Natural Dayhome's topics - tribe.net

Born to Shop: How Marketers Brainwash Babies

2007-12-13T23:55:36Z

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet
Posted on December 13, 2007, Printed on December 13, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/70488/
Santa's shopping is in full swing. Peak season for what I consider child abuse, family abuse and democracy abuse -- marketing to children. I'm of the baby boomer generation. When I was a kid, there was Tony the Tiger hawking Frosted Flakes and little elves selling me cookies, but marketing to children was peanuts -- well, probably Cracker Jacks.

Everything has changed, and changed gradually on such a scale that we are paying an enormous price -- in kids' physical, mental and emotional health, and in the health of our families and our democracy.

From 1992 to 1997, the amount of money spent on marketing to children doubled, from $6.2 to $12.7 billion. Today they are spending over $15 billion. Children influence purchases totaling over $600 billion a year. Children spend almost 40 hours a week outside of school consuming media, most of which is commercially driven. The average child sees about 40,000 commercials each on television alone. 65 percent of children 8-18 have a television in their bedroom.

Earlier this year 11 companies agreed to voluntarily scale back their marketing to children in an effort to slow down the rise in obesity.

Susan Linn, an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, weighs in on this effort and what's at stake. Linn is the Associate Director of the Media Center at Judge Baker Children's Center and a co-founder of the coalition Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. An award winning ventriloquist, Dr. Linn created video based classroom materials Different and the Same: Helping Children Identify and Prevent Prejudice (with the producers of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood). In the face of our media-saturated commercialized culture, she encourages make-believe play. She is the author of Consuming Kids.

Terrence McNally: Those numbers in the intro are a few years old. Have they gotten much worse?

Susan Linn: What has gotten worse is that commercials are just so 20th century now. The number of commercials that children see on television has become practically irrelevant -- because they're seeing them so many other places. On the web and in school, through brand licensing and product placement in movies and television programs and even books, and through viral marketing. Marketing has essentially permeated every aspect of children's lives, and that's what marketers want. They want to insinuate their brands into the fabric of children's lives.

McNally: Colonizing parts of your brain and your heart and your identity. What got you interested in this?

Linn: It's a complicated question for me. I was raising a child at home, so it was affecting my life directly. I worked with children, and I could see it in their lives. And I was in a position at the Media Center to begin tracking it. By the late '90s, advertising and marketing to kids had gotten so pervasive that I felt somebody had to do something. It violates most of what I think is important about being a human being.

McNally: What pushed you over the edge?

Linn: Teletubbies transformed me from a concerned clinician and aggravated mom into an activist. That was 1998. I really believe in public television -- and it was the idea that my public television station would import a television program from Britain and market it as educational for babies, when they had no evidence of that. But the idea that they would exploit the trust of American parents that way was kind of the last straw for me. That's when I realized that this wasn't just a problem I was struggling with, but it really was a societal issue.

McNally: Though television commercials are so 20th century, could you talk a bit about the way television marketing evolved over the years. From innocent Keebler elves to the linkage of almost every show with a toy. There are hours Saturday mornings where everything you see is something you can buy.

Linn: I think that it evolved for a couple of reasons. First is the proliferation of electronic media. One of the reasons that commercialism was limited when you were growing up is because there just weren't that many avenues for marketing to reach kids. It's not that they didn't want to. I'm also a boomer ... The early television programs that we loved ... Do you go back as far as Howdy Doody?

McNally: Howdy Doody, Romper Room.

Linn: Kukla, Fran and Ollie.

McNally: They were so low tech and so low key.

Linn: But they were filled with product placement.

Kukla, Fran, and Ollie was filled with product placement. Howdy Doody was actually totally commercials for Wonder Bread and just about everything else -- but it was only on once a day.

McNally: We'd watch a half-an-hour or an hour, then go out to play.

Linn: Now kids see a program not once but several times a day. There are so many choices of programs for kids, and they can get them on so many venues -- iPods and cellphones and portable DVD players. Kids are so much more saturated with media, and with the marketing that goes with it. That's one thing. And then there was the deregulation of everything in the 1980s.

McNally: That really opened the floodgates ...

Linn: Children's television had been regulated in the '70s.

McNally: They had to at least make a show that there was some sort of educational content .

Linn: What they couldn't do is make program length commercials.

