- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Upstate NY Babies
TinyPinkBug
member
AAP officially says No Crib bumpers & other hot topics
TinyPinkBug
member
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/18/health/no-bumpers-cribs-sids-parenting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Bumper pads should never be used in infants' cribs, according to new guidelines released by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
This recommendation, issued as part of an updated and expanded set of guidelines on safe sleep and SIDS prevention for babies, is the first time the AAP has officially come out against the use of crib bumpers. According to the AAP, there is no evidence that crib bumpers protect against injury, but they do carry a potential risk of suffocation, strangulation, or entrapment because infants lack the motor skills or strength to turn their heads should they roll into something that obstructs their breathing.
When the AAP issued its last policy statement on sudden infant death syndrome in 2005, it recommended using bumpers that were thin, firm, well secured, and not "pillowlike."
What's behind the change in thinking to remove bumpers altogether? Recent studies have shown that bumper pads may be far more hazardous than previously thought. "In 2005, when we last published a policy statement and recommendations, we had some concerns about bumper pads, but we didn't really have a lot of evidence that this was a real problem," said Rachel Moon, M.D., FAAP, of the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C, chairperson of the AAP SIDS task force and lead author of the new guidelines. "Since then, there have been some published studies looking at bumper pads, and we concluded that if there's no reason for them to be in the crib, it's better to just have them out of there, particularly in light of the deaths that have been reported, that have been associated with the bumper pads."
Since the AAP released its landmark guidelines in 1992 that all babies be placed on their backs to sleep, deaths from SIDS dramatically decreased initially, but have plateaued in recent years. At the same time, sleep-related deaths from other causes, including suffocation, entrapment and asphyxia, have increased.
Anti-Bumper Sentiment Growing
One of the major turning points in the medical community's attitude toward bumpers was a study published in the September 2007 issue of The Journal of Pediatrics that examined deaths and injuries attributed to infant crib bumper pads, based on information from the Consumer Product Safety Commission for 1985 through 2005. Researchers found reports from medical examiners and coroners of 27 accidental deaths of children ages 1 month to 2 years, that were attributed to suffocation when they became wedged against a padded bumper or strangulation by a bumper tie around the neck. Eleven of the infants who died most likely suffocated when their face rested against the bumper pad, 13 infants died when they became wedged between the bumper pad and another object, like the crib mattress, and three infants died when they were strangled by a bumper tie. The conclusion of that study read, "These findings suggest that crib and bassinet bumpers are dangerous. Their use prevents only minor injuries. Because bumpers can cause death, we conclude that they should not be used."
The CPSC initially interpreted this data differently and in the summer of 2010, reached the same conclusion as the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, which had conducted its own analysis of an unpublished CPSC review of crib deaths involving suffocation or strangulation. The JPMA asserted that other factors, like babies sleeping on their stomachs or a crib filled with pillows, might have been a factor in those deaths instead of the bumpers. Less than a year later, the CPSC announced it would take a closer look at crib bumpers in response to consumer advocates and news reports, especially those from the Chicago Tribune, highlighting potential dangers, as part of a broader regulatory crackdown on an array of baby sleep products blamed for injuries and deaths. As part of that crackdown, in September 2010, the CPSC along with the Food and Drug Administration warned parents of the dangers of infant sleep positioners, some of which had been marketed to reduce the risk of SIDS but in fact had caused up to a dozen suffocation deaths of babies in about as many years.
Why is action being taken now to protect infants from the potential dangers of crib bumpers? Reports in the Chicago Tribune from late 2010 and early 2011 alleged that federal regulators had known for years that crib bumpers posed a suffocation hazard but had failed to warn parents of the danger and took the CPSC to task for failing to investigate 17 of the 52 reports it had received over a 20-year span of infant deaths where bumper pads were mentioned but not necessarily ruled as the cause of death. Twenty-eight of those deaths had already been associated with bumper pads by the agency. The Tribune also found that since 2008 the federally funded National Center for Child Death Review has received 14 reports of infant suffocation in which a bumper was relevant in the death.
While the coverage in the Tribune pushed the CPSC to take a closer look at the safety of crib bumpers, local governments also started to act. On September 8, 2011, Chicago became the first city in the U.S. to ban the sale of crib bumpers. Less than three weeks later, on September 28, 2011, Maryland became the first state to propose a ban on sales of crib bumpers.
