flame retardants on sleepwear

pdilly2b

This was mentioned tangentially in the Dreft thread, but wanted to point out to moms who don't know that sleepwear for kids starting at 9 mo often has chemical flame retardants in the thread or applied afterwards. I guess some people find this comforting. I personally try to avoid it and only use yellow-tagged jammies. But in any case, something to be aware of as another parenting choice we all get to make. https://healthychild.org/avoid-cold-weather-nightmares-pick-pjs-free-of-flame-retardants/

ksulli

My favorite thing about the non-treated ones is that they come with a special warning, "keep away from flames". Because, you know, otherwise I like my small child to play near flames....

MamaFantastic

i always wondered about the necessity of a flame retardant pajama outfit.  if your kid is near enough to flames that s/he might actually catch on fire, you have bigger fish to fry than whether or not the pajamas will burst into flames on contact.  i, too, would consciously avoid buying an outfit that had a chemical application of flame retardant deliberately put on it.

i'm a big fan of Hatley pajamas for kiddo....  or hanna andersson.  i don't believe either one of those companies uses these chemicals.

yup, my curiosity got the best of me so i went to the Hatley website and found this:  

Are your clothes fire-retardant?

No. Industry standards dictate that if a piece of kids' or infant clothing is going to be fire-retardant it has to be coated with a chemical. Hatley tries to keep its clothes as natural as possible using mostly natural fibers. In order to maintain compliance with industry standards our clothes are snug fitting instead.

mrsB68

Now, I'm all for non-chemical and natural materials; however, I agree with PP that I'm not putting my kid near a flame, period. If there's a fire, yes, I'd like them to be in flame retardant material but in the grand scheme of things I think we're all screwed anyway because there are a thousand flamable things in the house.

AcaAwkward

I always took the flame retardant thing to be in case of an emergency house fire...not like "now I can let my kid roast marshmallows without supervision" thing.

That said, I try and steer clear of flame retardant PJs. Our favorite PJs are Old Navy, GAP & Hanna Andersson -- the snug fitting ones (one piece zip ups for under a year and the two piece sets for toddler). I've found a lot of snug fitting PJs are not treated with FR (example: the looser PJs at Old Navy are treated with FR, but the snug fitting ones are not).

ksulli

Since @AcaAwkward mentioned the one-piece pjs I have to say- they make most toddlers look like one of Dr Seuss' Thing One & Thing Two's. Maybe it's just because DD darts around the house like a Thing, but it makes me giggle every.single.time.

MissWhis

LalaMama81 said:

I don't like them either and often avoid them. But it's for house fire type emergencies. I'm laughing at "I wouldn't put my kid near flame!" It's not like flame retardant pjs are to keep your kid safe at a campfire.

But if your house is on fire, it's not like the pajamas are going to prevent your kid from being burned. 

I believe they are more for campfire situations where a spark could land on the fabric or, say, the kid wanders too close to a candle, or falls asleep with a lit cigarette. (Okay, maybe not that one...)

Either way, the application of chemical flame retardants is supported by a huge industrial lobby effort and many studies have shown they bioaccumulate in human tissues. I try to avoid them, but it's so cost-prohibitive to buy furniture, etc that is free of them it feels like a losing battle. 

AcaAwkward

ksulli said:

Since @AcaAwkward mentioned the one-piece pjs I have to say- they make most toddlers look like one of Dr Seuss' Thing One & Thing Two's. Maybe it's just because DD darts around the house like a Thing, but it makes me giggle every.single.time.

I wish DD would still wear them because I think they are hysterical on older kiddos! She HATES having her feet covered, plus she has a super long torso with shorter legs so 2 pieces work better!

maelic

If it weren't about fires like fireplaces and candles and what not the standards would have nothing to say about the tightness of the sleepwear.

It's not about a blazing house fire (where no fire retardant in the world will save you), it's about sparks or accidentally coming too close to an open flame.

I'm personally going to try to avoid it since extra junk coming into persistent contact with my LO's skin is really not what I'm going for.

MissWhis

LalaMama81 said:

MissWhis said:

LalaMama81 said:

I don't like them either and often avoid them. But it's for house fire type emergencies. I'm laughing at "I wouldn't put my kid near flame!" It's not like flame retardant pjs are to keep your kid safe at a campfire.

But if your house is on fire, it's not like the pajamas are going to prevent your kid from being burned. 

I believe they are more for campfire situations where a spark could land on the fabric or, say, the kid wanders too close to a candle, or falls asleep with a lit cigarette. (Okay, maybe not that one...)

Either way, the application of chemical flame retardants is supported by a huge industrial lobby effort and many studies have shown they bioaccumulate in human tissues. I try to avoid them, but it's so cost-prohibitive to buy furniture, etc that is free of them it feels like a losing battle. 

No, I am fairly certain it has nothing to do w/ safe s'more roasting. 

ETA: perhaps it has more to do w/ fireplaces and things like that, but why would PJs be flame retardant and not all kid's clothing? 

Regardless, I guess I don't really care why they do it - I wouldn't buy them. Look for the yellow tags!

My guess is that it's because candles, heaters, fireplaces, campfires, etc are all typically used at night -- when kids are in their pajamas. My other guess is that it's because the guidelines for this stuff aren't really based on best practice but have been cobbled together by industry regulators. 

And @maelic is totally right. For a house fire no flame retardant in the world is going to help you out. Have you ever heard a news story that went, "The house burned to the ground, but the toddler survived because her jammies kept her from igniting"? The biggest risk in a house fire is smoke inhalation, anyway. 

AcaAwkward

I should have known this thread would eventually go up in flames.

) ) )