Jump to:
ZRecs Home |
Z Recommends |
PRIZEY |
The Tranquil Parent |
Punnybop |
The ZRecs Guide to Safer Children's Products
Get Z Recommends posts and links delivered free via -
-
As seen in
The true story of Pampers Dry Max, Part 2: What Dry Max is doing to kids
By Jennifer and Jeremiah | May 18, 2010 | 21 comments / Join the conversation!
Old and new. Photo by AJsMomma.
In our last post, we discussed the history of disposable diapering in the United States, and how Dry Max represents a new spin on a trend Pampers has been pushing for a quarter of a decade. But the heart of this issue, for us, is in defining the problem and advising parents based on what we see. So it's time we got to the heart of the matter. What is it that Pampers Dry Max diapers appear to be doing to some of the infants and toddlers who wear them that goes so far beyond "everyday" diaper rashes that parents speak out, form groups to help spread the word, and demand a product recall? Is it even possible that a company would invest millions of dollars in pushing an idea so far that it can cause significant harm?
We had planned to cover both that topic and our diaper teardown and analysis in a single post, but we get into a LOT of detail in our teardown and analysis, and we've also seen a lot of push back from Pampers in the media regarding whether or not potential problems with Dry Max are even a legitimate issue for discussion. (They are "insulted.") Because of this, we've decided to dedicate a full post to what appears to be happening to kids, and how Pampers is spinning it, before we publish our analysis of why all of this might be happening. Defending the existence of a problem in the same blog post as the level of analysis we are bringing to bear just wasn't working. So what was conceived as a three-part series will now be four, although I promise we'll have the third installment - the teardown and diaper analysis - up sometime Wednesday. [Update: Part 3 is now online.]
Pampers' defense against claims that diaper rashes have become a bigger problem with the introduction of Dry Max rely on internal documentation collected by the company and now shared, presumably in full, with the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the government's investigation. There are, however, some significant problems with their defense.
Until about a week ago, Pampers claimed they had received two complaints for every million diapers sold. This figure was presented as a "normal" level of complaints.
A million diapers is a lot of diapers. But let's not confuse diapers with consumers. We encouraged Casey, a reader we'll introduce you to later in this post, to estimate how many Dry Max diapers she used before discontinuing them; she tallied up an estimate of 360 diapers, including the period when she did hourly changes to try to address the problem. Based on the report of Alexis, whose story we'll also share, we'd assume she used one full package before switching brands. 100, 150 diapers.
Here comes a little guesswork - it could be off by a little or a lot, but is used to make a point independent of the actual figures.
If Pampers began introducing Dry Max diapers into the disposable diaper stream about a year ago, and admits to having done it since last August, we might assume that that date was the point when they were selling Dry Max diapers almost exclusively. Let's also estimate that the average child (averaging newborns to toddlers) uses somewhere around 150 diapers a month. That means a parent whose child was not suffering from a debilitating diaper rash - the level that would cause them to discontinue use of the diaper and switch to another brand - would have bought an average of 150 diapers a month for nine months, or 1350 diapers, while a parent whose child did have such a reaction, and discontinued use, did it after purchasing somewhere between 100 (a reasonable average number of diapers in a single package) and 400 diapers.
See what we're driving at? The implication of a figure like "two complaints for every million diapers sold" is that the ratio of satisfaction to dissatisfaction is 1:500,000. But if you consider that during this period satisfied customers are likely to have purchased far more diapers than those whose children suffered significant harm - in our example, anywhere from 3.5 times to nearly 14 times as many - you get a very different picture of the impact. That's because the reported number of incidents is the same, but the total pool had been wildly exaggerated.
If you go to a restaurant 14 times and I go once, and I complain about the service, the restaurant manager could conclude that everything is fine because only one out of every fifteen meals served resulted in a service complaint. If this occurrence were scaled up, however, he'd be a fool to think that this record makes him a shoe-in for the local "Best Restaurant" poll.
(And don't forget [thanks, Sarah!] that treating complaints as an indicator of the extent of any product safety problem disregards anyone (everyone) whose child experienced an unusually serious rash but did not call to complain. How many consumers a single complainant represents is an open question in product safety circles, and varies depending on the circumstances, but the answer is certainly not "one." Through research, surveying, and mathematical modeling, companies that wish to know such things are able to develop reasonable estimates.)
Two weeks ago, Pampers was stating they had had "no increase" in complaints of rashes than with their previous designs, and cited a rate of two complaints for every million diapers sold as proof. Here is one of several references made to that figure:
Jodi Allen, president of Pampers' North American division, who has been making the rounds and engaging consumers directly on the question of Dry Max rashes, repeated this figure in an interview with Advertising Age:
A few days ago, however, spokesperson Bryan McCleary began using a different figure. We noticed it first in an article published by the French wire service AFP:
McCleary repeats it again in an interview with Business Week:
Those figures differ by a factor of ten, folks. In other words, for every ten complaints Pampers admitted to in articles published on May 10 and May 13, they are now admitting to one. Meanwhile, the estimate of Dry Max diapers sold (two billion) has not been altered.
So... what happened between May 13 and May 15 that could possibly cause a company to scale back its own internal estimates of harm by a factor of ten, never publicly correcting or referring to the discrepancy and pushing forward with their new numbers as though nothing had changed?
Oh yeah.
Inconsistent statistics and misleading expressions of them are certainly frustrating, but even they are not the biggest problem with Pampers' public analysis of what is happening in homes that use Pampers Dry Max. The elephant in the room is the reason why the parents who are angry with Pampers are as angry as they are, and it is probably a contributing factor in why, if a product engineering problem existed, it might not be fixed in the product testing phase. It is also something so blindingly obvious it is very strange to us that no major news organization has yet made mention of it.
Pampers has publicly relied exclusively on the number of diaper rashes that are occurring, without considering their severity. They have stated that they have not received complaints or calls at a more frequent rate than with the old diapers. Even if we are willing to suspend our disbelief and accept these numbers (see #2, above), it does not follow that a similar number of diaper rashes, of much greater severity, would not represent a product defect, a problem that needs to be addressed, or a significant hardship for infants and their families.
We suspect that Pampers does not even collect information regarding the severity of diaper rashes, as doing so would be a complex undertaking and create potential product liability issues. If this is true, it means that Pampers has no data regarding how severe diaper rashes from Dry Max diapers are compared with their old diapers or with competing brands, and they have given no indication that they believe such knowledge would be beneficial or would affect their belief in their product's quality. Which is ridiculous.
As in the case with Carter's tagless clothing, it looks to us like we're dealing here with an irritant that causes contact dermatitis in some but not others; that the non-universality of effect causes some reasonable people with good intentions to question its reality; and that the "diaper rash" it produces is likely to be so severe that it is the worst the child has ever experienced and, in many cases, the worst the parent has ever seen.
To illustrate what appears to be happening, we'd like to share two stories with you. Like so many consumer accounts of unusual diaper rashes experienced with Pampers Dry Max, in both of these cases parents were using reformulated products that were not labeled as having been changed - and, in fact, were sold in packaging still advertising product features (such as a mesh liner) that were no longer present.
ZRecs reader Alexis and her then sixteen-month-old daughter had their first encounter with Pampers Dry Max over a year ago, in March 2009. Here is Alexis' story:
Alexis' daughter recovered fairly quickly; they went to their pediatrician, who prescribed multiple oatmeal baths, Benadryl, and three different topical creams. But it seemed clear to Alexis, and seems reasonably clear to us, that her daughter had a sensitivity to the new diaper that she did not have to the old version. In our view, even parents whose kids haven't reacted to Pampers Dry Max should be able to accept that.
But compared with many consumer stories about these diapers, Alexis and her daughter were pretty lucky. After reading our initial warning about Pampers Dry Max, reader Casey wrote in. We have read and received many accounts which share many of the characteristics of Casey's, but hers offers a couple of insights you won't see in some: A frank admission of how difficult it can be to identify a problem when you are using a product you have learned to trust; and how guilty a parent can feel after realizing that their child's suffering could have been avoided "if only" they had put the pieces together sooner.
Think a diaper rash is a diaper rash is a diaper rash? Tell that to Casey.
That's it for today. For those who have been waiting patiently for us to tell you what we think might be wrong with Dry Max diapers, you don't need to be patient for much longer. We'll publish our diaper dissection and analysis of possible causes of rashes by tomorrow at noon. Thanks for reading, and please feel free to comment below with your thoughts. [Update: Here it is!]
Move on to Part 3 of this series, in which we dissect pre- and post-Dry Max diapers and discuss potential sources of irritation. Or jump back to Part 1, in which we discuss the history of disposable diapering and Pampers' role in it.
Like what you read here? Subscribe to our RSS feed, connect with us on Facebook, or follow @ZRecs_Safety, @ZRecsMom, and @JMcNichols on Twitter!