Why Many Parents Are Still Using Bumpers
Why are bumpers still so popular despite building evidence that they aren't safe? For starters, many parents believe bumpers prevent injury from a baby's head hitting the sides of a crib, or from limbs getting stuck in the slats. And indeed, bumpers were first conceived to cover the space between crib slats so babies couldn't fall out or get their heads, arms or legs stuck between the bars. But regulations changed in the 1970s and now mandate less space (just 2 3/8 inches?about the width of a soda can) between slats, making bumpers more an aesthetic choice than a safety necessity.
As to the question of safety, Moon explains that young babies (for whom bumpers are designed, given that many carry a warning suggesting that they be removed from the crib once a baby can pull himself to standing) don't have the muscle strength or coordination to fling themselves across the crib hard enough to really injure themselves. Additionally, she adds, while it is possible for a baby to get an arm or a leg stuck between crib slats, it's virtually impossible to break a limb by doing so?which means that at most, the experience will be uncomfortable and upsetting, but not life-threatening, until a caregiver arrives to help.
Parents also buy bumpers because they think they're supposed to, given that they're sold in crib bedding sets, and because they just plain look good, explains Moon. And there's little question that modern nurseries tend to look cozier or more "finished" with bumpers, but Moon added that if parents stop buying bumpers and manufacturers stop making them, perhaps attention will ultimately be focused on other ways of making a nursery look cute.
Although the general counsel for the JPMA warned that should sales of bumpers be banned, parents might start to jerry-rig their own bumpers, Moon said, "There's always concern that parents are going to create things and make things when they see the need to do that. Our responsibility is to let parents know that some of these products are not safe, and we need to understand that this may be an issue and proactively talk to parents about these concerns so that perhaps they'll be less likely to do things like that. My hope is that parents learn about these things in prenatal classes, through their obstetrician's offices, through other places like that before the baby is born and before they've actually gone out and purchased these products."
Bumper Alternatives: Are They Safe?
As an alternative to traditional crib bumpers, some parents have turned to breathable, mesh bumpers or other bumper alternatives, but Moon said that the AAP does not suggest that parents buy them. "We're, right now, recommending nothing in the crib, because again, we don't see the point of it. So, why have something in the crib if it's not there for a reason?"
Will Retailers Follow Suit?
The AAP now recommends that infants sleep on their backs, alone in a crib on a firm mattress, without any soft objects or loose bedding, which could also be hazardous, ideally in a room shared with a parent. Really, all that's necessary when it comes to baby bedding is a fitted sheet.
Despite the fact that the AAP warned that crib bumpers could pose a serious safety risk to infants as early as 2008, little has changed when it comes to what expectant parents can find in their local baby super store?in part because baby bedding is big business. The JPMA says that at least $50 million worth of infant bedding sets that include bumpers are sold each year, as well as more than 200,000 bumper pad sets.
Unfortunately for parents, it can be confusing to see bumpers on display in stores, not to mention challenging to find crib bedding sold without bumpers, since bedding is often sold in four-piece sets, including a sheet, crib skirt, bumper, and quilt (which doesn't belong in a safe sleep environment for an infant anyway). But it's not impossible; Carousel Designs, for example, offers a la carte options for purchasing coordinating fitted crib sheets and crib skirts, and retailers like Babies"R"Us and Buy Buy Baby, as well as web sites like Amazon.com, offer standalone fitted crib sheets.
Moon said that she hopes retailers will stop selling crib bumpers in response to the AAP's updated guidelines. "The problem is that a lot of parents don't understand that the Consumer Products Safety Commission is not a proactive agency; it's a reactive agency. So, it only recalls things if there's a problem. It doesn't approve products before they go on the market. And a lot of parents have this perception that it stores sell it, it must be safe?because if it wasn't safe, why would people sell it? And that's clearly not true. I think that it's important that parents realize that these things are not safe for their babies."
Additional Safe Sleep Advice: Breastfeeding & Vaccination
The AAP has also made a couple of other important additions to its safe sleep recommendations. Breastfeeding is now recommended specifically as a method of reducing risk of SIDS. Dr. Moon explains that as of the most recent policy statement in 2005, the AAP didn't have enough evidence to associate breastfeeding with a reduced risk of SIDS, although the connection had been established between breastfeeding and a lower risk of infant mortality overall, but since then, "there have been several studies that have come out that have demonstrated pretty unequivocally that breastfeeding is protective. So, we wanted SIDS risk reduction to be on the list of the many reasons why we should breastfeed." As of now, medical professionals still don't understand exactly how breastfeeding helps to lower risk of SIDS, and Moon explains that it may have to do with "anti-inflammatory properties of breastfeeding, or it may have to do with the fact that breastfeeding decreases infections in babies, because we know that babies who die of SIDS are more likely to have had a recent infection. It could be a whole host of things, and there are researchers that are looking at that." While the AAP recommends, when possible, that mothers exclusively breastfeed for 6 months, any breastfeeding has been shown to be more protective against SIDS than no breastfeeding.
