Article: SIDS and Mattresses

TCC's Note: I do not necessarily support everything in this article but I think this is a MUST read for everyone. Even if you do not have children, the same concept can be applied to an adult mattress.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.healthychild.com/toxic-sleep/has-the-cause-of-crib-death-sids-been-found/


Has The Cause of Crib Death (SIDS) Been Found?

Toxic Gases in Baby Crib Mattresses

By Jane Sheppard

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). These four words can incite a considerable amount of terror in a parent of an infant. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as crib death or cot death, is the number one cause of death for infants from one month to one year of age. 90% of all SIDS deaths are in babies under six months old. Ongoing SIDS research occasionally leads to discoveries of risk factors associated with these deaths, but after over 50 years, researchers say they still do not know how or why it happens. The prevailing official viewpoint on SIDS is that the cause is unknown (SIDS Alliance 2001).

It may seem inconceivable that over a million babies have died of this "syndrome", and after almost half a century and many millions of dollars spent, no one in this age of science and technology can tell us why. But what parents are virtually oblivious to (through no fault of their own) is that a highly convincing explanation for this tragedy has been found, along with a simple means of eliminating it. This explanation is backed by a significant amount of evidence, but has been and continues to be completely ignored by SIDS organizations, the medical community, and the government - for a variety of reasons, including politics, financial liability, and vested interests. Publication of these findings continues to be denied and suppressed. The result is that babies continue to be at risk from deaths that may easily be prevented.

Toxic Gases in Mattresses

Dr. Jim Sprott, OBE, a New Zealand scientist and chemist, states with certainty that crib death is caused by toxic gases, which can be generated from a baby's mattress. Chemical compounds containing phosphorus, arsenic and antimony have been added to mattresses as fire retardants and for other purposes since the early 1950's. A fungus that commonly grows in be
dding can interact with these chemicals to create poisonous gases (Richardson 1994). These heavier-than-air gases are concentrated in a thin layer on the baby's mattress or are diffused away and dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere. If a baby breathes or absorbs a lethal dose of the gases, the central nervous system shuts down, stopping breathing and then heart function. These gases can fatally poison a baby, without waking the sleeping baby and without any struggle by the baby. A normal autopsy would not reveal any sign that the baby was poisoned (Sprott 1996).

In spite of denial and opposition from orthodox SIDS organizations, no research has disproved this gaseous poisoning explanation for crib death. No valid criticism of this explanation has ever been provided. This logical finding explains every factor already known about crib death, and is backed by scientific research (Sprott 1996, 2000) and 11 years of practical proof consisting of a crib death prevention campaign that continues in New Zealand.

Ongoing research continues to support these findings. A four and a half year study by the Scottish Cot Death Trust published in the British Medical Journal (November 2, 2002) has shown that the re-use of infant mattresses triples the risk of cot death (Tappin 2002). Dr. Sprott explains that the risk of death increases when mattresses are re-used from one baby to the next because the fungus has already had a chance to establish itself in the used mattress. When the next baby uses the same mattress, the fungus is soon active. Toxic gas production begins sooner and is generated in greater volume. It is known that crib death rates increase markedly from the first baby in a family to the second, and from the second to the third, and so on (Mitchell 2001). Dr. Sprott warns, however, that new mattresses can also be unsafe because fungal growth can quickly become established in a new mattress once a baby begins sleeping on it (Sprott 2003).

The fundamental solution is urgent action to eliminate all sources of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony from all mattresses. But this is not happening now, and is not likely to happen anytime soon, so exposure to these gases must be prevented. The intervening solution is to prevent babies from being exposed to the gases by wrapping mattresses in a gas-impermeable cover made from high-grade polyethylene and ensuring that bedding used on top of a wrapped mattress does not contain any phosphorus, arsenic or antimony.

A 100% successful crib death prevention campaign has been going on in New Zealand for the past 11 years. Midwives and other healthcare professionals throughout New Zealand have been actively advising parents to wrap mattresses. During this time, there has not been a single SIDS death reported among the over 100,000 New Zealand babies who have slept on mattresses wrapped in a specially formulated polyethylene cover. The number of crib deaths in New Zealand that have occurred since mattress-wrapping began in 1994 is about 810. The number of crib deaths that have occurred in New Zealand on a properly wrapped mattress is zero.

In early 2002, a German doctor published the results of the New Zealand mattress-wrapping campaign, including statistical analysis carried out in conjunction with the University of Munich (Kapuste 2002). The statistics showed that the proof of the validity of mattress-wrapping for crib death prevention was one billion times the level of proof generally accepted by the medical community as proving a scientific proposition.

