This article titled “Light drinking during pregnancy ‘does children no harm’” was written by Sarah Boseley, health editor, for The Guardian on Tuesday 5th October 2010 23.01 UTC

Light drinking in pregnancy does babies no harm in the long run, according to a substantial new study which challenges the government’s advice that women should abstain completely for nine months.

The study showed that the children of mothers who drank one or two units of alcohol a week during pregnancy have suffered no ill-effects by the time they are five. They do not have behavioural difficulties and nor are they behind in their intellectual development.

The work is published online today in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. It should help to give women credible information on which to base their choice, said joint author Dr Yvonne Kelly of University College London’s department of epidemiology and public health.

“This isn’t about heavy consumption or foetal alcohol syndrome in any sense or about binge-drinking,” said Kelly. “It is about the occasional drink and whether that is associated with developmental problems.”

She did not want to comment on the current advice from government. “I’m not sure we’re in the business of acting as advocates but if women have information, it is plausible that they can make informed choices,” she said.

The study is based on a large sample from the millennium cohort study – 11,500 children who were born between September 2000 and January 2002. The mothers were interviewed in person about their drinking patterns while they were pregnant.

They were placed in one of five categories: teetotal; those who drank but not in pregnancy; light drinkers (one to two units per week); moderate (three to six units a week or three to five at one sitting); and binge or heavy drinkers (seven or more units a week or six at one sitting).

Just under 6% of the women never drank and 60% abstained during pregnancy. Just under 26% said they were light drinkers, 5.5% were moderate drinkers and 2.5% were binge or heavy drinkers.

The team have already published their results for children up to the age of three. The latest paper follows them to the age of five, to ensure there is no “sleeper” effect of the alcohol their mothers drank during pregnancy.

They found that children whose mothers had been heavy drinkers were more likely to be hyperactive and have behavioural and emotional problems than those whose mothers abstained during pregnancy.

But there was no evidence to suggest that the children of light drinkers, whose mothers had no more than the odd glass of wine a week, had been in any way harmed.

Women who drank occasionally tended to be from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, which the authors took into account in their calculations.

Their children were 30% less likely to have behavioural problems and had higher scores in mental development tests than those of women who abstained in pregnancy.

But the government reiterated its advice that pregnant women should not drink at all.

“After assessing the available evidence, we cannot say with confidence that drinking during pregnancy is safe and will not harm your baby,” said a spokesperson.

“Therefore, as a precautionary measure, our advice to pregnant women and women trying to conceive is to avoid alcohol.”

Dr Anthony Falconer, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said current evidence showed one to two units a week was acceptable. The key public health message is that “light drinking is fine but heavy and binge drinking should be avoided”, he said.

“Anecdotally, the majority of women are responsible and tend to stop drinking once they find out they are pregnant,” he said. “But with rising levels of binge drinking among younger women, we are concerned about those who find it difficult to wean themselves off alcohol, as heavy, sustained drinking will damage the foetus.

“These women should be given the support they need, not just during pregnancy but in the longer term.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Have baby, will travel” was written by Viv Groskop, for guardian.co.uk on Saturday 25th September 2010 23.05 UTC

What sort of person takes their three-week-old baby to a work meeting in the rush hour? Er, that would be me. Because last week I officially went back to work. As I waited for a commuter train, dressed in what were obviously work clothes but, confusingly, pushing a pram, a woman came up to me. “I really admire you,” she gushed. “I didn’t go back to work for a year.” The approaching 8.05 drowned out my reply: “Do not admire me. For I am stupid.”

You know those annoying fridge magnets which read: “Oops, I forgot to have a baby”? Mine should read: “Oops, I forgot to save up for my maternity leave.” I am self-employed and my company is run by an incompetent: me. This is the third time I have failed to make any provision for time off. It’s part disorganisation, part freelance paranoia, part workaholism. It’s all my choice and my fault and, if I’m totally honest, I love it. Plus, never stopping work means never having to go back to work, which I have always thought looked extremely painful.

