Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Other things which I thought were jokes

I am slowly plugging back in to the whole baby thing, it being five years since I was last pregnant (and this one is due less than a week after Ro's birthday, so the pregnancies are tracking each other quite closely).  I've been plugged into the internet the whole interim and then some, of course.  Over my decade-plus surfing Algore's invention, I've become pretty savvy about hoaxes and such.  I check Snopes whenever I'm unsure.

Still, I'm not infallible, and I guess I've been out of the baby thing long enough that I can't tell real products from hoaxes, because I've been nailed a couple of times lately:

This is from Enfamil, the same folks who brought you the formula that "thickens" in your baby's tummy to force it to sleep longer.  If I need to explain to you why that's a bad thing, please quit reading right now and go get a vasectomy.*

I thought this was a joke because I saw it about the same time I did the bacon-flavored baby formula, which of course was a joke.

This isn't baby formula, though, it's toddler formula.  The overwhelming majority of toddlers don't need formula, so basically what Enfamil is doing here is trying to create a need where none exists.  They're also working on encouraging a taste for sweets which most toddlers are going to get anyway.

What I find somewhat bemusing about the controversy surrounding it is the occasional women who will pop up and point out that their toddler, who spent his or her infanthood on prescription hypoallergenic formula (like Neocate), is grateful for the fact that their prescription toddler formula comes in a chocolate flavor, because the unflavored stuff is pretty nasty.  This is valid...but for the fact that this isn't prescription formula designed for toddlers who cannot as yet tolerate anything else.  This is for normal toddlers who won't benefit from this stuff at all.  It's apples and oranges.  The toddlers who need something like this can't use this, and the toddlers who can drink this don't need it.

Functionally it's probably no different than milk laced with "enriched" Nestle Quick chocolate syrup, but it's one heck of a lot more expensive.

This next one though is the one that really got me:

Huggies Jeans.  Disposable diapers made to look like blue jeans.

I first saw these mentioned on Facebook, a posting from a known jokester.  I thought she was pulling one over on us.

Erik and I were in HEB last week when he was here when I came across the display, similar to this, with an actual diaper lying on top (a sample, I assume, since none of the packages were torn open).

A confession: I hate Huggies.  I used them at one point with both of the oldest girls, courtesy of a sale plus a coupon, and they suck.  EVERY time they pooped, there was a blowout.

A further confession:  One of the reasons I'm planning to cloth diaper this one is because of the sheer cuteness of a lot of modern cloth diapers.  (Like these, although I'll admit I'm not actually going to get anything this cute, because holy shit have you seen these prices?)  So I get the desire for cute diapers.

But these?

These aren't cute.

These aren't going to hide the fact that you thought it was a good idea to go out in public without putting anything on your baby's butt.

These are also so insanely dark in person that I am positive the first time they get the slightest bit damp you will be forced to deal with indigo dye everywhere.  I didn't check to see if they cost more than regular Huggies, though.

*OK, here's the thing: there is a physiological reason babies--especially very young ones--wake up during the night.  Part of it is that they need to eat.  Filling your baby up with something like this, which is designed to be indigestible is going to prevent him from getting the calories he needs.  Further, look at how many of the anti-SIDS recommendations are geared toward ensuring your baby doesn't sleep too deeply.  That's why you're told to put the baby to sleep on her back and to give her a pacifier.  So she doesn't sleep deeply.  So can something designed to artificially promote deep sleep possibly be a good thing?  Not to mention the fact that it doesn't seem to work, instead turning into a hard, apparently painful mess in babies' bellies.  So instead of the peacefully sleeping infant you think you're going to get, you have a screaming bundle o' ouchiness.  Is it that unreasonable to want parents to learn about proper infant development?  Really?


AlanDP said...

Neither of my kids ever used a pacifier. I gave it a shot with my daughter, but if food wasn't coming out of it, she wasn't interested. I didn't even try it with my son.

We had to use formula because my wife couldn't produce enough milk to satisfy them--so they had both natural milk and formula. We never used anything weird that's supposed to "thicken in the baby's stomach" or anything like that. I'd never even heard of such a thing before.

Albatross said...

"... what Enfamil is doing here is trying to create a need where none exists."

Agreed. This is nothing more than a formula-maker trying to take market share away from chocolate milk manufacturers.

As for Huggies, I don't think we ever tried them. But if they failed as bad as you say they did, I'm glad to hear we didn't miss anything.

WV: coocce - The sound an Italian makes when tickling a baby's chin.

Sabra said...

Alan, to my knowledge the Enfamil Restfull (the formula designed to thicken) is also pretty new. It is supposed to be akin to mixing cereal into a baby's nighttime bottle, from all I gather...

Two of my three did take pacifiers--for a max of three weeks for the younger. I used them very rarely, and never when the baby was asleep--that recommendation is also pretty new.