Prior to the commencement of mattress-wrapping, New Zealand had the highest crib death rate in the world (2.1 deaths per 1000 live births). Following the adoption of mattress-wrapping by many parents in New Zealand, the New Zealand crib death rate has fallen by 70%, and the Pakeha (non-Maori) crib death rate has fallen by an estimated 85% (NZMH). Pakeha parents have adopted mattress-wrapping with enthusiasm. "These reductions cannot be attributed to orthodox cot death prevention advice," said Dr Sprott. "There has been no material change in that advice since 1992. The only significant change in cot death prevention advice, which has occurred since 1994, is the nationwide dissemination of my recommendations to wrap babies' mattresses."

Parents Are Denied Findings

So why isn't this profound and critically important information making the headlines of major newspapers or all over the evening news? Why aren't crib death researchers and the government of the United States telling parents to wrap babies' mattresses? Why are the manufacturers still adding fire retardants and other chemicals to mattresses?

There are various reasons, but one possible reason is that mattress manufacturers are required to use fire retardants through government regulations. Admitting that these chemicals are causing deaths would mean admitting to major liability. Furthermore, crib death research has been a significant source of funding for medical researchers in the U.S. Unfortunately, the ongoing complex and expensive research that leads to the discovery of "risk factors" for a so-called "syndrome" has pushed aside the simple and inexpensive solution of mattress-wrapping; a solution that can do no harm.

The Cot Death Cover-Up? (Penguin books, NZ, 1996), by Dr. Jim Sprott, reveals the amazing story of denial on the part of crib death researchers and the medical community, and the failure of these entities to accept such a simple explanation. Dr. Sprott first suggested a toxic gas theory for crib death in 1986, and in 1989 Barry Richardson of Britain, also a consulting chemist acting independently, publicized research on the finding. In response, the British government set up expert committees to investigate the findings. One committee published the Turner Report, which recommended the removal of the chemicals from baby mattresses and for babies to be tested for antimony. A second committee published the 1998 Limerick Report, which is frequently cited by SIDS organizations as finding no evidence to substantiate the claim that toxic gases cause crib death. Contrary to this publicity, the Limerick Report did not disprove the theory (Fitzpatrick 1998) - in fact, it provides further confirmation of it (Sprott 2000).

The main orthodox crib death prevention recommendation is to put babies to sleep on their backs. We know that babies do still die when sleeping on their backs, although face-up sleeping does reduce the risk. The gases are denser than air and tend to settle in a thin layer directly on top of the mattress, so babies sleeping face-down are more likely to inhale a lethal dose of the gases. The gases are also absorbed through babies' skin, and this is one of the major reasons why face-up sleeping provides only partial protection against crib death (Sprott 1996).

However, no babies have died sleeping on a properly wrapped mattress. This is crucial information for parents. 2,100 babies continue to die every year in the United States from SIDS. Parents should be provided with the information so that they are able to decide for themselves whether they want to wait for the SIDS research organizations or the government to endorse mattress-wrapping or to "play it safe" as many parents have done in New Zealand. As Dr. Sprott points out and no one has denied, "All New Zealand crib deaths since mattress-wrapping began in late 1994 have occurred when parents have not wrapped their babies' mattresses. An inexpensive, non-toxic protective cover can surely do no harm."

The assumption that our government agencies do everything they can to protect our children is naive. The U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission has stated that BabeSafe mattress covers do not constitute any safety risk to babies. These covers (manufactured in New Zealand) are the only mattress covers designed to protect babies from toxic gases generated in mattresses. Yet even though BabeSafe products are simple, inexpensive, and safe, the FDA requires the manufacturer to go through the expensive, complex, time-consuming procedure of obtaining pre-market approval in order for BabeSafe covers to be bulk imported into the U.S.

Instead of putting unnecessary hurdles in the way of a harmless and potentially live-saving product, why don't the authorities endorse mattress-wrapping in the U.S. to see if the results achieved in New Zealand could be duplicated here? The score in New Zealand is now 810 deaths (orthodox crib death prevention advice) to none (mattress-wrapping). With so many more babies born in the U.S. than in New Zealand, the potential to save lives is dramatically greater - thousands every year. Why should even one baby be denied something that could potentially save his or her life?

Though the toxic gas explanation has not yet been 100% scientifically proven to cause crib death, why take any chances when you don't have to? The 100% successful cot death prevention campaign in New Zealand is enough evidence to warrant taking a precautionary approach.