In the short term, though, travelling with a tiny child is no picnic.

Last week, it meant a train and a tube, about 56 sets of stairs and a huge, Heathrow-bound Australian who had parked his outsize suitcase in the only space where the pram would fit. “Move your suitcase now or I am going to cause a scene,” I growled. One side-effect of parenthood: you become the A Team’s BA Baracas.

The no-leave maternity leave is, indeed, a strange half-life. Some days are spent in a haze of sleepless feeding and school runs. Other days – and they come and go unpredictably – are spent making yourself look as if you are a functioning adult and are perfectly capable of interacting with others of your kind.

Look! You are wearing heels! You have come to a work meeting! You just happen also to have a baby with you! A baby you need to feed by exposing your freakishly large bosom to everyone every three hours!

The interface of the suckling infant with the adult working world is the most unpredictable factor. On the packed, rush-hour train the other day, a feeding moment became inevitable. Perched on the sticky velour South West Trains flip-up seat, I wrestled the child into position with maximum discretion. But you forget the one truth about breastfeeding. As novelist Anne Enright puts it: “I know of no quicker way to clear a room.”

As we got closer to the city centre, the carriage was rammed. Some people were left on the platform, waiting for the next train. As passengers wheezed, sweated and gasped in the crush, the seat next to my lactating self remained free and unoccupied throughout a full 13 stops. I blushed.

The baby made a lot of loud sucking noises.

When he stopped feeding, I sat reading Twitter on my iPhone for the next 10 minutes, once again pretending that here I was, just a normal person on their way to work. Eventually, I stood up to get off the train. As I was navigating the pram the length of the carriage, I thought to myself: “What’s that funny pink mark on my top?” It turned out to be my nipple. It had been hanging out all the time. And I was 10 minutes late.

It’s still men only for Alastair

At least there is no danger of bumping into Alastair Campbell on public transport. He already thinks women are a nightmare. At a corporate speaking event last week, Campbell was asked to name 10 “exceptional people” he had worked with or come into contact with. He chose eight men and two women.

The men included Diego Maradona, Nelson Mandela, Bill Gates and Alex Ferguson. Oh yes, and Bono and Bob Geldof: “I counted them as one.” One of the women was Princess Diana. “For her beauty and how she used it.” Yuck.

The other was – refreshingly and to Campbell’s credit – Cathy Gilman, the chief executive of Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research. (Bonus charidee points!)

If only Campbell could have used his position – and his imagination – to credit a few more of the Gilmans in this world. And if only he had restrained himself on his blog: “Whether you look at history, or the current day, most of the people who would be defined as the best and most exceptional in their field tend to be men.” Ouch.

But is it really disappointing that Campbell should use his position to put women down? Not at all. It’s all part of his Thick of It pantomime shtick. This is a man who, when once asked by his partner to execute a simple weekend chore, replied: “If I wanted to mow the lawn, I would have become a gardener.” He’s right in this as in all things, of course. If we wanted the names of inspiring women, why ask a big swinging dick?

Children’s TV is a real turn-on

Another discovery last week – it’s true what the surveys say. Children’s television rots the brain. But only if you’re an adult. When you have your first baby – maybe even your second – you sit on the sofa for the breastfeeding marathons, gorging on wall-to-wall West Wing. Once you have a third, however, you can forget watching adult TV ever again.

What was once my mind has now been reprogrammed by hundreds of hours of children’s programming. In my brainwashed state, CBBC is my universe, especially The Sarah Jane Adventures (easily as good as Dr Who), The Legend of Dick and Dom (anarchic and bonkers) and MI High (a school for secret agents). At the centre of this cultural feast is the god-like Steve Backshall, the Bear Grylls Lite presenter of animal odyssey Deadly 60. He is – swoon – the ultimate mummy’s crush.