In the '70s there was a lot of concern and activism around marketing to children -- mostly with food and mostly concerned about cavities. Childhood obesity wasn't an issue. In 1978 the Federal Trade Commission actually recommended a ban on television marketing to children under the age of eight. Due to corporate pressure, they were rewarded for that by having their authority to market to children severely restricted by Congress two years later. In the '70s they'd passed laws saying that you could not make program length commercials or have the host selling. In 1984 the FDC deregulated children's television, allowing entire programs whose sole purpose is to sell toys.

McNally: Now most children's television consists of shows based on toys. They coexist and promote each other.

Linn: Not only do they promote each other, they also promote clothing and accessories and food and all sorts of other things as well. Now you are hard put to get a program for children funded on television without brand licensing. And in many instances, I think the licensing comes first. You have to create sellable characters. That's true on PBS as well.

McNally: When did that happen?

Linn: I think that it started happening almost as soon as PBS was funded. They were under the gun. But I think that in 1984, 1985 the Republicans took over Congress and they really went after PBS in a big way. PBS responded by deciding that they needed to try to compete in the marketplace. So they went the commercial route. One of the ways that they could do that is through children's television.

McNally: I can only imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars in merchandising that have come out of that "educational program" Sesame Street.

Linn: They brought in something like $52 million just in brand licensing two years ago. I haven't seen this past year's tax returns. Sesame Street does enormous amounts of brand licensing. You can see the pressure of commercialization in a program like Sesame Street, because they start making decisions that aren't really in the best interests of children. For instance, Disney started making Baby Einstein -- videos that are falsely marketed as educational for babies. Then they decided to do Little Einstein, a show for preschoolers, so that Baby Einstein is a feeder into Little Einstein. Sesame Workshop responded by creating Sesame Beginnings, video programs for babies, along with a whole new raft of licensed toys.

McNally: I can see the positive effects on the bottom lines of corporations. What are the effects on children?

Linn: Studies suggest that marketing is a factor in many of the problems facing children today. It's not the sole cause of any of them, but it's a factor in childhood obesity, eating disorders, precocious and irresponsible sexuality, youth violence, certainly underage drinking and tobacco use, family stress, the acquisition of materialistic values, the false notion that things will make us happy.

And the one that is dearest to my heart, the erosion of children's creative play. Which doesn't sound like much until you realize that such play is the foundation of learning, critical thinking, and empathy -- and I believe, also essential to democracy.

McNally: People ask, what's the worst result, and in your book, you reply, "What's your kid's problem?"

If your kid's problem is obesity, then for you that will be the worst result. If your kid's problem is difficulty reading, then that would be the worst result. If your kid's problem is emotional stunting, then that would be the worst result, because, as you say, it's a contributing factor to so many of them.

Linn: In the year or two since I wrote Consuming Kids, I've come to believe that the worst instance of commercialism in marketing has to do with targeting babies. The escalation of babies in front of screens is probably going to have the most disturbing and worrisome impact on our society.

McNally: You say screens, where ten years ago you might have said television.

Linn: We need to start talking about screens, not television.

McNally: 11 big players announced that they would voluntarily scale back their marketing to kids. What's the good and the bad in that announcement?

Linn: I think what's most important is that it's a tacit acknowledgement by the food industry that their targeting of children is a problem. They've actually come a long way, and I believe that's a real tribute to activists and activist organizations all over the country. This is an example of when enough people make enough noise ...

McNally: And when the problem gets glaring enough --

Linn: The problem is only getting "glaring enough" because the activism is raising public awareness.

McNally: I attended a panel on obesity and marketing to kids, and the food industry people claimed it's an issue of choice: In America people should have a choice. We certainly believe in and support public education. Ultimately it's the parents' responsibility. So, maybe $100 to $200 million is spent on public education in a year -- a drop in the bucket against the endless onslaught of the junk food message.

Linn: Absolutely.

McNally: What did the corporations actually agree to do?

Linn: First, let me say I think the announcement is good news. I think the bad news is that none of what they agreed to do is enforceable. We've had 25 or more years of self-regulation by the food industry that has failed, and I suspect that this is going to fail as well.

McNally: I always suspect these kinds of announcements are made to head off something in the regulatory realm.

Linn: There's no question about that, and that's a tribute to activists and a few brave politicians. The food industry is really starting to feel the heat, so they're responding. Instead of just ignoring it, pooh-poohing it, making fun of it, now they're trying to change -- or at least trying to look like they're changing.

What are my concerns? One is that it's not enforceable, there's no enforcement agency. Another is that we have eleven or twelve companies making eleven or twelve different kinds of changes. So it's going to be really, really hard to monitor.

McNally: You write that two of the most worrisome things to you -- and I suspect these are not things that people might think of immediately: One, that it's having an adverse effect on creativity and children's creative play, and two, on democracy itself.

