Nate is getting waaaayyyyy too big. The night before last, I mashed up some of the zucchini we had for dinner and fed him a couple of baby bites. After he got over the initial shock of a different texture and taste, he seemed to really enjoy it. I had been thinking that I want to put off solids for as long as I can, but I think Nate is reay for them.
It's so weird. With Devon I remember being told that babies don't need any solids until they are 6 months old. Now everyone is starting solids at 4 months. And I powdered that little bottom whenever he started getting pink. Now I hear that powder is bad for babies b/c they can inhale it and it can bother their lungs.
I just feel weird that my mom info is already outdated. I mean, Devon was only born 5 years ago. Shouldn't I still be in the know?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
3 comments:
To clarify you can start solids at four months, but many pediatricians recommend starting at six. Of course,my crazy feeder Jackson started at four because he was so hungry he was wearing my out. it also depends on babies' readiness. Don't feel bad about your mommy know how- I remember with Jacks the BPA thing came out and I was like, huh? New information comes in all the time.
I've been looking into the crazy law Congress signed last August to try to get toys with lead paint out of the hands of little kiddos here in America. It's retardation on a Congressional scale. The tests must be performed on all items sold to children under TWELVE. That means all clothing, toys, games, etc. must undergo the expensive tests (and each individual item must be tested, so if you sell a small, medium, and large shirt which are made from the same cloth, each individual size must be tested). The law goes into effect Feb. 10th this year. Congress apparently only looked to Mattel and other large companies which can afford such restrictions, and didn't consider the effect these burdensome regulations would have on small businesses. Many small businesses are simply going to go out of business. A thrift store can't possibly afford to test every article of children's clothing. They'll just stop selling anything aimed at chilren. And, seriously, what 11-year-old still sticks things in their mouth on a regular basis? Honda pulled all of its junior ATVs and motorcycles in fear of government fines or lawsuits. What ten-year-old, given a brand new Honda dirtbike, is going to eat the thing?
So, to get to the point, I would seriously avoid anything to do with making or selling anything aimed at children, at least until Congress realizes they've just bankrupted a sector of the economy for no good reason at all (during a recession), and changes this truly moronic legislation to only restrict what it should, that being lead paint from freakin' China.
Justin out.
To add one little, small point: Lead is not a naturally occuring substance in freakin' cotton or polyester. To suggest that babies are being harmed by lead in their blankets officially makes Congress mentally defective. Nobody in Congress actually reads the bills they sign. This is a classic example of Congress doing more harm in regulating the perceived harm than the original harm did in the first place. Congress just wanted to quash the public-relations crisis stirred up by a press anxious to start a crisis to sell newspapers and get ratings.
Post a Comment