And the national anthem of this promised land? The Viking song from Horrible Histories. “We’re gonna drink a toast from your skull, ’cause we’re Vikings and that’s how we roll.” Superb. Or so it seems to my damaged frontal cortex. When is Deadly 60 on again, nurse?

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

I contacted Babyway because when I received the stroller one of the front wheels would not rotate properly. The customer service I received was excellent and I received a replacement wheel within 2 days of my enquiry. I have purchased much more expensive baby products over the last 12 months than this but have never had such prompt, no quibble, hassle free customer service. Brilliant!!

I am using this for my granddaughter while on holiday couldn’t believe what it was like for the cost excellent and lightweight would def recommend this

the speed of delivery was prompt and the product was excellent, easy to put together sturdy and a very well made chair. Value for money was great having looked at more expensive chairs which were not of this quality. Thank you.

Hi, have never had a better experience with an online retailer. The chairs were perfect, but more than that when it turned out one had a faulty handle she sent out courier the next day to collect. When they would not collect since chair was stuck open she had another chair delivered immediately. First class business. I’ll be using them again if I need baby stuff they’re selling. Fantastic

this company were very good indeed as I ordered this buggy as i was going to Cornwall and wasn’t sure if this would reach me in time so i emailed them and asked if I could change the delivery address (short notice) and they did this for me they were very quick at getting back to me even though they were not open at the weekend I can’t thank them enough thank u.

Absolutely superb service and great buy. This is the 3rd one I have bought as the first was so admired by other members of my family.

I have a small Ka car and this item was the only stroller that would fit in the boot. Very light weight and simple to use.

Brilliant am very very pleased with the service from Babyway. Item was delivered before expected. Would use again and will be recommending to friends/family.

A very good product which I bought for my grandson. It worked really well and would recommend it to any mother that is potty training their child and wonderful for days out

love it, my girl was so excited when it came, thank you… very good price for a really fab item

This article titled “A new mum again … at 48!” was written by Luisa Dillner, for The Guardian on Friday 13th August 2010 23.05 UTC

Our holiday in Cornwall is going well, I think. We are staying in what looks like a ski chalet but there is a strong smell of manure from the neighbouring farm. From our balcony we can see other families playing croquet on the grass. I like watching the other families, although I’m disappointed that none of their children get cross and chase each other with mallets. Unlike them we are not, I say out loud, a family that can play a whole game of anything to a calm conclusion. “Does that mean we’re dysfunctional?” asks Maddy, not for the first time.

“I don’t think so,” I say defensively.

“Maybe it’s just that we shout a lot.” she says.

“Well, I’m trying to shout less,” I say, rather hurt that she hasn’t noticed.

This, our first holiday with all the children (including my 21 year old son Sam) post baby Flora, is meant to be a chance for us to spend a happy time bonding together. We all forgot to bring a camera so we’ll just have to remember how happy we were. So far, the children have spent most of their time together in the evenings playing poker under Sam’s rather fierce instructions. Sam, who wants to be an internet poker player, is torn between letting his younger sister win and risk me pointing out (meanly) that he can’t be that good if he gets beaten by an eight year old. “I’m not really trying here,” he whispers over his shoulder.

In the mornings, the sky is heavy with rain but it takes us all morning to get ready anyway. By mid-afternoon the sun usually comes out. It’s hard to get us all out of the chalet especially in my new incarnation as a non-shouty person. It’s even harder for us to agree on what to do. We decide that everyone can choose one thing they want to do this holiday. “The beach” says Sam.

We eventually get to the beach around 3pm. It’s wide and sandy and full of families with wet suits, small tents or windbreakers, picnics and body boards. We have none of these things. Sam, it turns out, has even forgotten his swimming shorts. We huddle forlornly on some thin white towels I borrowed from our chalet. We have to sit near the steps because it’s too difficult to get the pushchair through the sand. I feel I’ve let everyone down.