We had planned to cover both that topic and our diaper teardown and analysis in a single post, but we get into a LOT of detail in our teardown and analysis, and we've also seen a lot of push back from Pampers in the media regarding whether or not potential problems with Dry Max are even a legitimate issue for discussion. (They are "insulted.") Because of this, we've decided to dedicate a full post to what appears to be happening to kids, and how Pampers is spinning it, before we publish our analysis of why all of this might be happening. Defending the existence of a problem in the same blog post as the level of analysis we are bringing to bear just wasn't working. So what was conceived as a three-part series will now be four, although I promise we'll have the third installment - the teardown and diaper analysis - up sometime Wednesday. [Update: Part 3 is now online.]
Three ways Pampers' assessments minimize the problem
Pampers' defense against claims that diaper rashes have become a bigger problem with the introduction of Dry Max rely on internal documentation collected by the company and now shared, presumably in full, with the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the government's investigation. There are, however, some significant problems with their defense.
1. Diapers versus consumers
Until about a week ago, Pampers claimed they had received two complaints for every million diapers sold. This figure was presented as a "normal" level of complaints.
A million diapers is a lot of diapers. But let's not confuse diapers with consumers. We encouraged Casey, a reader we'll introduce you to later in this post, to estimate how many Dry Max diapers she used before discontinuing them; she tallied up an estimate of 360 diapers, including the period when she did hourly changes to try to address the problem. Based on the report of Alexis, whose story we'll also share, we'd assume she used one full package before switching brands. 100, 150 diapers.
Here comes a little guesswork - it could be off by a little or a lot, but is used to make a point independent of the actual figures.
If Pampers began introducing Dry Max diapers into the disposable diaper stream about a year ago, and admits to having done it since last August, we might assume that that date was the point when they were selling Dry Max diapers almost exclusively. Let's also estimate that the average child (averaging newborns to toddlers) uses somewhere around 150 diapers a month. That means a parent whose child was not suffering from a debilitating diaper rash - the level that would cause them to discontinue use of the diaper and switch to another brand - would have bought an average of 150 diapers a month for nine months, or 1350 diapers, while a parent whose child did have such a reaction, and discontinued use, did it after purchasing somewhere between 100 (a reasonable average number of diapers in a single package) and 400 diapers.
See what we're driving at? The implication of a figure like "two complaints for every million diapers sold" is that the ratio of satisfaction to dissatisfaction is 1:500,000. But if you consider that during this period satisfied customers are likely to have purchased far more diapers than those whose children suffered significant harm - in our example, anywhere from 3.5 times to nearly 14 times as many - you get a very different picture of the impact. That's because the reported number of incidents is the same, but the total pool had been wildly exaggerated.
If you go to a restaurant 14 times and I go once, and I complain about the service, the restaurant manager could conclude that everything is fine because only one out of every fifteen meals served resulted in a service complaint. If this occurrence were scaled up, however, he'd be a fool to think that this record makes him a shoe-in for the local "Best Restaurant" poll.
(And don't forget [thanks, Sarah!] that treating complaints as an indicator of the extent of any product safety problem disregards anyone (everyone) whose child experienced an unusually serious rash but did not call to complain. How many consumers a single complainant represents is an open question in product safety circles, and varies depending on the circumstances, but the answer is certainly not "one." Through research, surveying, and mathematical modeling, companies that wish to know such things are able to develop reasonable estimates.)
2. Inconsistent numbers
Two weeks ago, Pampers was stating they had had "no increase" in complaints of rashes than with their previous designs, and cited a rate of two complaints for every million diapers sold as proof. Here is one of several references made to that figure:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission said last week it is probing reports about babies and toddlers suffering severe diaper rashes and blisters from the new, thinner diapers. P&G responded that the claims were "completely false" and that it has received fewer than two complaints about rashes for every million Pampers sold. [Link]
Jodi Allen, president of Pampers' North American division, who has been making the rounds and engaging consumers directly on the question of Dry Max rashes, repeated this figure in an interview with Advertising Age:
At any given time, 250,000 U.S. babies have diaper rash, Ms. Allen said. But P&G has gotten only two reports for every million among the 2 billion Dry Max diapers it’s sold so far. While it’s not dispatching teams to every home that reports a rash, P&G is doing extensive follow-up calls when it gets complaints and inviting some parents to visit a pediatrician on the company’s dime to explore the problems. [Link]
A few days ago, however, spokesperson Bryan McCleary began using a different figure. We noticed it first in an article published by the French wire service AFP:
"Two billion Drymax have been sold," said McCleary. "America has voted with their purchases.
"We saw a big increase in sales, a big increase in consumer acceptance... they will be appearing in other Pampers markets soon."
He said complaints about the diapers were not above normal levels of one per five million sold. [Link]
McCleary repeats it again in an interview with Business Week:
P&G spokesman Bryan McCleary said in an interview that the company has found no evidence that the diapers cause rashes or burns and that P&G has received one rash complaint for every 5 million Dry Max diapers sold -- about 400 complaints so far. [Link]
Those figures differ by a factor of ten, folks. In other words, for every ten complaints Pampers admitted to in articles published on May 10 and May 13, they are now admitting to one. Meanwhile, the estimate of Dry Max diapers sold (two billion) has not been altered.
So... what happened between May 13 and May 15 that could possibly cause a company to scale back its own internal estimates of harm by a factor of ten, never publicly correcting or referring to the discrepancy and pushing forward with their new numbers as though nothing had changed?
Oh yeah.
3. Numbers versus severity
Inconsistent statistics and misleading expressions of them are certainly frustrating, but even they are not the biggest problem with Pampers' public analysis of what is happening in homes that use Pampers Dry Max. The elephant in the room is the reason why the parents who are angry with Pampers are as angry as they are, and it is probably a contributing factor in why, if a product engineering problem existed, it might not be fixed in the product testing phase. It is also something so blindingly obvious it is very strange to us that no major news organization has yet made mention of it.
Pampers has publicly relied exclusively on the number of diaper rashes that are occurring, without considering their severity. They have stated that they have not received complaints or calls at a more frequent rate than with the old diapers. Even if we are willing to suspend our disbelief and accept these numbers (see #2, above), it does not follow that a similar number of diaper rashes, of much greater severity, would not represent a product defect, a problem that needs to be addressed, or a significant hardship for infants and their families.
We suspect that Pampers does not even collect information regarding the severity of diaper rashes, as doing so would be a complex undertaking and create potential product liability issues. If this is true, it means that Pampers has no data regarding how severe diaper rashes from Dry Max diapers are compared with their old diapers or with competing brands, and they have given no indication that they believe such knowledge would be beneficial or would affect their belief in their product's quality. Which is ridiculous.
Two tales of Dry Max rashes
As in the case with Carter's tagless clothing, it looks to us like we're dealing here with an irritant that causes contact dermatitis in some but not others; that the non-universality of effect causes some reasonable people with good intentions to question its reality; and that the "diaper rash" it produces is likely to be so severe that it is the worst the child has ever experienced and, in many cases, the worst the parent has ever seen.
To illustrate what appears to be happening, we'd like to share two stories with you. Like so many consumer accounts of unusual diaper rashes experienced with Pampers Dry Max, in both of these cases parents were using reformulated products that were not labeled as having been changed - and, in fact, were sold in packaging still advertising product features (such as a mesh liner) that were no longer present.
ZRecs reader Alexis and her then sixteen-month-old daughter had their first encounter with Pampers Dry Max over a year ago, in March 2009. Here is Alexis' story:
[My daughter's daycare] called my husband on a Friday saying that she had broken out in a horrible diaper rash and that we should come and get her from school. She had an awful red, bumpy, rough diaper area and swollen redness from her belly button to the small of her back. Part of the rash was a really bad yeast rash but the other part looked how your skin looks after you skin your knee. It was very painful and she screamed every time I used a wipe or even a cloth diaper rinsed with warm water on her bottom.
The pediatrician's office was closed but we called the on-call doctor who said it sounded like an allergic reaction. I was confused because she had not eaten anything different, no new lotions or creams, nothing. And she had no rash in the morning when I changed her.
We had just opened a new box of diapers and brought them to the daycare that morning. They were the same brand of diapers we'd been using since day 1 - Pampers. Upon closer inspection I found that the mesh liner that we had come to love with Pampers (and is why we paid so much money for the darn things) had been removed. Also, the new diapers were as stiff as a board and she leaked out of every single one out of the box, before we had realized this is what caused the reaction.
Alexis' daughter recovered fairly quickly; they went to their pediatrician, who prescribed multiple oatmeal baths, Benadryl, and three different topical creams. But it seemed clear to Alexis, and seems reasonably clear to us, that her daughter had a sensitivity to the new diaper that she did not have to the old version. In our view, even parents whose kids haven't reacted to Pampers Dry Max should be able to accept that.
But compared with many consumer stories about these diapers, Alexis and her daughter were pretty lucky. After reading our initial warning about Pampers Dry Max, reader Casey wrote in. We have read and received many accounts which share many of the characteristics of Casey's, but hers offers a couple of insights you won't see in some: A frank admission of how difficult it can be to identify a problem when you are using a product you have learned to trust; and how guilty a parent can feel after realizing that their child's suffering could have been avoided "if only" they had put the pieces together sooner.