And finally, the AAP now recommends infant immunization as a SIDS risk reduction strategy as well, as there is evidence that immunization reduces the risk of SIDS by 50 percent. This recommendation is particularly notable because, Moon explains, there has been a lot of concern amongst parents that vaccinations may cause SIDS: "I think it's largely because the high risk period of SIDS is between 2 and 4 months, and that's when babies start getting a lot of immunizations." She points out that the rate of SIDS has decreased while the number of immunizations infants receive in that period has gone up in the last 20 years, and that recent studies have shown that there is no cause-and-effect between SIDS and immunizations?and that babies who are fully immunized are at half the risk of dying of SIDS than babies who are not fully immunized, although the why's behind these relationships are not fully understood as of yet.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: AAP officially says No Crib bumpers & other hot topics
Common sense should prevail here....we used breathable and never had an issue with him trying to climb out. I have had issues with babies getting their limbs stuck and freaking out, some being left with bruises. I do see the point to them. I think they also help a tiny baby feel more secure, but that is my opinion. AAP should ban people from improperly installing a car seat, and improperly securing the child in the seat. Banning bumpers is stupid, let the parent make the choice....why freak a new parent out even more? Banning drop side cribs was stupid too.....just make companies manufacture better quality cribs with the drop side.
The deaths are sad, but preventable with proper use and precautions. It isn't the bumpers fault, it is the parents. I will stop now as I am getting all worked up over it! haha
Yeah - well, you aren't factoring in how many people don't have common sense. They go with the cutest bedding set and HAVE TO HAVE the cute matching bumper to complete the perfect nursery. A lot of parents don't have time to read up on crib bumper strategies, so by including them in the package they assume they are safe. Laws/rules of all nature are in place because the average person needs a little help deciding what they should and shouldn't do. We used breathable bumpers too and I am a big fan of those...although I couldn't disagree more that the banning of regular bumpers is stupid or that it's the parent's fault.
As to the BFing and SIDS - I wonder if it could be linked to BFing babies, on average, eating more often and STTN later. Maybe BF babes sleep a little less soundly..
I'd like to read some more about their correlations between BFing and vaccinations and a decrease in SIDS. It seems like it would be a loose connection to me, but I guess that is why I am not the scientist here.
As far as the bumpers, a lot of people really don't use common sense. Or operate under the same principle that our moms/MILs quote and drive us all crazy, "I had it and I'm fine." So that might be one reason to come out and say this - at least it will get a little air time and might inform some parents who otherwise wouldn't have even questioned the use of bumpers. We used the breathable ones, but I was actually questioning using them again. By the time they would have been useful for us, they didn't really work to contain her limbs, she kept pushing them up or down to get out. So we haven't had them on our crib for probably 4 months and that has been fine too.
I've read from several sources that exactly what you said has a lot to do with it. Formula is more difficult for babies to digest, which is often why FF babies STTN sooner.
DD2 8.22.13
MMC 1.4.17 at 16w
Expecting #3, EDD 1.29.18
I really take offense to this. Both of my boys went from BF to FF at 6/8 weeks, and I in NO WAY think that I "gave up on them". I actually did what was best for them...
I'm with MrsOC on this. I'm upset. No, I didn't BF Ben. At all. WE tried for 10 weeks, and it never worked. Yes, he had BM for the first 3 mos, but he did better on formula, and my supply was horrible. He STTN and is extremely well adjusted and a clever toddler. Apparently, I should throw in the towel as a parent b/c I "gave up on him". FFS, I worked almost 40 hours a week, pumped AND STILL TRIED BFing for the first month I was back to work. It didn't work. He never ever latched. I spent 4 hours in a BF class, 2 weeks in labor, multiple scares with his asthma, trips to the ER in the middle of the night, exhaustion, joy, pain, tears, smiles, and a FANTASTIC child to have someone tell me that "gave up on my child" b/c I didn't breastfeed my child. That must be it.