But the next day we come prepared. We buy little nets and buckets for rock pooling and the children have a surfing lesson. I beg the surfing instructor to forget everyone else in his group and just watch Lydia. “I said on the form she can swim but that’s in a swimming pool, not in the sea.”

“The little ones usually do the best,” she says reassuringly.

And as I stand shivering knee deep in the Atlantic ready to leap in and save her, Lydia casually surfs past me on to the shore. J’s choice is fishing and we book a trip for 1pm in St Ives the next day. At 1pm that morning we are in a traffic jam arguing about whose fault it was we didn’t leave earlier. We miss the trip.

Lydia wants to go to Land’s End. “There’s a 4-D cinema there,” she says, flourishing a tourist leaflet.

We get there just in time for the last showing at 4.45pm.It’s a short pirate film with a water spray under the seats. Afterwards we walk along the cliff top and I’m touched when the children rush to help me with the pushchair. “Be careful mum,”says Sam anxiously, “Don’t go too near the edge.”

In fact, it becomes difficult to push Flora at all as they crowd round to be helpful. In a rush of love for them, I wonder if we’ve bonded happily after all.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Why barefoot is best for children” was written by Sam Murphy, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 9th August 2010 09.00 UTC

While Katie Holmes was vilified by the press and public alike for stepping out with her four-year-old daughter in high heels last year, many of us wouldn’t think twice about putting our kids in a dinky pair of mini-me trainers. But there’s a growing belief among experts that when it comes to children’s footwear, the best shoe may be no shoe at all.

Tracy Byrne, a podiatrist specialising in podopaediatrics, believes that wearing shoes at too young an age can hamper a child’s walking and cerebral development. “Toddlers keep their heads up more when they are walking barefoot,” she says. “The feedback they get from the ground means there is less need to look down, which is what puts them off balance and causes them to fall down.” Walking barefoot, she continues, develops the muscles and ligaments of the foot, increases the strength of the foot’s arch, improves proprioception (our awareness of where we are in relation to the space around us) and contributes to good posture.

“We’ve come to regard the way we dwell permanently in shoes as normal and natural,” says John Woodward, an Alexander Technique teacher who has been barefoot for 25 years. “It’s anything but. True, we are no longer hunter-gatherers. True, our urban environments are full of ‘unnatural’ dangers. But we can still learn from our origins – footwear was designed to protect the soles of the feet where necessary, and it was temporary.”

Byrne, whose own two young children go unshod wherever possible, offers free foot health checks for children from her East London-based practice. “The more parents know about the structure of children’s feet, the more we can prevent footwear-related damage being done,” she says.

What sort of damage? Research published in podiatry journal The Foot in 2007 suggests that structural and functional changes can result from the foot having to conform to the shape and constriction of a shoe, rather than being allowed to develop naturally. And the younger the foot, the greater the potential for damage.

Woodward illustrates the point perfectly, describing an incident in a restaurant where he was dining sans shoes. “A four-year-old noticed my bare feet and, taking the matter into her own hands, took off her own shoes and socks,” he says. ”On seeing this, the girl’s mother warned: ‘Put your shoes on – because if you don’t, your feet will spread. And then you won’t be able to wear shoes at all.’”

The human foot at birth is not a miniature version of an adult foot. In fact, it contains no bones at all and consists of a mass of cartilage, which, over a period of years, ossifies to become the 28 bones that exist in the adult human foot. This process is not complete until the late teens, so it is crucial that footwear – when worn – is well chosen.

“Most children’s shoes ought to come with a government health warning,” believes Byrne. “They are like awful little bricks – too stiff, too rigid, with no flexibility at the sole and too much heel raise. This is of particular concern with toddlers learning to walk, because it causes them to bounce and tip forward,” she says.