We have been Pampers users since Kael, my 4.5 year old, was born. Even when we used cloth during the day, we used Pampers at night. I say this, because when we were doing what we thought was "trying everything" to get rid of the rash, we did not switch diapers for a very long time. I assumed Pampers were the diapers, and because of our previous experiences with them, I never once assumed it could be the diapers that were causing the problems.
Somewhere around November 2009, Asa, my younger son (now almost 3), started developing a diaper rash. It's not unusual for him to get an occasional rash. He has sensitive skin, and so we were prepared. We tried all our usual tricks. We used Butt Paste, Aquaphor, Vasaline, Desitin, A&D. We started changing him hourly all day long. For a 2.5 year old, this is a big waste of diapers, but it was worth it to get rid of the rash that no paste could cure.
After using the different types of diaper creams for weeks, I decided it wasn't working. Because he had been sensitive to dairy when he was younger, I decided to work on dietary issues. I limited his fruit intake thinking that maybe his poop was too acidic or sugary. (I know it makes almost no sense now.) I eliminated milk, cheese, and yogurt from his diet. I did this in early December. I remember because it was the holiday season and crazy to try to control what he was eating with all our get-togethers.
In December, we went to my parents' house for Christmas and spent 10 days with them. At some point in early December, the rash started moving down the backs of his legs. During the time we were there, my mom was really appalled by Asa's rash. This was when I decided to start doing very frequent changes.
Also, looking back on Facebook, I found the post from my friend that first caused me to suspect the diapers would be the issue. It was posted January 31.
On January 31, I was reading my Facebook updates and a friend of mine made an offhand comment about how Pampers had a new diaper that was causing rashes.
Apparently pampers has reformulated their diapers to be 20% less material and still as absorbent, but they put them in the old boxes without notice and these new materials can cause serious diaper rashes to babies. hmm, glad I use huggies ;-)
We were really surprised, because none of the boxes of diapers had indicated anything new or different with the diapers. We switched immediately. We noticed a small improvement in the rash. Instead of red, raised, and cracking, it was no longer cracking open.
At this point, I made our first doctor's appointment. We went in, explained our situation to the doctor. He glanced at the rash, said it didn't look like any sort of typical diaper rash but assumed it was a yeast/fungus rash. He recommended an over-the-counter antifungal. We used it for a week with no results. Then I contacted a friend of mine who is a nurse practitioner that specializes in dermatological issues. She recommended that we try some hydrocortizone cream on a small spot. She said that if it was inflamed that would help it. It did. We used it for quite some time, but every time we stopped using it, the rash returned. We finally made an appointment with our family doctor. She diagnosed it as a type of contact dermatitis. She prescribed a stronger steroid and a compounded diaper cream made only at our pharmacy. Finally, after using those for about a month, we are to the point that Asa only has one small red spot on his leg.
I do have to say that looking back I cannot believe how long it took us to put things together. This has been a very long, drawn out issue for us. :(
Think a diaper rash is a diaper rash is a diaper rash? Tell that to Casey.
Tomorrow: Dissection and analysis (we swear)
That's it for today. For those who have been waiting patiently for us to tell you what we think might be wrong with Dry Max diapers, you don't need to be patient for much longer. We'll publish our diaper dissection and analysis of possible causes of rashes by tomorrow at noon. Thanks for reading, and please feel free to comment below with your thoughts. [Update: Here it is!]
Move on to Part 3 of this series, in which we dissect pre- and post-Dry Max diapers and discuss potential sources of irritation. Or jump back to Part 1, in which we discuss the history of disposable diapering and Pampers' role in it.
Like what you read here? Subscribe to our RSS feed, connect with us on Facebook, or follow @ZRecs_Safety, @ZRecsMom, and @JMcNichols on Twitter!
The true story of Pampers Dry Max, Part 1: The Diaper Wars
By Jeremiah | May 15, 2010 | 14 comments / Join the conversation!
Photo by Jenius Photography.
Pampers' Dry Max diapers, touted by the company as disposable diapers' greatest innovation in 25 years, have launched far more buzz than the company could have hoped for, but for all the wrong reasons. Less than one month after the product's official launch, but over a year since it the company being introducing it to consumers both through test groups and surreptitious product swaps, the company is facing an investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an anti-Dry Max 8,000-plus-member Facebook group whose members answer consumer questions on Pampers' own Facebook page faster than P&G marketers do, and a class-action lawsuit. It's a tangled web, and we were determined to get to the bottom not only of the potential problems with Dry Max but the hype that has swirled around the product from both supporters and detractors.
We have organized the results of our research in a series ofthree four posts on what has become for us a fascinating if somewhat disturbing topic.
In this post, we'll offer a brief history of the competition between Pampers and Huggies that has, in our assessment, led directly to the introduction of Pampers Dry Max. In doing so, we'll touch on the advances in disposable diapering technology that will give you the background you need to get the most out of our second post in this series. In that post, we will dissect both pre- and post-Dry Max Pampers, discuss the scope of the Dry Max diaper rash problem, and highlight some possible product features that could relate to what appears to be an increased incidence of extreme diaper rashes. In a third and final post, we'll explore the social media and corporate damage control that have helped make this story a media feeding frenzy, and we'll look ahead to the future of sustainable disposable diapering, and Procter & Gamble's surprising role in it. (Update: The series has been expanded to four installments; the second, which covers the scope and nature of the problem, is now online.)
Our position regarding the safety of Pampers Dry Max has not changed. We'll explain our impressions of the scope of this problem - as well as narrowing the field of possible sources of it - in our next post, but if all you need is our recommendation, look no further.
On to some ancient history.
The secret of disposable diapers is that they are highly engineered products that are designed to work in simple ways. Shielding a human being from the potential hazards of his or her own waste while keeping it contained in a package that does as little to offend the world outside as possible is a daunting task, and most of us would agree that every bit of R&D is money well spent.
After the initial invention of disposable paper diapers in the 1940s, advances in diapering technology were fairly incremental for four decades. The deployment of "nonwoven fibers" like plastics and cellulose in the 1950s and 1960s, the evolution of elastic waistbands and stretchy adhesive tabs from the 1960s onward, and the layering and quilting of layers of wood or cellulose fibers to maximize absorption all proceeded along a relatively predictable path. Like astronomers tweaking Ptolemy's model of an Earth-centered universe, engineers perfected the sandwiching of layers that drew wetness from the baby's skin, locked it in absorptive layers, masked odors, and even adjusted skin pH to discourage diaper rashes or used dyes to advertise wetness and needed diaper changes from the outside of the diaper's well-sealed chamber. By the late 1970s, disposable diaper companies, led by Pampers, were putting the final nails in the coffin of widespread cloth diapering in the United States.
But just as Pampers had vanquished its primary competition, everything changed again. The catalyst was a new brand that out-pampered Pampers: Huggies.
In the 1980s, diaper manufacturers gained access to USDA-developed superabsorbent polymers, which could absorb up to 500 times their weight in liquid, and rapidly introduced them in their products. Suddenly, the quantity of wood pulp or cellulose fibers in disposables, could be drastically reduced, as it was far less effective in absorbing urine and fecal liquid than the SAPs. (Current estimates for wood pulp absorption are 4x its weight; Pampers cites is own current SAP as holding up to 25x its weight.) For Procter & Gamble, the arrival of this technology in the manufacturing supply chain couldn't have come at a better time. After decades in business as the top cat of disposable diapers, P&G executives watched as paper company Kimberly-Clark introduced Huggies in 1978 and by the mid-1980s was regularly wiping the church nursery floor with the tear-streamed face of the once-proud Pampers brand. (Pampers, if only by virtue of its attachment to a global industrial giant, still dominates the European diaper market.) Kimberly-Clark, which had built its brand on Kleenex, toilet paper, and newsprint, turned its expertise to the task of building a better diaper, and consumers fled Pampers in droves. When it came to paper products, K-C could beat P&G to a pulp.
Even a quarter of a century ago, Pampers appears to have hoped that SAPs could help them get out from under a competitor that knew its paper. The full story of how Huggies wiped out Pampers as the leading U.S. diaper brand remains to be told, but one notable difference in their branding, marketing, and product development strategies was that Huggies embraced the image of the engorged, load-carrying diaper, flaunting its bulk on happy, oblivious babies. Pampers, in contrast, campaigned relentlessly on the merits of thinner diapers; no other brand embraced this gospel as completely as the engineers at Pampers did. Browsing the commercials available in the scattershot archives of YouTube reveals the fascinating fact that Pampers' story with Dry Max - touted as the company's "biggest advance" in diapering "in 25 years" - is, in fact, an old saw indeed.
Prior to the entrance of SAPs, for all the minor innovations that gilded the lily, premium diapers were thicker diapers; more padding meant a company wasn't skimping on materials, and that diapers could simply hold more. It was natural that P&G, a company with deep links to the chemical industry, could leverage polymer chemistry more rapidly and more fully than Kimberly-Clark, a recent entrant to the diaper market that didn't divest itself of its own wholly-own timber reserves until 1999. Through Pampers, P&G marketing spent thirty years attempting to link sagging, bulky diapers to both physical and emotional constriction, tapping into parents' anxieties about sensitive stages of child development.