Sorry to those who are offended. I didn't realize you were facing the same challenges with your newborns. I didn't realize that you also had a baby who cried 12+ hours a day before you even left the hospital, couldn't be held and eat at the same time and had all of your families telling you it was all YOUR FAULT because you were trying to breastfeed.
I wasn't refering to the issues you ladies had with BFing, I am refering to mine! By taking offense, you are belittling all the effort I have gone through with my special needs child to make him who he is. I did what I know was best for MY child, and that WAS the close contact of breastfeeding. I wish I was able to spit out a perfect baby out of my crotch whos biggest problem was just nursing not working out for us. We have been effected by autism, and you want to tell me YOU are offended because I believe breastfeeding helped his condition, maybe you should get off your high horse and accept that maybe formula isn't the best choice for every kid and family. just because it was best for yours.
Response makes no sense...No, I'm offended b/c the way it was worded was that if the child wasn't breastfed, we failed our children. I'm not questioning the decisions you made at all.
I'm sorry that you are dealing with autism, but let me tell ya, it isn't a blast knowing that at any point in his day, something could make your child trigger and his airway CLOSES up and he can't breath! There's nothing more "perfect" about having a child rushed to the ER in the middle of the night bawling your eyes out b/c your child is gasping for breath.
We all have our issues parenting, and believe me, I'm the last person on a high horse. I'm happy that your parenting decisions worked for you, I'm just sad that the comment was made about failing children that aren't breastfed. It totally could have been worded differently.
OK, so my choice is wording wasn't the best. It was based on my memory, feelings and experience with regards to my relationship with Tyler as a newborn. I did read and read and read every study I could get my eyes on hoping for some answer to what I should do. I never believed that giving formula over breastfeeding for the sake of sleeping was the best answer, and studies like those refered to in the article DID give me the drive to continue. Breastfeeding was consuming, exhausting and did define a lot of the unique situation I was in. In our case, yes, I believe BFing was what kept us bonded. The issues I faced are nothing like those I have read others faced on here, it was really, really hard to bond with a baby who cried non-stop and couldn't eat being held. My BIL was also like this as a baby, his mother did give up on him. He was the only baby she didn't breastfeed and she put him in a room and shut the door for hours on end when he cried. So this is what I compared my BFing to in this case. I didn't feel this way with my relationship to BFing Brianna, it just was no where near important.
I usually post with a child on my lap and constant interuptions so I don't put that much thought or attension into each word I post, hense the contant typos in my posts. I am not saying that was a typo, just not so much thought put into the exact wording to imply that anyone who didn't BF was giving up on their kid. I have never lived a day in anyone else's situation, and no one has lived a day in mine. I actually still think it was pretty clear that I was refering to MY situation and not anyone elses'.
I breastfeed and vaccinate, and so I dont want to stir up a huge debate here, BUT.. the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the AAP made that loose correlation in order to prey on the fear instinct of SIDS in parents minds to try and convince them to breast feed and vaccinate, because the AAP wants to ensure that more babies are breasfed and to counteract the non/delayed vaccination trend....
We are bosom buddies, I think. The breastfeeding I can more understand, but that was kind of exactly what I was thinking with the vaccines. I just don't see the connection. But again, I've not done any research...
Emily 8.8.08
Madeline 1.2.11
William 8.5.12
First of all, people need to chill.
Second, these are recommendations for the safety of your baby. If there was even a slim chance that having a bumper in the crib was going to hurt my baby, I wouldn't have one. The AAP is saying that there is a chance, so I'm not putting one in the crib. Why take that chance with a life that YOU are responsible for?
As for the breastfeeding, we all know that in a lot of ways, breastfeeding is more beneficial than formula because breastmilk can't be cloned exactly and it is specifically designed for all of your baby's needs. With that being said, breastfeeding doesn't work out with every baby. So in my opinion, as long as someone gives a good effort to breasftfeed, what else can you do? Nothing. It happens.
I really don't know why people go so crazy over stuff like this. Guidelines like this are designed to help you make the right choices for your baby. And all people do is *** about it. What for? Because bumpers are cute? I didn't even buy a bedding set. I put a sheet on the mattress and stuck it in the crib. Done. It's not like my baby will be able to sleep with the blanket or anything in the set for that matter, except the sheet and skirt. So why should I spend $70+ on it? Not everything is a personal attack on parents and the decisions they make. Frankly, I don't care who uses a bumper or breastfeeds and who doesn't. I'm going to do what I think is best for my son and anything that may even have a SLIGHT correlation to preventing SIDS is something I am going to pay attention to. Why wouldn't you?