How Dangerous is BPA for Babies?

So, yes, there's a lot of back-and-forth debate about the dangers of BPA (Bisphenol A) in babies. In August 2007, the Baby Bargains Book authors withdrew their recommendations of polycarbonate baby bottles which have BPA. Z Recommends published a list of BPA-free baby bottle alternatives. The take-home of all of these to the mainstream public is to avoid Avent and Dr. Brown bottles (the most popular polycarbonate bottles on the market), and to move to brands such as Medela and BornFree. 

But, really, how dangerous is BPA exposure? It's still pretty mixed. Reports from the 90s say that there is no danger; the FDA confirms this; the industry--bottle-makers and organizations they belong to--reiterate the safety of their products. 

In November 2007 the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, through their Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) published an expert panel report analysis of the studies on BPA risk to humans. You can read the actual report here. 

Here's what it concludes (pages 352-353):

1. For pregnant women and fetuses, the Expert Panel has different levels of concern for the different developmental endpoints that may be susceptible to bisphenol A disruption, as follows: 

• For neural and behavioral effects, the Expert Panel has some concern 
  
• For prostate effects, the Expert Panel has minimal concern 
  
• For the potential effect of accelerated puberty, the Expert Panel has minimal concern 
  
• For birth defects and malformations, the Expert Panel has negligible concern 
  

2. For infants and children, the Expert Panel has the following levels of concern for biological processes that might be altered by Bisphenol A, as follows:

• some concern for neural and behavioral effects 
  
• minimal concern for the effect of accelerated puberty 

3. For adults, the Expert Panel has negligible concern for adverse reproductive effects following exposures in the general population to Bisphenol A. For highly exposed subgroups, such as occupationally exposed populations, the level of concern is elevated to minimal.

There you go. The panel finds that the highest exposure to BPA is through products that contact food and through damage or repeated use may leach BPA into the food, and that there is then some concern of neural and behavioral effects. 

Carrying and the Crying Baby: Preemptively Preventing Fussiness?

So I started reading a bunch of academic papers about fussiness, colic, and crying in infants. This interest was spawned by the hope alluded to in Dr. Harvey Karp's Happiest Baby on the Block book, suggesting that babies have a "fourth trimester" where the conditions of the womb have to be replicated to comfort newborns. This is done through the Five S's: Swaddling, Shh'ing, Side positioning, Swinging, and Sucking. It's been a great method for us and works like a charm. (Here's another review and some suggestions for using the book.)

But is there a way to create conditions where you can prevent a baby from developing fussy tendencies? Part of the theory of the "fourth trimester" is that the baby is so used to being in the womb that drastic changes from that are disturbing and that he needs comforting. If the baby is instantly comforted then he doesn't develop the need to cry to ask for comfort. He mews or whimpers or cries quickly when he needs comfort.

The theory goes on to suggest that in other cultures (particularly non-modern societies) the ubiquity of carrying--in slings, in arms, on the back of mothers--the constant replication of the womb along with constant feeding eases the transition through the fourth trimester. Studies purport to show that children in modern societies who are carried more throughout the day end up being less fussy and less colic. (The recommendation is at least three hours a day.) 

Other studies show that babies who are colic are carried the same amount as those who are classified as fussy or moderate criers. But these studies were done *after* children were identified by parents as fussy. The study then suggests that parents who have fussy children tend to carry and coddle their children more often to quiet them. But if the end result is the same, doesn't this show that the parents of non-fussy children coddled their children X amount in the beginning and continued to coddle them X amount, while those of fussy children coddled an X-Y amount and then ramped up their coddling to X amount in response to the fussiness? 

Therefore, it may be children who are carried/coddled while newborns *may* result in less fussy children. If the amount of coddling were the same prior to the study, then you'd expect the fussy children to be coddled much more than the non-fussy children in the study. 

In the end, I think carrying is important. It may help replicate this controversial "fourth trimester." But it also forces you to spend more time with your child. It hopefully helps to relax you, to take a break from your own life, and spend some time in the peaceful halo of a sleeping baby. This calming creates a calmer environment for your child and helps you to react more peacefully to her inevitable cries. (Another study suggested that stressed out and anxious parents were a better predictor of fussy babies than anything else.) Just take care not to over-stimulate your child, which I know from having a puppy, leads to undesirable behavior: fussiness and crying in children, and craziness and chewing in dogs.