The problem was, parents didn't seem to prioritize diaper thinning as much as Pampers did. Year after year, Huggies competed with Pampers for the same premium customers who valued the latest incremental advances and recycled feature additions and were willing to pay for them, and Huggies won the battle every time. For three decades, Pampers has sat in the #2 slot in a product category it helped define in the 1960s.
Ironically, the struggle for the U.S. baby bottom is not as important to these companies as it might appear to us. Sure, Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark battle for market share through misleading television advertisements and premium-listed prices undercut by a river of manufacturers' coupons and loyalty programs. Certainly, priorities shift greenward as rethinkers like Seventh Generation push the behemoths towards just enough corporate responsibility to combat their message, and if cloth diaperers could vote in the Diaper Awards they might have a sleeper on their hands. But what's happening here is just a skirmish compared to the spoils to be had in the developing world.
You see, the U.S. disposable diaper market is what industry analysts would term (if you'd forgive the unavoidable pun) "saturated." Fully 95% of American families use disposable diapers, and the market grows only when births rise, diapers get used more quickly, or parents are upsold to from economy to premium brands. The rest of the world, however, is full of people who don't wish to use disposable diapers, or don't wish to use diapers at all, and convincing them to do so in countries like China, India, and Latin America is as potentially lucrative as the African continent was to Nestle formula in the 1980s. Speaking of Africa, the most recent figures we've seen pin diaper "penetration" on the African continent at 15%. In short, the business of diapering in the next decade is the classic international chess game of carefully cultivating a nascent potential "need" using relevant local cultural vibes to create a new baseline of progress that includes a highly profitable product people seem to be doing fine without.
Given the obsessive focus with which manufacturers must attend to marketing products that are in many ways the same, it should not be too surprising to learn that the real innovation behind Dry Max is not one of new technology, but of turning an old solution to a new stated purpose. In short, the thinness Pampers once strove for as a mark of convenience is now being sold as sustainability. "If every Pampers mom switches to Pampers with Dry Max, together they could save almost 20 million pounds of trash every year - That's the weight of 63 Statues of Liberty!" states the Procter & Gamble sustainability website Future Friendly. The pitch below by Pampers R&D's Kerri Hailey is typical of the promotional push Pampers has made for Dry Max, although it is colored by the emerging outcry over diaper rashes that have stolen Pampers' thunder as its rollout unfolded. At about 4:00 Kerri gets into the environmental stuff - a 20% thinner diaper means lower pulp content, fewer resources used, lower transportation costs, and so on - things that moms "as a mom" can feel good about.
Procter & Gamble announced last month that it had formed a "Sustainability Expert Advisory Panel" to advise the company on greening practices throughout the company. Some of those same contacts are now being leveraged to help combat consumer claims of increased incidences and severity of diaper rashes caused by the new Dry Max diapers.
In our next installment, we'll turn a critical eye on P&G's assessment of the Dry Max diaper rash connection. Then a third post will share findings from a dissection of Dry Max and pre-Dry Max Pampers Swaddlers, discuss the design changes behind the new diapers, and catalog some potential sources of irritation in Dry Max diapers that could cause Pampers wearers who never experienced rashes from the older version to suddenly get severe ones. Then, in a fourth and final installment to this investigative series, we'll discuss the public outcry over Dry Max diaper rashes, evaluate the fairness of P&G's falsely-marketed rollout and aggressive response to consumer complaints, hint at new directions for diapers and P&G's real prospects for sustainable disposable diapering, and explore the evolving role of social media activism in confronting potentially hazardous consumer products. Stay tuned!
Part 2 is now online. Read it here! Love this in-depth consumer reporting? Get free RSS or email delivery, connect with us on Facebook, or follow @ZRecs_Safety, @ZRecsMom, and @JMcNichols on Twitter and you won't miss a thing.
We have organized the results of our research in a series of
In this post, we'll offer a brief history of the competition between Pampers and Huggies that has, in our assessment, led directly to the introduction of Pampers Dry Max. In doing so, we'll touch on the advances in disposable diapering technology that will give you the background you need to get the most out of our second post in this series. In that post, we will dissect both pre- and post-Dry Max Pampers, discuss the scope of the Dry Max diaper rash problem, and highlight some possible product features that could relate to what appears to be an increased incidence of extreme diaper rashes. In a third and final post, we'll explore the social media and corporate damage control that have helped make this story a media feeding frenzy, and we'll look ahead to the future of sustainable disposable diapering, and Procter & Gamble's surprising role in it. (Update: The series has been expanded to four installments; the second, which covers the scope and nature of the problem, is now online.)
Our position regarding the safety of Pampers Dry Max has not changed. We'll explain our impressions of the scope of this problem - as well as narrowing the field of possible sources of it - in our next post, but if all you need is our recommendation, look no further.
On to some ancient history.
Diaper science and diaper marketing
The secret of disposable diapers is that they are highly engineered products that are designed to work in simple ways. Shielding a human being from the potential hazards of his or her own waste while keeping it contained in a package that does as little to offend the world outside as possible is a daunting task, and most of us would agree that every bit of R&D is money well spent.
After the initial invention of disposable paper diapers in the 1940s, advances in diapering technology were fairly incremental for four decades. The deployment of "nonwoven fibers" like plastics and cellulose in the 1950s and 1960s, the evolution of elastic waistbands and stretchy adhesive tabs from the 1960s onward, and the layering and quilting of layers of wood or cellulose fibers to maximize absorption all proceeded along a relatively predictable path. Like astronomers tweaking Ptolemy's model of an Earth-centered universe, engineers perfected the sandwiching of layers that drew wetness from the baby's skin, locked it in absorptive layers, masked odors, and even adjusted skin pH to discourage diaper rashes or used dyes to advertise wetness and needed diaper changes from the outside of the diaper's well-sealed chamber. By the late 1970s, disposable diaper companies, led by Pampers, were putting the final nails in the coffin of widespread cloth diapering in the United States.
But just as Pampers had vanquished its primary competition, everything changed again. The catalyst was a new brand that out-pampered Pampers: Huggies.
The gospel of superabsorbents
In the 1980s, diaper manufacturers gained access to USDA-developed superabsorbent polymers, which could absorb up to 500 times their weight in liquid, and rapidly introduced them in their products. Suddenly, the quantity of wood pulp or cellulose fibers in disposables, could be drastically reduced, as it was far less effective in absorbing urine and fecal liquid than the SAPs. (Current estimates for wood pulp absorption are 4x its weight; Pampers cites is own current SAP as holding up to 25x its weight.) For Procter & Gamble, the arrival of this technology in the manufacturing supply chain couldn't have come at a better time. After decades in business as the top cat of disposable diapers, P&G executives watched as paper company Kimberly-Clark introduced Huggies in 1978 and by the mid-1980s was regularly wiping the church nursery floor with the tear-streamed face of the once-proud Pampers brand. (Pampers, if only by virtue of its attachment to a global industrial giant, still dominates the European diaper market.) Kimberly-Clark, which had built its brand on Kleenex, toilet paper, and newsprint, turned its expertise to the task of building a better diaper, and consumers fled Pampers in droves. When it came to paper products, K-C could beat P&G to a pulp.
Even a quarter of a century ago, Pampers appears to have hoped that SAPs could help them get out from under a competitor that knew its paper. The full story of how Huggies wiped out Pampers as the leading U.S. diaper brand remains to be told, but one notable difference in their branding, marketing, and product development strategies was that Huggies embraced the image of the engorged, load-carrying diaper, flaunting its bulk on happy, oblivious babies. Pampers, in contrast, campaigned relentlessly on the merits of thinner diapers; no other brand embraced this gospel as completely as the engineers at Pampers did. Browsing the commercials available in the scattershot archives of YouTube reveals the fascinating fact that Pampers' story with Dry Max - touted as the company's "biggest advance" in diapering "in 25 years" - is, in fact, an old saw indeed.
Prior to the entrance of SAPs, for all the minor innovations that gilded the lily, premium diapers were thicker diapers; more padding meant a company wasn't skimping on materials, and that diapers could simply hold more. It was natural that P&G, a company with deep links to the chemical industry, could leverage polymer chemistry more rapidly and more fully than Kimberly-Clark, a recent entrant to the diaper market that didn't divest itself of its own wholly-own timber reserves until 1999. Through Pampers, P&G marketing spent thirty years attempting to link sagging, bulky diapers to both physical and emotional constriction, tapping into parents' anxieties about sensitive stages of child development.
The problem was, parents didn't seem to prioritize diaper thinning as much as Pampers did. Year after year, Huggies competed with Pampers for the same premium customers who valued the latest incremental advances and recycled feature additions and were willing to pay for them, and Huggies won the battle every time. For three decades, Pampers has sat in the #2 slot in a product category it helped define in the 1960s.
The diaper war abroad
Ironically, the struggle for the U.S. baby bottom is not as important to these companies as it might appear to us. Sure, Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark battle for market share through misleading television advertisements and premium-listed prices undercut by a river of manufacturers' coupons and loyalty programs. Certainly, priorities shift greenward as rethinkers like Seventh Generation push the behemoths towards just enough corporate responsibility to combat their message, and if cloth diaperers could vote in the Diaper Awards they might have a sleeper on their hands. But what's happening here is just a skirmish compared to the spoils to be had in the developing world.