Woodward agrees. “I have in my hand a Nike Air shoe for a three-year-old – quite an expensive item, I would guess. From the heel to the toe there is no ‘bend’ or ‘give’ in the sole. Completely rigid, this shoe will restrict movement of the forefoot to zero. Kids this age should be turning cartwheels, skipping, climbing trees, running around. A shoe like this would seriously restrict such playful physicality – make it less fun, less enjoyable.”

Mike O’Neill, a consultant podiatrist and spokesperson for the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, believes that too many parents treat their children as fashion accessories and choose shoes on their attractiveness or coolness, rather than their ergonomics. Byrne agrees, but points out that it’s not just parents but manufacturers who have a responsibility. “People see particular shoe styles on sale in the shops – whether it’s a high heel for toddlers, a ‘Crawler’ (a shoe for babies not yet walking) or a cute Havaiana flip flop, with no more than an elastic band at the back … And they think ‘Well, if it’s on the shelf, it must be OK,’” she says.

With the recent trend for barefoot running, and the associated questioning of the need for highly cushioned, supportive running shoes, some parents may now be thinking a little more about their children’s footwear – or indeed, whether they should encourage them to go barefoot.

“From a functional perspective, shoes shouldn’t be necessary,” says O’Neill. “In fact, there are more likely to be disadvantages and problems from wearing shoes than not wearing them – among them, deformation caused by a poor fit, ingrown toenails, and athlete’s foot. But you have to consider the environment the child is in. Let’s be honest. Do you want your child walking on the streets or in the park barefoot, where there might be dog poo, dirt and possible hazards like glass?”

This is precisely the niche that a newly launched range of kids’ ‘barefoot shoes’, Vivo Barefoot, aims to fill. “Children get the health benefits of going barefoot with the protection of normal shoes,” says MD Galahad Clark, who is a descendent of the shoemaking Clarks family. The shoes, with sizes ranging from 18 months (the age from which most babies are walking) to seven years, are wide, light and flexible with a 3mm puncture-resistant sole.

The range was launched in South Africa last year (under the name Froggies), and research conducted there found that replacing seven- to 12-year-old children’s ‘normal’ school shoes for Froggies over a two-month period resulted in increased foot strength, balance, mobility and ankle function – the same benefits normally attributed to walking in bare feet. The South African Podiatry Association has given the shoes their stamp of approval.

“We want to get Vivos into schools in the UK before they write their rule books on black lace-ups,” says Clark. In an experimental scheme, the company has already handed out free shoes to six- to eight-year-olds at Denmead Preparatory school in Middlesex. “At least half the class are wearing these as their black school shoes,” says Joseph Johansen, head of sport at the school. “The boys have commented on how much they like them – that they feel lighter and more comfortable.”

The Vivo Barefoot shoes tick all the boxes in Byrne’s list of ‘good shoe’ requirements: a completely flexible sole, a wide and deep toebox, an anatomically correct last (the ‘mould’ that a shoe is built on), a closure at the back and an adjustable closure at the top, such as laces or Velcro. “As more and more evidence comes to light regarding the importance of going barefoot and the potential dangers of bad footwear, the ‘barefoot model’ will have to become more widely adopted by shoe manufacturers,” says Byrne.

So what about shoes for kids that haven’t made it on to two feet yet? According to O’Neill, their primary function is to provide warmth. But Byrne believes they are a waste of money. “Crawling is an essential skill to master, but it is very difficult when you are wearing pram shoes or ‘Crawlers’,” she says. “Crawling stimulates the brain to develop convergence of vision; people who skip this phase as babies may find it extremely difficult to learn to read and write as children. And in the case of children who crawl backwards to begin with, shoes can put extra pressure on the structures of the foot and leg.”

Clarks, which produces Crawlers, makes the following declaration on its website: ‘There’s nothing better for young feet than walking barefoot, whenever it’s safe. It helps muscles develop, allows the skin to breathe and feeling the ground beneath their feet will help them learn to walk.’ The title of this statement? ‘Barefoot is best.’

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

You can do so @babywayint.