Linn: There's a threat to creative play in a lot of different ways. One of them is the notion that you need certain products or brands in order to play. You can't play Harry Potter without a Harry Potter wand or a Harry Potter broomstick or this or that. Creativity comes out of silence and emptiness in some ways and out of desire. You need that in order to create. So if everything is given to you -- all of these media-linked toys, and the scripts themselves, and your seeing them over and over again. One thing that happens is that you don't need to be creative.

McNally: You don't even realize that there was another way.

I went to Disneyland a few years ago. In the finale of the big show, a pirate ship sailed into view, and Mickey came out on the bow and sang a song about imagination -- you've got to have imagination, you've got to use your imagination. Yet for an entire day leading up to that, every foot you walked, some sort of Disney image or Disney character was thrown at you. The message about using your imagination is totally disingenuous. Your imagination is completely filled with Disney images before you ever consider having a thought of your own.

Linn: And it's Disney on top of Nickelodeon on top of Shrek. It's not like I'm a technophobe or a Luddite at all. I've worked in television, and think that it has some potential to do good. But the business of media has really compromised children's creativity.

McNally: You say it has a ripple effect on democracy. How so?

Linn: What children learn through marketing or in commercial culture is antithetical to democracy. What do marketers want them to learn? Impulse buying -- that's terrible in a democracy. Lifetime brand loyalty, unthinking brand loyalty -- well, we're certainly experiencing the problem with that. They're learning "me first" -- that's not helpful in a democracy.

A more subtle message in marketing is that there is a right way to do something. That's where we get the connection to the erosion of children's creative play. Creativity thrives in democracy and democracy thrives because of creativity. When we squelch that, we'd do very well in a dictatorship.

McNally: What can people do?

Linn: They can go to our website -- commercialfreechildhood.org. The Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood has all sorts of actions that you can get engaged in. You can send a letter to your senator supporting Tom Harkin's bill to restore the FTC's power to regulate marketing to kids. You can send an email to Scholastic, asking them to stop marketing the Bratz dolls in schools. We have fact sheets and a PowerPoint presentation you can use to educate other people about one of the central problems in the 21st century.

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org

posted in Natural Dayhome - 0 replies

ditch the cell phone

2007-08-21T20:13:07Z

PLEASE help spread alert, the worlds' bees are dying!

Without bees, we can NOT survive. Please post this on as many forums as you can.

news.independent.co.uk/enviro...968.ece

CELL PHONE RADIATION
MAY BE KILLING BEES

Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame
for mysterious world wide 'colony collapse' of bees

By Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross
Published: 15 April 2007

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.
They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.
The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".
No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.
Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."
The case against handsets
Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.
Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

posted in Natural Dayhome - 3 replies

new moderator

2007-07-26T15:56:33Z

I would love to be the new moderator for this tribe, but I think it needs a new title any ideas and does anyone know how to do that?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 6 replies

Why you should abandon your antibacterial soap

2007-07-12T18:09:28Z

from Mother Earth News

October/November 2006
Why You Don’t Need Antibacterial Soap
By Tabitha Alterman
Green Gazette

More Natural Health from Mother Earth Living
If you choose “antibacterial” products because you trust them to kill germs, think again. According to recent studies, antiseptic ingredients added to numerous products are not effective and may actually be harmful.

In 2005, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel concluded that there is “no added benefit” from using antimicrobial products over plain soap and water. There’s also toxicity to consider. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health discovered that one of the most popular antimicrobials, the pesticide triclocarban (TCC), defies water treatment methods after we wash our hands of it. Once it’s flushed down drains, about 75 percent of TCC makes it through treatments meant to break it down, and it ends up in our surface water and in municipal sludge. This sludge is regularly applied to U.S. crop fields as a fertilizer, meaning the chemical could potentially accumulate in our food, too.

According to Rolf Halden, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Johns Hopkins and lead author of the most recent study, TCC contaminates 60 percent of U.S. streams. In addition, he says it is known to cause cancer and reproductive problems in mammals, and blue-baby syndrome in human infants.

Introducing an antimicrobial into the environment in this way also has the unwanted effect of increasing pathogens’ resistance to clinically important antibiotics. The antiseptic triclosan — another popular antimicrobial added to numerous products — is known to promote the growth of resistant bacteria, including E. coli. In fact, the American Medical Association (AMA) took an official stance in 2000 against adding antimicrobials to consumer products. The AMA has repeatedly urged the FDA to better regulate these chemicals, advising that they should be avoided “until the data emerge to show antimicrobials in consumer products are effective at preventing infection.”

