If you haven’t yet read why I think you should be concerned about flame retardants, take a minute to do so. They’re basically
in everything, so what’s a parent to do? I first learned about the dangers of
flame retardants while pregnant. Thankfully, I hadn’t yet purchased any baby
items so I could look for items that I was certain didn’t have any chemical
flame retardants. Holy shit was it hard, especially considering I was doing so
on an Assistant Professor’s salary (dental hygienists make more than I do, people) and
the flame-retardant-free options can get pricey.
Recall, I had already adopted more frequent hand washing and vacuuming. My next move was to buy items that I knew didn’t have chemical flame retardants, which was rough going because basically everything was suspect. This blog deals with how I eliminated them (or at least tried my best) from my son’s pajamas.
Remember all those alarming things that I told you are linked to flame retardant exposure in children? Good. Well, they might be in kids’ pajamas, which are worn between 10-12 hours a day (or more...Frankie's certainly spent many of his days in is jammies). Reasonably, I couldn’t have been more outraged when I found out that chemical flame-retardants are even allowed to be in children’s PJs. Upon further investigation, I discovered that PJs for kids 9 months to 14 years must meet certain flammability requirements, which can lead to the use of chemical flame retardants. This doesn’t mean that PJs for kids younger than 9 months are automatically in the clear. They’re still allowed to use chemical flame retardants. In addition, just because a company uses fabrics that are naturally fire-resistant doesn’t mean that the finished garment is free of chemical flame retardants. In addition, synthetic fabrics like polyester are sometimes made in such a way that the flame retardant is bonded to the fabric itself rather than just sprayed on. What’s worse is that the manufacturer can technically say that their garment is free of chemical flame retardants because it’s become part of the fabric.
Related to this issue is that a company can say they don’t treat their garments and fabric with chemical flame retardants, but the fabric that they use to make their garments could be treated before they receive it. Thus, you could find some company saying they don’t use chemical flame retardants and you think the garment is safe, but, in reality, the fabric manufacturer may have done the dirty work for the clothing company on the sly. Frustrating and terrifying, right?
So, knowing this, what was I to do? Well, first of all, I had to put the kibosh on people buying Frankie pajamas by asking them not to do so. That was awkward but they all seemed supportive after I explained why. Next, I had to acquire my own sleepwear for my baby. Once thing I nixed immediately was any synthetic fabric because it seemed impossible to tell (or get the company to tell) whether a flame retardant had been added during the production of the fabric. That meant, for example, that polyester, polyester fleece, and poly/cotton blends were out. Now I was left with PJs made of cotton, wool, and silk.
Then, I scoured companies' websites to determine the likelihood that their jammies had chemical flame retardants. Usually, the company had some sort of statement about flame retardants. For example, Carter’s website says, “Carter’s polyester sleepwear is naturally flame resistant, while our 100% cotton sleepwear is tight fitting, and therefore does not require additional fabric treatment.” Based on this language, I felt uncomfortable letting Frankie wear Carter’s PJs because the polyester ones may have had flame retardants added during production and the phrase, “additional fabric treatment,” (my emphasis) allows for the possibility that Carter’s receives outsourced fabric that is already treated with flame retardants. I also decided that if their pajamas were truly free of chemical flame retardants they would have said just that. For example, they could have said, "Our garments are not treated with chemical flame retardants." Carter's did not use this language, whereas other companies did.
If I was still unsure, I contacted the company, which is what I did with American Apparel who did not have a statement on flame retardants on their website. My response from American Apparel on the issue went as follows…
Recall, I had already adopted more frequent hand washing and vacuuming. My next move was to buy items that I knew didn’t have chemical flame retardants, which was rough going because basically everything was suspect. This blog deals with how I eliminated them (or at least tried my best) from my son’s pajamas.
Remember all those alarming things that I told you are linked to flame retardant exposure in children? Good. Well, they might be in kids’ pajamas, which are worn between 10-12 hours a day (or more...Frankie's certainly spent many of his days in is jammies). Reasonably, I couldn’t have been more outraged when I found out that chemical flame-retardants are even allowed to be in children’s PJs. Upon further investigation, I discovered that PJs for kids 9 months to 14 years must meet certain flammability requirements, which can lead to the use of chemical flame retardants. This doesn’t mean that PJs for kids younger than 9 months are automatically in the clear. They’re still allowed to use chemical flame retardants. In addition, just because a company uses fabrics that are naturally fire-resistant doesn’t mean that the finished garment is free of chemical flame retardants. In addition, synthetic fabrics like polyester are sometimes made in such a way that the flame retardant is bonded to the fabric itself rather than just sprayed on. What’s worse is that the manufacturer can technically say that their garment is free of chemical flame retardants because it’s become part of the fabric.
Related to this issue is that a company can say they don’t treat their garments and fabric with chemical flame retardants, but the fabric that they use to make their garments could be treated before they receive it. Thus, you could find some company saying they don’t use chemical flame retardants and you think the garment is safe, but, in reality, the fabric manufacturer may have done the dirty work for the clothing company on the sly. Frustrating and terrifying, right?
