Consumer Reports vs. Attachment Parenting

The problem is that the CR report seems to rely on anecdotal evidence for its attacks. Bath seats: they're statistically safe; yes, infants using them drown, but at about the same rate as infants not using them (and this is without factoring in "misuse," which I'd tend to imagine would further mitigate the risk). So citing cases in which kids using bath seats have drowned is clearly disingenuous-- "confirmed reports of death and injury" are meaningless out of a context of statistical risk.

Your reference to car seats is interesting in this context, in that they are probably a generally safe and good idea, but (a.) they known to contribute to infant death when improperly installed, and (b.) they are improperly installed in an estimated 82% of cases (NHTSA). The massive cognitive dissonance that should result from this information doesn't seem to make a dent in our shared cultural belief that car seats are a Safe Thing. I mean, that's got to be interesting-- if we're going to damn sling carriers due to the (comparably quite small) risks of improper usage, why do we still have not just a widespread acceptance but widespread insistence on the use of infant car seats? And this is leaving completely aside for the moment Stephen Leavitt's much-maligned-but-as-of-yet-unrefuted argument about the relative uselessness of car seats for children above the age of 2. (Sadly, there's a real dearth of good studies about infant car seat safety; it's only been in the last two months that realistic data about infant car seat performance has started to be taken seriously in public discourse, and we're probably a long way from the point at which research makes any dent in our current prescriptive policy regarding car seats.)

We're hella inconsistent about our standards for safety, is all I'm saying. And it's got to be at least interesting that we are fairly predictably inconsistent in (as I think Sierra's getting at in her comment above) tending to favor irrational positions that are in line with entrenched and traditional parenting norms.

I sort of feel that anybody who uses Consumer Reports to make parenting decisions is probably best off not doing attachment parenting. Don't get me wrong, this sort of shit does bug me because, if I remember correctly, the incidence of SIDS is higher for crib sleeper, at least those that are located in rooms other than the parents so "default parenting is safer" is sort of bullshit. On the other hand, if a bunch of folks decide to start doing half-assed attachment parenting, deciding to do things like use slings without getting proper instructions on how to use them... that's going to lead to a whole lot of ER visits and headlines in the Boston Globe "Attachment Parenting Leads to More Infant Injury!", because that sells more burgers than "Stupid People Being Half-Assed in their Parenting Leadings to More Infant Injury!".

On the positive side, CR is actually interested in the safety of consumers and being in the middle of a shit-storm like this might make them realize that there are a whole lot of consumers who are doing attachment parenting. And maybe next year instead of a "Five Products Not to Buy For Your Baby." article, they'll have a "Twenty Slings Tested and Reviewed" article. But maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

I'll grant you the first point: my own kids being healthy and whole doesn't mean any given practice is safe overall. It was sloppy writing on my part; trying to conflate two points.

The first is that we as a society often decide that practices are "not safe *enough*" for reasons other than real safety risks. This is, in my experience, especially true when it comes to children. There's a lot of cultural anxiety that goes into decision-making about children and risk, plus a lot of fear and blame. It's not a good environment for any kind of rational decision-making, and I think parents and kids have lost a lot of joy, peace and freedom in the quest for safety, often for very small safety gains. There's a lot of good evidence that co-sleeping is in fact safe. I don't know about co-sleepers per se, as I said. The products might introduce new risks, but in general having your baby in your bed is safer than having your baby in a crib.

My second point is that the Consumer Reports article was based on very sloppy reporting. For example, he says that 4 infants have died over the past five years as a result of falling from slings and therefore all slings are dangerous and no one should buy them. Here is an article that cites 4 infant deaths just in 2007 in one particular type of crib. And yet he does not suggest that consumers avoid all cribs. In fact he repeats the myth that the safest place for a baby to sleep is in a crib.

I'm not saying consumer reports should recommend these products in the absence of safety testing, but they should not slam them either. A responsible approach would be to point out that there are no safety standards and explore what appropriate safety features one should look for. Or just leave it alone until there is real safety evidence to report on one way or the other.

I'm torn on this sort of thing. On the one hand, I want the government to provide us with information and protect us from unscrupulous businesses that will trade our money for a product that may be dangerous or harmful to us or our families. On the other, I want to be able to make choices that are off the mainstream and may not be safety tested or approved. I'm pretty sure my life would be better with LESS regulation and general social paranoia (antibacterial soap, people?), but it's also likely that this would also be connected to more deaths or injuries here and there. I'm willing to accept this risk at least in part because it's theoretical and seems distant. Nevertheless, I want (and I want other people to have) more opportunities to make choices that are not preapproved by some authority agency.

My babes just slept in my bed. Under a mountain of soft blankets. Yeah, I’m a safety rebel. They are happy healthy kids. There you go.

Sorry, but I don't think that anecdotal evidence is an acceptable counter-argument here. Lots of people of a generation or two back could say, "Well, we drove our kids around everywhere and we didn't have any car seats -- we just held them! And they're fine!". And it would be true. But enough people's kids *weren't* fine that we as a society decided that it's not safe *enough* to transport small children without a car seat.

I'm also surprised by your use of the word "hearsay". I wouldn't consider confirmed reports of death and injury, and two product recalls, hearsay. Granted, he generalized from one product recall in each category, but I, for one, think his point is valid that parents have no assurances whatsoever that these devices have met any independent standards of safety, the way they do with cribs or car seats. He maybe should have said "don't buy these yet" for those two, sure, but he was basing his opinion on more than just his own bias.