Currently, there is no mandatory monitoring of TCC, but approximately 1 million pounds of it are released annually in the United States. Since 2000, about 1,500 new antibacterial products have hit store shelves.

Halden says the irony of his research is two-fold: “First, to protect our health, we mass-produce and use a toxic chemical which the FDA has determined has no scientifically proven benefit. Second, when we try to do the right thing by recycling biosolids, we end up spreading a known reproductive toxicant on the soil where we grow our food.” He emphasizes the importance of considering the full life cycle of the chemicals we manufacture.

posted in Natural Dayhome - 9 replies

(x-post)Sunscreen

2007-07-08T09:11:43Z

What sunscreen do you mama's use? I want something with as little chemicals as possible. I've heard that some oils are natural sunscreen but they didn't know which ones...

posted in Natural Dayhome - 7 replies

moderator

2007-05-02T18:16:59Z

Aisha why don't you become the moderator again?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 1 reply

Ant Control?

2007-05-02T06:31:48Z

We live on a massive ant hill and I'm already beginning to see ants parading into my house. Does anyone have suggestions for a natural ant control remedy?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 8 replies

Bath Products- Be Aware for the Sake of Your Little Ones

2007-04-27T20:06:54Z

Hi all,

I hope you agree that this falls into the category of child safety-- I'm editor of a parenting mag, and the type of issue presented below bothers me deeply. Buy your baby products from a reputable co. with values that match yours-- i.e. concern and care about the health and well-being of children and consumers, via producing as 'clean' a products as is possible.

There's some good product info to be found on this site-- hunt around on their various links: www.breastcancerfund.org

~Lisa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, February 8, 2007

Cancer-causing Chemical Found in Children's Bath Products

Women's Shampoos and Body Wash also Contaminated

WASHINGTON — A hidden cancer-causing petrochemical has been found in
dozens of children's bath products and adults' personal care products,
in some cases at levels that are more than twice the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's lenient recommended maximum.

Laboratory tests released today revealed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane
in products such as Hello Kitty Bubble Bath, Huggies Baby Wash,
Johnson's Baby Wash, Scooby-Doo Bubble Bath and Sesame Street Bubble
Bath. The tests also found the carcinogen in Clairol Herbal Essences
shampoo, Olay Complete Body Wash and many other personal care
products.

1,4-Dioxane is a petroleum-derived contaminant considered a probable
human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a
clear-cut animal carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program. It is
also on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or
suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects. Because it is
a contaminant produced during manufacturing, the FDA does not require
it to be listed as an ingredient on product labels.

The problem of 1,4-Dioxane contamination in personal care products is
highlighted in a new book, "Safe Trip to Eden: Ten Steps to Save the
Planet Earth from the Global Warming Meltdown," by David Steinman. The
laboratory results were released jointly today at the National Press
Club by Steinman and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of
U.S.-based health and environmental groups working to protect
cosmetics consumers from toxic chemicals and hold companies
accountable for the safety of their products.

"Regrettably, 1,4-Dioxane contamination is just the tip of the
iceberg," said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., executive director of the Breast
Cancer Fund, a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
"Because the FDA does not require cosmetics products to be approved as
safe before they are sold, companies can put unlimited amounts of
toxic chemicals in cosmetics."

Steinman said parents should be outraged that companies are willing to
spend a significant amount of money on entertainment licensing
agreements that entice children but won't spend pennies to remove
contaminants such as 1,4-Dioxane.

"Consumers who have young children, as I do, have the right to expect
the highest purity in children's products," Steinman said. "I call on
American consumers to say no to dangerous petrochemicals in their
children's cosmetic and personal care products."

Contrary to what many consumers may believe, the FDA does not review
or regulate cosmetics products or ingredients for safety before they
are sold to the public and has no legal authority to require safety
assessments of cosmetics.

Devra Lee Davis, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center
for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute, said that the usual regulatory approach of assessing risk
one chemical at a time does not account for the combined effects of
very low levels of hidden contaminants in personal care products and
from other sources. "We must lower exposures to controllable agents
that we know or suspect cause cancer," she said.

The FDA has been measuring 1,4-Dioxane levels since 1979, but because
the agency has little authority or enforcement capacity over the
cosmetics industry, it has worked with manufacturers to reduce levels
on a voluntary basis only. In 2000, the FDA recommended that cosmetic
products should not contain 1,4-Dioxane at concentrations greater than
10 ppm (parts per million); yet some 15 percent of products tested
exceeded even these lenient guidelines. This limit, however, also does
not take into account that babies exposed to 1,4-Dioxane from baby
shampoo may be exposed at the same time to 1,4-Dioxane from bubble
bath, body wash and many other products.

