tub. But I would not recommend any of the main stream brands such as Betty Crocker or similar ones. They have a long list of unhealthy ingredients and don't even taste good at all. In 8 years of marriage, I have never bought ready cake mix or frosting, and don't intend to ever do so.

The best and cheapest option is to make your own cake and frosting from scratch, which doesn't take that much more time. With four young children and highly pregnant, I still manage to bake something from scratch almost every single day (cakes, pies, cookies, pizza, bread, etc.). Skip that TV show you just HAVE to watch and use that time to make a healthy dessert for your family instead.

Alternatively, you can also find ready mixes for cakes and frosting at the health food store. My favorites are the ones made by Dr Oetger, but these are quite more expensive than making your own.

Here are some additional ideas to increase the nutritional value of your favorite recipes:

- You can substitute the flour in just about any recipe with whole wheat pastry flour without anyone noticing.

- You can use canola oil instead of butter in most cake recipes without having to make changes such as adding more flour or less liquid. Your cake will be a lot moister, too, which makes it even less obvious that you used whole wheat pastry flour. Oil is also cheaper than butter.

- Use butter instead of shortening in all your pie crusts. Shortening should not be an item stocked in your kitchen if you are health-conscious.

- Never use margarine for anything. Even the ones labeled as healthy are not.

- You can substitute up to half of the butter/oil called for in a recipe with all-natural apple sauce or mashed banana to cut down on the fat calories. The texture will be more gummy and chewy, though.

- You can reduce the sugar in most recipes by 1/3 to 1/2 without much noticeable difference.

- Never use sugar substitutes, including Splenda, none of which are safe or healthy.

- You can substitute honey for sugar in many recipes. Because honey has twice the sweetening power of sugar, you will only need to use about half as much (or one fourth as much if you were planning on cutting the sugar content in half anyway). This works especially well in cookies, which will stay very moist and chewy.

- Do not use non-stick baking pans or the new silicone dishes, all of which break down their unhealthy coating into your food. Instead, buy glass or ceramic bakeware, or the old-fashioned metal pans without non-stick coating. Another option is cast iron.

- Instead of using parchment paper (which is lined with unhealthy chemicals to make it non-stick), spray your baking pans with oil or rub them with butter.

There is a place for sweet treats even for the health conscious if you adopt a few of these minor changes, and make more changes over time.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

All-natural cake decorating

All-natural food colors are hard to find, as are sprinkles without artificial colors. Some brands of liquid food coloring I have tried yield radically different colors than the bottle promises (such as pink instead of blue, brown instead of yellow, etc.). In addition, a lot of natural liquid colors cost upward of $8 per bottle, and about half a bottle is needed to color one batch of frosting.

This post is not about the negative effects of artificial food additives/colors, but you can do a google search on the subject if you are curious. In Germany, where I come from, most artificial food colors are not labeled safe for human consumption, and are thus not allowed to be used in food items. Yet, there are many cake decorating items available in all sorts of colors, based on all-natural food extracts. For years, I have been searching to find something similar here in the United States, and I think I may just have found it.

India Tree makes a line of all natural food colorings and sprinkles called "Nature's Colors". Here is a picture of the shades of frosting that can be made with their liquid food colors, which are made from the following ingredients: BLUE: glycerin, deionized water, red cabbage. RED: beet juice, citric acid. YELLOW: glycerin, deionized water, turmeric, sodium hydroxide.

You can see from the picture that some colors, such as a bright red or a dark green or blue cannot be achieved with these natural colors, because they are based on real foods.

Decorating sugars are available in the following colors:


This is a picture of their other all-natural decorating items. The only thing not shown here are the all-natural snowflake sprinkles.


This company does not sell to the public, though. Some specialty and health food stores carry some of their products, but your best chances of finding the full assortment are online. ChefTools carries the full product line at very reasonable prices. Please note that not all of India Tree's decorating items are all natural, but only the ones labeled as such (all of which I listed above). ChefTools lists the ingredients in each of the individual products, so you can check before purchasing.

I am going to order from them later today, and will write another post to update you on how I liked their products.