Find an organic crib mattress that does not off-gas

See section on Baby Mattresses in our report Protect Your Baby from Toxic Exposures
Co-sleeping and Toxic Gases in Adult Mattresses
Factors That May Increase the Risk of Crib Death (including the vaccination link)

Use a Healthy, Non-Toxic Crib Mattress

The NaturePedic No-Compromise organic crib mattress was designed by an environmental engineer to eliminate materials which may be toxic, hazardous, or otherwise potentially harmful to babies. These baby mattresses do not contain any antimony, arsenic, or phosphorus. They do not contain PVC, phthalates, PBDEs, toxic fire retardants, or polyurethane foam. The NaturePedic No-Compromise Baby Mattresses do not need to be wrapped since they are designed to be safe for babies and are proven to not off-gas.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Use the information provided here as an educational resource for determining your options and making your own informed choices. Healthy Child does NOT make ANY claims that using a non-toxic mattress or wrapping a mattress will prevent SIDS since this has not been 100% scientifically proven. Vaccines are also known to cause baby deaths and there may also be other factors involved in SIDS. However, the fact that there have been no SIDS deaths among the vast number of babies in New Zealand who have slept on correctly wrapped mattresses is crucial information for parents. This fact cannot be denied and should not be suppressed. The evidence is very compelling, and we believe that parents should be informed so they can make their own decisions on how to protect their babies.

Has the toxic gas theory been disproven?

Position Papers publicized by US SIDS organizations say there is not enough evidence to support the toxic gas theory, and that parents should continue to put their babies to sleep on vinyl-covered crib mattresses. They base this on a report commissioned by the British government, under Lady Limerick. The 1998 UK Limerick Report did not disprove the toxic gas theory for cot death (crib death). In fact, the Limerick Committee's research proved the gas generation on which the toxic gas theory is based. For information on fallacies contained in the Limerick Report, visit http://www.cotlife2000.com and click on the side heading "Limerick Report".
See Jane's recent blog post on why it's important to not ignore this issue:
http://www.healthychild.com/blog/are-toxic-gases-in-crib-mattresses-causing-crib-death-sids/

References
Fitzpatrick, M.G. 1998. SIDS and The Toxic Gas Theory (letter), New Zealand Medical Journal, October 9, 1998.
Kapuste, H. 2002. Giftige Gase im Kinderbett ("Toxic Gases in Infants' Beds"), Zeitschrift fuer Umweltmedizin No. 44; January-April 2002:18-20
Mitchell, P.R. 2001. Analysis of Official UK Statistics for Cot Deaths and Infant Deaths by Other Causes, 1996-1999.
New Zealand Ministry of Health (NZMH) Cot Death Statistics.
Richardson, B.A. 1994. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A Possible Primary Cause. Journal of Forensic Science Soc. Jul-Sep; 34(3):199-204.
SIDS Alliance. 2001. www.sidsalliance.org
Sprott, T.J. 2000. Critique of the 1998 UK Limerick Report. www.cotlife2000.com
Sprott, T.J. 1996. The Cot Death Cover-Up? Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Books.
Sprott, T.J. 2000. Personal communication with an officer of the Ministry of Health. August 11, 2000.
Sprott, T.J. 2000. Research Which Confirms and Supports the Toxic Gas Theory For Cot Death
Sprott, T.J. 2003. The Cause of Cot Death and How to Prevent It, Cot Life 2000, March 2003
Tappin et al, Used infant mattresses and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland: case-control study, British Medical Journal 2002; 325:1007

Toothpaste

I have been an avid user of Crest toothpaste. I admit it. It cleaned well. It tasted good. My personal favorite was Crest Pro-Health Mint (click on the link to see the MSDS).

I now do not use regular conventional toothpaste. Why? Well that's a good question. Let's look at the ingredients that were in my Crest Pro-Health that are listed on the MSDS and what we know about them:

Glycerin - Used usually for water-binding properties. Keeps products moist instead of drying out. Derived from fats and oils, classified by FDA as a sugar alcohol.
Hydrated silica - Sand, or a component of sand. Used in glass-making. Known to cause lung disease and cancer when long-term (i.e. occupational) exposure is present. (See this information on the CDC website).
Tribasic sodium phosphate dodecahydrate - The only way for me to do this justice is to quote straight from the MSDS: "Handling: Wash thoroughly after handling. Minimize dust generation and accumulation. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Keep container tightly closed. Do not ingest or inhale. Use with adequate ventilation. Discard contaminated shoes. " Ummmm...ok. That's a no. I don't want that in my toothpaste. (Click on the chemical's name for the MSDS).
Propylene glycol - Used in a variet of applications including food additive. According to the MSDS:
"The substance may be toxic to central nervous system (CNS).
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage." Ok...that makes this one another no-no in my house. Especially considering it's in so much food and other products!

So that begs the next logical question: What would YOU do for a Klondike bar?
I mean...
What do you use instead of the conventional toothpaste?

Well, we have personally switched to Tooth Chips. It's "soap for teeth". Or so says the website. In the short time I've used this, I've noticed that my teeth have gotten whiter, and it still does the job. According to the website, it's made with organic oils and essential oils. No artificial sweeteners, silica, glycerin, etc.