You see, the U.S. disposable diaper market is what industry analysts would term (if you'd forgive the unavoidable pun) "saturated." Fully 95% of American families use disposable diapers, and the market grows only when births rise, diapers get used more quickly, or parents are upsold to from economy to premium brands. The rest of the world, however, is full of people who don't wish to use disposable diapers, or don't wish to use diapers at all, and convincing them to do so in countries like China, India, and Latin America is as potentially lucrative as the African continent was to Nestle formula in the 1980s. Speaking of Africa, the most recent figures we've seen pin diaper "penetration" on the African continent at 15%. In short, the business of diapering in the next decade is the classic international chess game of carefully cultivating a nascent potential "need" using relevant local cultural vibes to create a new baseline of progress that includes a highly profitable product people seem to be doing fine without.
Dry Max: A marketing innovation with real-world consequences
Given the obsessive focus with which manufacturers must attend to marketing products that are in many ways the same, it should not be too surprising to learn that the real innovation behind Dry Max is not one of new technology, but of turning an old solution to a new stated purpose. In short, the thinness Pampers once strove for as a mark of convenience is now being sold as sustainability. "If every Pampers mom switches to Pampers with Dry Max, together they could save almost 20 million pounds of trash every year - That's the weight of 63 Statues of Liberty!" states the Procter & Gamble sustainability website Future Friendly. The pitch below by Pampers R&D's Kerri Hailey is typical of the promotional push Pampers has made for Dry Max, although it is colored by the emerging outcry over diaper rashes that have stolen Pampers' thunder as its rollout unfolded. At about 4:00 Kerri gets into the environmental stuff - a 20% thinner diaper means lower pulp content, fewer resources used, lower transportation costs, and so on - things that moms "as a mom" can feel good about.
Procter & Gamble announced last month that it had formed a "Sustainability Expert Advisory Panel" to advise the company on greening practices throughout the company. Some of those same contacts are now being leveraged to help combat consumer claims of increased incidences and severity of diaper rashes caused by the new Dry Max diapers.
In our next installment, we'll turn a critical eye on P&G's assessment of the Dry Max diaper rash connection. Then a third post will share findings from a dissection of Dry Max and pre-Dry Max Pampers Swaddlers, discuss the design changes behind the new diapers, and catalog some potential sources of irritation in Dry Max diapers that could cause Pampers wearers who never experienced rashes from the older version to suddenly get severe ones. Then, in a fourth and final installment to this investigative series, we'll discuss the public outcry over Dry Max diaper rashes, evaluate the fairness of P&G's falsely-marketed rollout and aggressive response to consumer complaints, hint at new directions for diapers and P&G's real prospects for sustainable disposable diapering, and explore the evolving role of social media activism in confronting potentially hazardous consumer products. Stay tuned!
Part 2 is now online. Read it here! Love this in-depth consumer reporting? Get free RSS or email delivery, connect with us on Facebook, or follow @ZRecs_Safety, @ZRecsMom, and @JMcNichols on Twitter and you won't miss a thing.
Categories:
advertising, kids' bed and bath, chemical safety, diapers and diapering, Pampers, safety
A warning about Pampers Dry Max diapers
By Jeremiah | May 10, 2010 | 23 comments / Join the conversation!
You may have heard over the last two weeks about Pampers diapers causing some pretty nasty rashes after the company changed both their Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers to a slimmer design. We've been doing our own research on the issue, and are working on what we hope will be the most definitive assessment of the problem you'll see unless and until the company issues a voluntary recall or offers some form of consumer advisory.
[Part One of our three-part series on Pampers Dry Max is now online.]
For the moment, however, the steady stream of new accounts of children suffering from serious rashes is urging us to publish a few notes now.
First, we have some frank advice. If you are looking for a diaper brand for a new baby, we'd advise you to try an alternative to Pampers Swaddlers or Cruisers for the time being. Additionally, if you are currently using Pampers Swaddlers or Cruisers (even if they are not promoted as "Dry Max" diapers, they probably are), we encourage you to consider an alternative, even if you have already used the new version of these diapers and your child has not had a reaction.
We say this because we have read impossible-to-verify but worrying reports of infants and toddlers wearing these reformulated diapers for weeks and only then breaking out into serious, painful diaper rashes. If these accounts are accurate, it means that children may develop rashes only after prolonged use of the new diapers, or after certain unusual conditions are met, and that it can happen even after you have tried the new diapers and think your child is fine in them. It is difficult to calculate the incidence of these rashes (if you believed Pampers' story, they are very rare) but based on the severity of the reported rashes (blisters, blood, persistence for a week or more after discontinuing use) we'd advise anyone with options to consider them. We've read from many parents that Target brand diapers are a pretty close match to the Pampers fit and function.
Second, although the CPSC has launched an investigation, that fact does not prove that there is going to be any action, and there may not be an action they are in a position to take. Recalls are voluntary and the companies that cave to pressure from the CPSC under circumstances like these are typically not those with the legal muscle of Proctor & Gamble. P&G may be using perfectly legal materials and chemicals in ways that cause an an increased incidence of severe rashes - severe enough that children are suffering and parents are angry enough to take action, but perfectly legal nonetheless.
We'll have much more to say on this matter in the next few days, including a rundown of possible sources of the problem, Proctor & Gamble's handling of the issue, and the central - yet in some ways problematic - role social media has played in this issue so far.
Find out how you can help.
[Part One of our three-part series on Pampers Dry Max is now online.]
For the moment, however, the steady stream of new accounts of children suffering from serious rashes is urging us to publish a few notes now.
First, we have some frank advice. If you are looking for a diaper brand for a new baby, we'd advise you to try an alternative to Pampers Swaddlers or Cruisers for the time being. Additionally, if you are currently using Pampers Swaddlers or Cruisers (even if they are not promoted as "Dry Max" diapers, they probably are), we encourage you to consider an alternative, even if you have already used the new version of these diapers and your child has not had a reaction.
We say this because we have read impossible-to-verify but worrying reports of infants and toddlers wearing these reformulated diapers for weeks and only then breaking out into serious, painful diaper rashes. If these accounts are accurate, it means that children may develop rashes only after prolonged use of the new diapers, or after certain unusual conditions are met, and that it can happen even after you have tried the new diapers and think your child is fine in them. It is difficult to calculate the incidence of these rashes (if you believed Pampers' story, they are very rare) but based on the severity of the reported rashes (blisters, blood, persistence for a week or more after discontinuing use) we'd advise anyone with options to consider them. We've read from many parents that Target brand diapers are a pretty close match to the Pampers fit and function.
Second, although the CPSC has launched an investigation, that fact does not prove that there is going to be any action, and there may not be an action they are in a position to take. Recalls are voluntary and the companies that cave to pressure from the CPSC under circumstances like these are typically not those with the legal muscle of Proctor & Gamble. P&G may be using perfectly legal materials and chemicals in ways that cause an an increased incidence of severe rashes - severe enough that children are suffering and parents are angry enough to take action, but perfectly legal nonetheless.
We'll have much more to say on this matter in the next few days, including a rundown of possible sources of the problem, Proctor & Gamble's handling of the issue, and the central - yet in some ways problematic - role social media has played in this issue so far.
Find out how you can help.
Ask ZRecs: Safer nail polish, BPA-free claims, cloth diapers, tagless rashes, and straw cup cleaning
By Jeremiah | October 20, 2009 | 6 comments / Join the conversation!
Welcome to Ask ZRecs! Today, we have answers to burning reader questions about safer nail polish for kids, cloth diapers that won't stay up, tagless rashes, curiously modest BPA-free claims, Munchkin straw cup cleaning, and bunnies on electric trains.
Carrie, Z has a variety of caregivers and compatriots who pay varying levels of attention and/or lip service to our product safety requests. I'm guessing that nail polish came from being treated at a nail place (nobody I know could do those polka dots) and that it was not a brand we'd consider to be "safer." As for a recommendation, we'd suggest Piggy Paint.
To answer your question, Dana, we turned to Kim Rosas, who knows the ins and outs of cloth diapering and shares her expertise with readers of Dirty Diaper Laundry on a near-daily basis. (She's also doing a bunch of baby carrier reviews and giveaways all through the month of October.) Here's what Kim had to say:
Thanks, Kim! Hope it helps, Dana!
Ava, you've just articulated one of the big reasons this issue continues to concern us. Ever since our first reporting on Carter's tagless onesies, we have heard a few reports of Gap, Old Navy, Circo, and other brands causing irritation in children. It seems that this was less widespread, but it is hard to know for sure how many parents might have had experiences with other brands but did not find the forum to share them in the same way that parents of children with Carter's brand clothing did.
We believe that the Carter's issue reflects a blind spot in consumer awareness about potentially harmful chemical exposure of their children. Our ultimate goal is not just to learn what might be in Carter's tagless labels - whether it be those from 2007 which appear to have caused the most widespread problems, or those from 2008 that appear to have caused some ongoing problems, or those in 2009 that are still not certified as being free of a wide range of harmful chemicals - but what might be in tagless labels in general that should concern us.