So, knowing this, what was I to do? Well, first of all, I had to put the kibosh on people buying Frankie pajamas by asking them not to do so. That was awkward but they all seemed supportive after I explained why. Next, I had to acquire my own sleepwear for my baby. Once thing I nixed immediately was any synthetic fabric because it seemed impossible to tell (or get the company to tell) whether a flame retardant had been added during the production of the fabric. That meant, for example, that polyester, polyester fleece, and poly/cotton blends were out. Now I was left with PJs made of cotton, wool, and silk.
Then, I scoured companies' websites to determine the likelihood that their jammies had chemical flame retardants. Usually, the company had some sort of statement about flame retardants. For example, Carter’s website says, “Carter’s polyester sleepwear is naturally flame resistant, while our 100% cotton sleepwear is tight fitting, and therefore does not require additional fabric treatment.” Based on this language, I felt uncomfortable letting Frankie wear Carter’s PJs because the polyester ones may have had flame retardants added during production and the phrase, “additional fabric treatment,” (my emphasis) allows for the possibility that Carter’s receives outsourced fabric that is already treated with flame retardants. I also decided that if their pajamas were truly free of chemical flame retardants they would have said just that. For example, they could have said, "Our garments are not treated with chemical flame retardants." Carter's did not use this language, whereas other companies did.
If I was still unsure, I contacted the company, which is what I did with American Apparel who did not have a statement on flame retardants on their website. My response from American Apparel on the issue went as follows…
This response, in combination with some other properties of the clothes, made me feel okay about getting Frankie some long-sleeved gowns in any color but Heather Gray (contains 10% polyester) for sleeping. What were those other clues? The first was that the White, Fuchsia, and Baby Blue were 100% cotton. The second was that the same fabric that they use for the adult clothes is what they use for the baby clothes. Adult clothes don’t have to be fire resistant, so it seemed unlikely that American Apparel went to special trouble to get fabric with flame retardants. Third, their baby clothes are labeled as “Not intended for sleepwear.” Using this simple little phrase allows children’s clothing manufacturers not to have to comply with flammability standards. As such, Frankie’s wardrobe is largely comprised of American Apparel clothing [American Apparel, if you are reading this, please send me (a shareholder!) free samples to test and I will totally write an entire post about your clothes. My wardrobe is also largely of your company, so feel free to send size medium anything. Oh, and Frankie (also a shareholder!) specifically wants to test out your Kids Scout Moccasin in size toddler 1/2, so send those first.].
| Frankie in his 100% cotton, "Not intended for sleepwear," American Apparel Infant Baby Rib Long Sleeve Gown in Baby Blue. Can Frankie get his Ford modeling contract, already? |
If you go the route of putting baby to sleep in clothes not intended for sleepwear, which is not what I’m advocating (it’s just what I chose to do), make sure they are snug fitting. After all, flame retardants were added to children’s pajamas because kids do stuff that makes them more likely to be burned.
Another clue to whether the clothes are free of flame retardants is if the hangtag says, "For child's safety, garment should fit snugly. This garment is not flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire,” and the permanent label says "Wear snug-fitting. Not flame resistant." Clothes to avoid to reduce exposure to flame retardants are ones that say "flame resistant" or "to retain flame resistance..." on the tags.
The PJs that make me most comfortable, however, are ones that are 100% natural fibers (cotton, wool, silk) and the manufacturer swears up and down that there are absolutely no flame retardants. These options, however, are a bit pricey but worth it considering the possible risks of flame retardant riddled Jammy-Jams. These options also tend to last longer. For example, we purchased a Wee Woolies’ Merino Sleep Sack, which lasts from 3 months to 2+ years, so in the end we'll end up saving money and be healthier.
Other places I feel very comfortable with are (again, feel free to send free samples!):
Next up…crib mattress.
Thank you for posting the great content…I was looking for something like this…I found it quiet interesting, hopefully you will keep posting such blogs….Keep sharing
ReplyDeleteflame resistant
I've had favorite clothing like that too. It just gets SO comfortable My sleepwear pyjamas isn't anything too fancy. Boxers and sometimes a T-shirt. I guess I could fancy it up a bit!
ReplyDeleteLearning to sew and buying a cheap sewing machine is a great way to be sure your kid is wearing healthy clothes! Might sound silly to modern ears, but it's what I did. My girls all have flannel nightgowns with untreated NOT INTENDED FOR SLEEPWEAR flannel. My little babies have pants and sleepsacks made of merino wool sweaters upcycled by me. Nightgowns and pajama pants are pretty much the easiest sewing projects you can undertake!
ReplyDelete?m impressed, I must say. Really rarely do I encounter a blog that?s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the issue is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.You can get Amazing stuff ofFireproof fabric suppliers by daletec.com from here.
ReplyDelete