There are plenty of other natural and good-for-you toothpastes available, but remember.....what you put in your mouth will be able to get in your blood and in your digestive tract.

This is just another little lesson in 'reading labels 101', brought to you by The Crunchy Christian.

Interested in seeing the MSDS sheet for other P&G items? Check out this list. It has information on all of their products.

Pesticides In Food And Water

I found this site very good resource for information about pesticides. It lists several foods and what kinds of pesticide toxins can be found on that food (and in water) according to studies conducted by the USDA.

According the the FAQ on the site, the USDA prepares the food the same way we would. They get rid of the bad or inedible parts of the food and wash it prior to testing.

Interestingly enough, there are still pesticides on the food after washing. There are even known carcinogens that still linger. According to the website, due to America's poor stewardship over the farming industry, even all organic foods have been contaminated so now there is virtually no food that is without pesticide residue. Organic foods only have much, much less.

Some of the pesticides used have been banned in many other major indstrialized nations, yet the US continues to use them so long as there is minimal harm, or no absolute definitive link is found between the pesticide and the health issues at hand. Some pesticides, as you will find on the website, are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and can even effect reproductive or developmental health.

Check here to see what pesticides are found on various foods (including bottled water)!



http://www.whatsinmyfood.org/index.jsp

Soy

Soy...the incredibly debatable and curious food topic swarming the vegan media.


Soy milk, soy protein, soy cheese, soy...sauce. mmm...soy sauce.


Oh......sorry. The goal of this article is to take the two debating sides and present them here. You are the judge and jury.


In the one corner, we have the soy proponents. Mostly vegans, crunchies, and lactose-intolerant people. In this circle of people, soy is healthy and a wonderful alternative to meat and a great source of nutrition.


In the other corner are mostly the carnivorous predators of our day...rawr. Mostly people who believe that God meant for us to eat meat and mostly non-vegetarians, but you will find one or two.. (Don't get me wrong, I do eat meat...so I'm lumping myself in as a carnivorous predator). They are anti-soy because of the rumors that it can cause health problems and may even be toxic.


So the question stands. Is soy healthy?


I will take each side and present the debate. I do have an opinion but I'm going to make this as unbiased as possible and then tell you what I think at the end. The easiest way to do this is to start with why people think soy is unhealthy and then discuss why people think this is not true.


Soy is Bad. Bad soy. Bad.
Many people are anti-soy because of all the potential health issues it can cause. Here is a brief list of health concerns in conjunction with consumption of soy:

Soy contains trypsin inhibitors which are known to prevent healthy digestion.

Soy contains goitrogen, which affects thyroid function and iodine uptake, potentially inducing hypothyroidism.

Soy contains phytic acid, which impairs your body's ability to absorb minerals such as iron, causing conditions such as anemia.

Soy contains phytoestrogens, which is thought to raise estrogen levels. This has a variety of affects include the possibility of increasing breast cancer rates in women, premature development in girls, and underdevelopment in boys (if you think that's craziness, wait till you hear about a similar situation with yam containing progesterone).

The use of soy-based formulas in infants has been related to autoimmune thyroid diseases later in life.


Many people also argue that Asians have been eating soy for quite some time, and in large amounts, but it doesn't seem to have the adverse health affects on them. Well what if we told you that Asians don't eat as much soy as you think.

That definitely sounds like soy has a bad rap...but let's see what the other side has to say in defense....


Soy is My Bestest Friend
Addressing each individual issue with the resources I've found:

Organic soy, along with an organic diet should be ok because estrogen only causes cancer when there is also a presence of free radicals (toxins) in the system. Organic soy phytoestrogens can also actually help prevent certain types of cancer.


Many common vegetables contain goitrogens. The best thing to do is to balance your diet by eating foods high in iodine to counter the goitrogens.

Phytic acid has been shown to possibly help prevent different types of cancer, osteoporosis, and Parkinson's.


Now that doesn't sound too bad, does it?

Conclusions
Ultimately, you will need to come to your own conclusions about soy and how it fits into your family's diet.

I personally learned a lot about soy by writing this article and doing the in-depth research I never made the time to do before. My family used to drink soy milk on a regular basis. Then I found out about the adverse health effects and we switched to almond milk and a lactose-free cow's milk. Writing this article made me rely on more than a rumor to substantiate the health issues involved with soy.

So where do I stand now? I think organic soy in moderation is probably the best way to go. Research renders it an undeniable fact (in my mind, at least), that larger amounts of soy in a non-organic diet does increase the risk of various cancers. I personally would not base my diet on tofu, soy milk, soy proteins, etc. But I think my family will return to drinking soy milk (which I happen to find incredibly delicious...especially chocolate soy milk...mmm) so long as it is organic.