We have two posts planned on the Carter's tagless situation as we work on firm plans for testing; one of these posts will discuss how tagless inks are made and applied to clothing, and why certification standards are so important to protect not just highly sensitive children but all infants and toddlers from unnecessary exposure to sketchy chemicals we wouldn't dream of accepting in their toys, skin care products, or even the fabrics of their garments.
No problem, SM! The flip-top lid has a small nubbin on either side that fits into two indentations in the main lid. By putting a little pressure on the flip-top at the right angle, you can release it from these indentations, remove it, and get everywhere for cleaning. The trick is knowing which way to replace it - the cut-out for the straw should be oriented away from the hole the straw comes through from below. Here's a quick video demo:
OK, this next one is a reconstruction, because we lost the letter. You know who you are.
Crazy Reader, you are in luck! They do fit in Geotrax train cars. They also can do something very fun in the Geotrax train station, which Z was very interested in showing you. Those photos are at the end of this slide show.
Sharp eye, AJsMomma. Our suspicion is that The First Years has realized that there are potential lawsuits in making the statement that any product is "free" of any chemical. Given how long it takes products produced and packaged in a factory to actually make it onto store shelves, they were probably pretty prescient in taking the step they did; the asterisk covers the known sources of BPA used in production of plastics but also protects them from trace levels being found in, say, polypropylene.
You could look at this as a cynical ploy to sneak some BPA into our sippy cups, but we suspect this is probably a good faith effort on their part to make the claim they can reasonably make while protecting their brand from situations that are beyond the control of a company that wants to produce products at the volume, price point, and relative priority the company places on chemical savviness - in other words, high, cheap, and relatively low.
There are companies out there that have their finger more closely on the pulse of what exactly is happening chemically in their products - Thinkbaby, whose products were the only to test at non-detect levels in every study Health Canada did, are the most obvious example of this - so ultimately it becomes a question of what kind of a brand you want to be doing business with. I'd say if you need cheap products to have a bunch around, avoid brands you know are bad actors in this space first, and The First Years isn't the worst company to trust with your child's health. If you want to go further, get cozy with a BPA-free brand that knows their products' chemical makeup backwards and forwards and can vouch for it a little more aggressively.
Have a question you'd like us to answer? Email us at editors@zrecs.com with "Ask ZRecs" in the subject line, and we'll consider it for a future Q&A. Sign photo by Laura K. Gibbs, shared via Flickr.
Safer nail polish for kids
Dear ZRecs,
I wonder if you have criteria for Z’s nail polish. There are so many chemicals in nail polish and L is still prone to keeping his fingers in his mouth. He would love to paint his nails, but I resisted because of the unknowns in the nail polish. Thoughts?
Carrie S
Carrie, Z has a variety of caregivers and compatriots who pay varying levels of attention and/or lip service to our product safety requests. I'm guessing that nail polish came from being treated at a nail place (nobody I know could do those polka dots) and that it was not a brand we'd consider to be "safer." As for a recommendation, we'd suggest Piggy Paint.
Droopy drawers
Dear ZRecs,
Can you give me any advice for keeping the diaper up on my extremely active 2 year old? It is really the first bump I've run into with cloth diapers that I can't seem to find an answer too. I'm using thirsty covers (I have v1 and v2) with prefolds. I do have some fitted diapers, but find they are more likely to wick on to her clothes if the diaper gets very full. I would argue that the velcro might be wearing out but it doesn't seem to matter. New and old fall down. Help!
Dana
To answer your question, Dana, we turned to Kim Rosas, who knows the ins and outs of cloth diapering and shares her expertise with readers of Dirty Diaper Laundry on a near-daily basis. (She's also doing a bunch of baby carrier reviews and giveaways all through the month of October.) Here's what Kim had to say:
I have a few ideas that will definitely help, but it depends on how much Dana wants to invest and also how much she wants to alter her routine.
One solution could be using a prefold belt. This is usually used for practicing Elimination Communication over just the prefold itself. It makes undoing the front flap easier for potty breaks. If you aren't willing to purchase anything new then maybe securing a belt around the cover and prefold will help keep the diaper from slipping off, especially if the Velcro is the culprit. You can find them from EC stores like this one.
Pull on covers that are a good tight fit will work well with an active toddler. Since a two year old can stand up on their own, sometimes it is even easier to use pull on covers for changes as well. Most pull-on covers are made of either fleece or wool. Either of these are great for heavy wetters and are especially good for nighttime. The drawback is that they are thicker than tradition PUL (polyurethane laminate) covers like Thirsties. They are even harder to fit clothing over.
For this reason, you can just buy pants that are fleece or wool. These function as clothing and diaper covers. Wool "longies" as they are called can either be hand-knit or sewn from wool interlock fabric, which is a weave just like T-shirt fabric, with lots of stretch. Interlock is much thinner than knit covers. Fleece is the least expensive option. In fact, some parents have had success with just buying fleece pants from places like Old Navy. The pants needs to fit snugly around the diaper. If you can't find any that would work or they don't work well for you, don't give up. Fleece longies are still relatively inexpensive. Wool longies out of interlock will cost between 30-70 dollars. Sustainable Babyish is a well known brand for Interlock Wool Longies. Fleece longies are around $15-30. You can also find lots of free patterns online if you can sew and would like to make your own. All of these will work well over prefolds.
The last option would be re-evaulating your current diapers and possibly switching brands. There are diapers that have gathered elastic around the back, and even some with gathered elastic at the front. These are going to have tighter waists. Some brands even boast that if you pre-set the size you can use them like "pull-ups." There is also a brand specifically made for that called Antsy Pants. Snap-EZ is a brand with both front and back elastic.
And of course, if you decide you like your old Thristies but they just need new Velcro, there are WAHM's who will replace the velcro for you. This service can cost $2-3.50 each plus shipping. The best way to find someone for this service is to hit up a diapering message board and search the WAHM forum. You might even have luck asking local moms.
Thanks, Kim! Hope it helps, Dana!
Tagless label irritation: Thinking beyond Carter's
Dear ZRecs,
My daughter, who has no other skin issues, is one of the unlucky children who gets a nasty rash from the tagless clothing. While I am so grateful that Carters is being called to the mat (I hope I used that phrase correctly), I am concerned about all the other companies who have gone tagless too. A few weeks ago I put a Circo/Target shirt on DD, which had a small stenciled tag. By the end of the day the tag-spot on her back looked like red sandpaper.
If tagless tags are the wave of the future, do I have to research each company’s tags to figure out if the inks are Oko-Tex certified? And can I be certain Oko-Tex certified shirts won’t cause a rash? I appreciate all the information that ZRecs has already gleaned and would be more than happy to support ZRecs tag-testing efforts.
Ava
Ava, you've just articulated one of the big reasons this issue continues to concern us. Ever since our first reporting on Carter's tagless onesies, we have heard a few reports of Gap, Old Navy, Circo, and other brands causing irritation in children. It seems that this was less widespread, but it is hard to know for sure how many parents might have had experiences with other brands but did not find the forum to share them in the same way that parents of children with Carter's brand clothing did.
We believe that the Carter's issue reflects a blind spot in consumer awareness about potentially harmful chemical exposure of their children. Our ultimate goal is not just to learn what might be in Carter's tagless labels - whether it be those from 2007 which appear to have caused the most widespread problems, or those from 2008 that appear to have caused some ongoing problems, or those in 2009 that are still not certified as being free of a wide range of harmful chemicals - but what might be in tagless labels in general that should concern us.
We have two posts planned on the Carter's tagless situation as we work on firm plans for testing; one of these posts will discuss how tagless inks are made and applied to clothing, and why certification standards are so important to protect not just highly sensitive children but all infants and toddlers from unnecessary exposure to sketchy chemicals we wouldn't dream of accepting in their toys, skin care products, or even the fabrics of their garments.
Help me take this thing apart
Dear ZRecs,
You mentioned in an earlier post that Munchkin straw cups were easy to take apart and clean, but I can't figure out how to disassemble it! Can you show us?
Stumped Mom
No problem, SM! The flip-top lid has a small nubbin on either side that fits into two indentations in the main lid. By putting a little pressure on the flip-top at the right angle, you can release it from these indentations, remove it, and get everywhere for cleaning. The trick is knowing which way to replace it - the cut-out for the straw should be oriented away from the hole the straw comes through from below. Here's a quick video demo:
OK, this next one is a reconstruction, because we lost the letter. You know who you are.
Rabbits on a train
Dear ZRecs,
I love the look of the Playmobil bunnies set, but my son or daughter will only be interested in it if the bunnies fit in Geotrax trains. They don't have to fit in the engines, but at least knowing that they fit in the open cars would be enough to make them a viable toy for my child. Can you tell me if they fit?
A Crazy Reader
Crazy Reader, you are in luck! They do fit in Geotrax train cars. They also can do something very fun in the Geotrax train station, which Z was very interested in showing you. Those photos are at the end of this slide show.