More than two dozen products were tested at Steinman's request by West
Coast Analytical Service, an independent testing laboratory
specializing in trace chemical analysis. Among the products tested:

Product
Baby & Children's Consumer Products

1,4-Dioxane
concentration
Disney Clean as Can Bee Hair & Body Wash (Water Jel Technologies) 8.8 ppm
Disney Pixar Cars Piston Cup Bubble Bath (MZB Personal Care) 2.2 ppm
Gerber Grins & Giggles Gentle & Mild Aloe Vera Baby Shampoo 8.4 ppm
Hello Kitty Bubble Bath (Kid Care) 12 ppm*
Huggies Baby Wash Shea Butter 4.0 ppm
Huggies Natural Care Baby Wash Extra Gentle and Tear Free 4.2 ppm
Johnson's Head-to-Toe Baby Wash (Johnson & Johnson) 5.3 ppm to 6.1 ppm
Johnson's Kids Tigger Bath Bubbles (Johnson & Johnson) 5.6 ppm to 7.9 ppm
Johnson's Kids Shampoo Watermelon Explosion (Johnson & Johnson) 10 ppm*
Lil' Bratz Mild Bubble Bath (Kid Care) 3.7 ppm
L'Oreal Kids Orange Mango Smoothie Shampoo 2.0 ppm
Mr. Bubble Bubble Bath Gentle Formula with Aloe 1.5 ppm
Rite-Aid Tearless Baby Shampoo 4.3 ppm
Scooby-Doo Mild Bubble Bath (Kid Care) 3.0 ppm
Sesame Street Wet Wild Watermelon Bubble Bath (The Village Company) 7.4 ppm

Adult Consumer Products
Clairol Herbal Essences Rainforest Flowers Shampoo 23 ppm*
Olay Complete Body Wash with Vitamins (normal skin) 23 ppm*
Suave Naturals Passion Flower 2.0 ppm
*Product was at or above FDA maximum

Steinman's book explains what Americans can do today to be "green
patriots" and curb the nation's dependency on foreign oil. The new
laboratory results reveal the health risks posed by the same
petrochemicals that are part of what he calls the nation's growing oil
addiction.

Women and girls use an average of 12 personal care products daily,
according to a 2004 survey conducted by the Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group's interactive product
safety guide, Skin Deep, allows consumers to find products free of
common carcinogenic impurities like 1,4-Dioxane.

# # #

Founding members of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics include Alliance
for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal, Friends of the
Earth, Women's Voices for the Earth, Environmental Working Group,
National Black Environmental Justice Network and the National
Environmental Trust. For more information and background on the
campaign, and a link to the Environmental Working Group's "Skin Deep"
database of cosmetics product safety, visit www.safecosmetics.org. To
learn more about "Safe Trip to Eden: Ten Steps to Save the Planet
Earth from the Global Warming Meltdown" by David Steinman, call Sheila
Huettl at (323) 208-2629.

Contacts: Kevin Donegan or Marisa Walker, Breast Cancer Fund, (415)
346-8223; Stacy Malkan, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, (202) 321-6963;
David Steinman, author, "Safe Trip to Eden," (310) 403-6995; Sheila
Huettl, Freedom Press, (800) 959-9797.

posted in Natural Dayhome - 4 replies

Hi Folks!

2007-04-26T17:53:19Z

I was the original moderator of this group but i had to go away for awhile as i was getting really abusive comments on my blogs .... anyway, I'm back with a new name. I don't mind if you want to start a new tribe with a different name or if someone else would like to moderate.. I'm just happy that others found this topic interesting and useful!

peace and love

posted in Natural Dayhome - 2 replies

making home safe for the little ones

2007-04-24T05:19:46Z

Irie is about to start crawling and we are beginning to baby proof the house, any tips from parents who already have little ones crawling around?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 6 replies

plastic

2007-04-23T23:54:09Z

do you let your child have/chew on plastic toys?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 11 replies

first foods

2007-04-11T07:22:36Z

what was the first foods that you fed your little one, and what age did you start feeding them?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 0 replies

toddler crafts?

2007-04-08T18:13:27Z

I am attempting to put together an activity program for my dayhome. So far I have 2 toddlers in my care. Does anyone have ideas for crafts that we could do togthere?

posted in Natural Dayhome - 1 reply