Telling it like it is* on BPA
Dear ZRecs,
Not new to zrecs BUT...had a question. Here's a new one...when buying Take N Toss cups with the Sesame Street characters on them, the packaging said "BPA Free*" with the asterisk. Looked a bit more closely and it says "*polycarbonate and epoxy free" so what exactly are they protecting themselves from with the "*"? Any ideas? I didn't buy them... just in case. This whole thing is so frustrating. You basically have to do enough research to support a senior thesis in order to buy cups! Thanks guys, as usual!
AJsMomma
Sharp eye, AJsMomma. Our suspicion is that The First Years has realized that there are potential lawsuits in making the statement that any product is "free" of any chemical. Given how long it takes products produced and packaged in a factory to actually make it onto store shelves, they were probably pretty prescient in taking the step they did; the asterisk covers the known sources of BPA used in production of plastics but also protects them from trace levels being found in, say, polypropylene.
You could look at this as a cynical ploy to sneak some BPA into our sippy cups, but we suspect this is probably a good faith effort on their part to make the claim they can reasonably make while protecting their brand from situations that are beyond the control of a company that wants to produce products at the volume, price point, and relative priority the company places on chemical savviness - in other words, high, cheap, and relatively low.
There are companies out there that have their finger more closely on the pulse of what exactly is happening chemically in their products - Thinkbaby, whose products were the only to test at non-detect levels in every study Health Canada did, are the most obvious example of this - so ultimately it becomes a question of what kind of a brand you want to be doing business with. I'd say if you need cheap products to have a bunch around, avoid brands you know are bad actors in this space first, and The First Years isn't the worst company to trust with your child's health. If you want to go further, get cozy with a BPA-free brand that knows their products' chemical makeup backwards and forwards and can vouch for it a little more aggressively.
Have a question you'd like us to answer? Email us at editors@zrecs.com with "Ask ZRecs" in the subject line, and we'll consider it for a future Q&A. Sign photo by Laura K. Gibbs, shared via Flickr.
Who knows about the latest trends in cloth diapering? Not us!
By Jeremiah | September 23, 2009 | 0 comments / Join the conversation!
That's why I was so thrilled to have a chance at last week's ABC Kids' Expo to chat with former ZRecs contributor Sara Ingmire, who runs the online cloth diaper shop Diaper Daisy, and Kim Rosas, who publishes both Dirty Diaper Laundry and Mama Needs This, about the trends they see in the cloth diapering wing of the baby-industrial complex. These two know their stuff when it comes to cloth diapers - Sara stocks a great shop with good prices and smart cloth diaper starter packages, and Kim's video cloth diaper reviews are exactly what you need to help choose the right diaper to buy. Anyway, Kim and Sara did their best to steer me through the major changes they're seeing in cloth diapers this year (every segment in children's products is very dynamic these days) while I tried to keep up and Jenni entertained Kim's awesome son. Seriously, even if you do not use cloth diapers, you want to spend your time listening to experts like this!
Here we go:
Thanks again to Sara and Kim for allowing us to avoid the heart attack of trying to become experts in another product area of dizzying variety and technological nuance. (No joke.) Go cloth diapers go!
Categories:
diapers and diapering
ZRecs Cloth Diaper Showdown
By Lisa | March 25, 2008 | 15 comments / Join the conversation!
The gDiaper, one of the eleven product samples tested for this comparative review.
Editors' Note: When we discovered ZRecs reader Lisa Lukis was getting seriously involved in evaluating cloth diapers in preparations for her daughter's November 2007 birth, we hooked her up with a half-dozen additional diaper brands and had her evaluate 11 different cloth diaper designs for an old-fashioned ZRecs Showdown. Read on for Lisa's candid guidance and recommendations for the uninitiated and candid reviews for those interested in branching out.
My first interaction with a modern-day cloth diaper user took place at a hip hair salon. The woman cutting my hair was pregnant and planning on using cloth. At that time I was still a couple of years away from having kids and had no concept of modern cloth diapers. I remember my reaction to the stylist - doubt and disbelief. People still do this?! I wondered. Curious, I spoke with another cloth diaper user and I began to think this might be both doable and environmentally responsible.
When I became pregnant, I decided to officially delve into the cloth diaper world. To be honest, the learning curve was steep. It took some time before all the terms and acronyms made sense to me, so I kept returning to websites that rated or sold cloth diapers just to get a feel for everything. They contained a variety of products and many had advice on what and how many to get, how to wash, and so on.
For the first four months of my daughter's life, we have worked with the 11 diapers reviewed below. We used each of them routinely over months to get used to them and see how they performed over time. In the end, I evaluated each diaper on scales of one to five for its ease of use, durability, effectiveness, comfort (perceived), attractiveness, and value.
In addition to reading this review, I recommend familiarizing yourself with cloth diaper types. If something appeals to you, try it. Eventually you might find a favorite. And, to state the obvious, babies are different. While one diaper might not work for your neighbor's baby, it could be perfect for yours.
Useful Terms
First, the short version. Here are the brands and styles with the highest scores in this Showdown, with links to purchase them; scroll down for their reviews, in alphabetical order, along with the other diapers I evaluated for this review.
Purchasing gently used diapers can be an excellent way to save some money; I bought a few this way and always had a good experience, receiving "like new" diapers. If you find a reputable vendor who sells used items and you're comfortable with the idea of a used cloth diaper, I say go for it.
I hope this review encourages you to try cloth diapers. Go forth boldly and have fun!
Blueberry Diapers
Style tested: Stuffable AIO (all-in-one) front snap, $19.97
Ease of use: 4.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 4.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 5
Value: 3
Total Score: 25/30
Extremely cute! I bought the orange dots print and love it. Micro-fleece works well for my baby's skin and helps to wick away moisture to the internal absorbent layers. In all-in-ones, the absorbent layer is built in, which is handy but makes for long drying times. This diaper is stuffable like a pocket diaper which means that you can load it with more cloth for greater absorbency (good for nighttime). The diaper is very easy to use and durable with the snaps. Drawbacks: long dry time and not inexpensive. [Buy|Company]
More AIOs: bumGenius, Bumkins, Imse Vimse, Kushies
bumGenius
Style tested: Version 2.0 one-size pocket, $17.95
Ease of use: 5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 5
Comfort: 5
Attractiveness: 4.5
Value: 4
Total Score: 29/30
This is my main go-to diaper. I started off with several of these and added to my stash as the new version came out (old version went on sale). I find the liner to be effective at keeping moisture from baby's skin. Cotton fitted diapers seem to make her bottom irritated even when I'm changing her almost instantly after she's wet.
I love the ease of the hook-and-loop closure, although it is showing some wear; for durability, I prefer snaps. The microfiber insert that is included with the one-size pockets is very absorbent and all the baby needs during the day. Version 2.0 comes with one adjustable insert. The new version comes with two inserts - one for newborns and a one-size insert. This change is very helpful and will allow the diaper to fit better at the smaller end of the size range (you can read more about version 3.0 on the company website).
I started using these one-size diapers when baby was about eight pounds and have been using them ever since. I love that they adjust to fit up to 35 pounds, a huge advantage of a one-size diaper.
Because this is a pocket diaper, you will have to pull out the insert before laundering and once clean, re-stuff the diaper before putting it back on your baby. [Buy|Company]
More Pocket Diapers: bumGenius, BumWear, Fuzzi Bunz, Happy Heinys, JamTots
Chinese Prefolds
Style tested: DSQ (diaper service quality), $2
Ease of use: 2.5
Durability: 4
Effectiveness: 2.5
Comfort: 4
Attractiveness: 2.5
Value: 5
Total Score: 20.5/30
Traditional rectangular diaper, cost effective, a workhorse. I used the unbleached cotton variety. These must be prewashed several times before they are fully absorbent. They will look fluffy and quilted upon washing. I didn't like the folding aspect and they weren't as absorbent as I wanted, but I appreciate this diaper's simplicity.
Note that prefolds require a cover, sometimes called a wrap, in order to be waterproof. I used Bummis Super Whisper Wraps, Proraps, and hand-knit wool soakers.
Prefolds are versatile and have many uses beyond diapering such as burp cloth, wash cloth, and all-purpose rag. [Buy diapers|Buy covers]
Fuzzi Bunz
Style tested: Pocket diaper, $17.95
Ease of use: 4.5
Durability: 5
Effectiveness: 5
Comfort: 5
Attractiveness: 4
Value: 4
Total Score: 27.5/30
Fuzzi Bunz has also come out with a new version of its diaper. Check out the website for the new specs. I purchased four of the last version, size small, unused from eBay and paid in the range of $16 apiece.
I reserve these diapers for nighttime and they work beautifully. I stuff the Fuzzi Bunz with its own microfiber insert plus a folded Hemp Babies Little Weeds insert used as a doubler. This combination does the trick for overnight. I find snaps slightly trickier to use than hook-and-loop closures, but they are sturdier. The two rows of snaps allow for more adjustments around the waist and thighs. Another advantage of these diapers is that they dry very quickly. Because this is a pocket diaper, you will have to pull out the insert before laundering, and once clean, re-stuff the diaper before putting it back on your baby. [Company]
More Pocket Diapers: bumGenius, BumWear, JamTots
gDiapers
Style tested: Flushable diaper with cover, prices vary
Ease of use: 4
Durability: 4
Effectiveness: 4.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 5
Value: 3
Total Score: 25/30
gDiapers offers a thoroughly researched and well-designed hybrid diaper. The diaper consists of an inner absorbent pad which nests into a liner which is subsequently snapped into the “little g” pant (akin to a cover). If you're confused by my description, hightail it over to the company's website which has detailed information in an easy to understand format. Many questions you might have will be answered there. And if the website doesn't address your particular question, the company is happy to take phone calls! I found gDiapers to be quite user-friendly.
Learning how to assemble the diaper for use is similar to any cloth diaper. What frightened me the most was the prospect of flushing the liner. It wasn't that I mistrusted the diaper design as much as I feared the plumbing gods. The gDiaper website has much information on flushing and plumbing which encouraged me to give it a go. In order to flush, pull apart the liner. The absorbent pulpy stuff instantly breaks up in the toilet bowl so I knew it would go down easily. The outer part of the liner I found to be trickier because it is a longer papery piece that doesn't just break apart. Nevertheless, on my flushing attempts, all went down with ease. The dDiaper is an innovative, attractive, and trim-fitting option for your baby.
Price may be a drawback. gDiapers currently run $26.99 for starter kit (2 "little g" pants and 10 flushable inserts), $16.99 for individual “little g” pants, $14.49 for 40 size small flushable inserts, and $52.00 for a case of 160 size small inserts. [Buy|Company]
Happy Heinys
Style tested: Heiny Hugger fitted, $10.95
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 4
Value: 4.5
Total Score: 24.5/30
Great fabric, sturdy and absorbent, and similar to Kissaluvs' fitted diaper with a more generous fit. Once you've gotten familiar with your baby's size, you may prefer either a generous or a trim fit.
Keep in mind that these diapers (and most fitted diapers made from cotton fabrics) need to be prewashed several times to achieve maximum absorbency. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy|Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, JamTots, Kissaluvs, Swaddlebees, Thirsties, Under the Nile
Happy Heinys
Style tested: One-size pocket, $18.95
Ease of use: 5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 5
Comfort: 5
Attractiveness: 3.5
Value: 3.5
Total Score: 26.5/30
A great one-size diaper on par with the bumGenius one-size discussed above, but with some differences. The hook-and-loop closure is comprised of large tabs that can be overlapped and are highly adjustable, which is useful for small waists and bigger waists as your baby grows.
The microfleece inner liner that touches baby's skin is very soft and lightweight. It “rolls out” by design, which means that when the diaper is on, the fleece will be visible from the outside around the edges. Don't try to mess with it and tuck it back in - wetness doesn't go there, it stays on the insert.
The entire diaper is very lightweight and dries quickly. I appreciate the two insert sizes that are included with this diaper. Because this is a pocket diaper, you will have to pull out the insert before laundering and once clean, re-stuff the diaper before putting it back on your baby. [Buy|Company]
More Pocket Diapers: bumGenius, BumWear, Fuzzi Bunz, JamTots
Kissaluvs
Style tested: Contour, $6.99
Ease of use: 3
Durability: 5
Effectiveness: 2.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 3
Value: 5
Total Score: 23/30
I found these a bit clumsy to use. While they don't need to be secured by a pin or a Snappi (shown in the photo, sold here), I actually found them trickier to use with a cover than a regular prefold. I also had more leaks with these as opposed to a fitted diaper with elastic at the thighs. Still, these diapers are a great value, use wonderful fabric, have extra fabric where needed, and come in only two sizes (no need to buy three or more sizes as baby grows).
Must be prewashed several times. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy|Company]
More Contour Diapers: Imse Vinse
Kissaluvs
Style tested: Fitted, $12.50
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 4
Value: 4.5
Total Score: 24.5
A sturdy and absorbent diaper with a trim fit. Very good for newborns. Snaps allow for adjustability and a decent size range even with the first size (size 0). My husband likes the fitteds because he can toss the whole deal into the diaper pail instead of messing with taking inserts out of pockets. I prefer the pocket diapers for their absorbency and wetness barrier for baby's skin.
These and most other fitted cotton diapers need to be prewashed several times to achieve maximum absorbency. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy|Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, Happy Heinys, JamTots, Swaddlebees, Thirsties, Under the Nile
Swaddlebees
Style tested: Organic cotton velour fitted, $15.95
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 4.5
Value: 3.5
Total Score: 24/30
Similar to other fitted diapers, but tweaked just enough to be perfect for a smallish newborn. The front scoops down to accommodate an umbilical stump. This was the first fitted cloth diaper I ever bought and when it arrived in the mail I nearly melted before its cuteness. I don't find fitted diapers in general all that cute, but when they are so tiny and replete with organic goodness...
Keep in mind that these diapers (and most fitted diapers made from cotton fabrics) need to be prewashed several times to achieve maximum absorbency. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy| Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, JamTots, Happy Heinys, Kissaluvs, Thirsties, Under the Nile
Thirsties
Style: Fab Fitted, $14.25
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 5
Value: 4
Total Score: 24.5/30
A very cute fitted diaper, due in large part to the great colors of cotton velour outer layers. Microfleece layer touching baby's skin will probably keep your baby drier than other fitted diapers, although it depends what you want touching your baby's skin and what works for your baby. Some may want to avoid synthetic fabrics entirely. Nicely absorbent inner core. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, JamTots, Happy Heinys, Kissaluvs, Swaddlebees, Under the Nile
More Brands
The market seems to be evolving quickly, with companies turning out new and improved products often; some of the products, like the Fuzzi Bunz and bumGenius, were updated even while I was undertaking my review diapering. In addition, many WAHMs (work-at-home moms) sell their own designs on a much smaller scale of operations; finding one of these that works for you would be a great option as well. The choices are endless. I would love to try every cloth diaper, but I probably couldn't have enough babies for the time it would take just to gather all the types out there!
If the above reviews aren't enough for you, the following is a list of other brands you might explore, linked to Amazon.com (if sold there) or a company web page. There are many more brands which seem to lack websites but are offered in online cloth diapering shops.
All Together | Bamboozle | Better for Babies | Blue Penguin | Bumkins | BumWear | CJ Swag | Dream Eze | Drybees | Imse Vimse | JamTots | Little Beetle | Knickernappies | Kushies | Mommy's Touch | Monkey Doodlez | Motherease | Tiny Tush | Under the Nile |
Cloth Diapering Resources
Directories: DiaperPin | HyenaCart
Forums: DiaperPin | DiaperSwappers | The Diaper Jungle
Used Diaper Exchange: DiaperSwappers
Tools: Cost Calculator, Cloth vs. Disposables | Cloth Diaper Sewing Patterns | Prefold Folding Instructions | Wipes Recipes
Comments are welcome, but please confine them to general diapering comments, tips, or resources, rather than the promotion of individual brands.
My first interaction with a modern-day cloth diaper user took place at a hip hair salon. The woman cutting my hair was pregnant and planning on using cloth. At that time I was still a couple of years away from having kids and had no concept of modern cloth diapers. I remember my reaction to the stylist - doubt and disbelief. People still do this?! I wondered. Curious, I spoke with another cloth diaper user and I began to think this might be both doable and environmentally responsible.
When I became pregnant, I decided to officially delve into the cloth diaper world. To be honest, the learning curve was steep. It took some time before all the terms and acronyms made sense to me, so I kept returning to websites that rated or sold cloth diapers just to get a feel for everything. They contained a variety of products and many had advice on what and how many to get, how to wash, and so on.
For the first four months of my daughter's life, we have worked with the 11 diapers reviewed below. We used each of them routinely over months to get used to them and see how they performed over time. In the end, I evaluated each diaper on scales of one to five for its ease of use, durability, effectiveness, comfort (perceived), attractiveness, and value.
In addition to reading this review, I recommend familiarizing yourself with cloth diaper types. If something appeals to you, try it. Eventually you might find a favorite. And, to state the obvious, babies are different. While one diaper might not work for your neighbor's baby, it could be perfect for yours.
Useful Terms
- All-in-one: Cloth diaper consisting of waterproof outer layer and sewn in or attachable absorbent inserts, with fasteners built onto the diaper
- Contour: Shaped cloth diaper without fasteners
- Fitted: Shaped cloth diaper that fastens with snaps or hook-and-loop closure
- One-size: A self-explanatory term, this style of diaper is helpful if you don't want to buy new diapers as your baby grows
- Pocket: Cloth diaper consisting of waterproof outer layer and moisture wicking inner; an opening in front or back is the "pocket" for absorbent inserts; fasteners built on
- Prefold: Traditional, rectangular cloth diaper
First, the short version. Here are the brands and styles with the highest scores in this Showdown, with links to purchase them; scroll down for their reviews, in alphabetical order, along with the other diapers I evaluated for this review.
- Top Pick: bumGenius pocket
- Easiest to Use: bumGenius pocket, Happy Heinys pocket
- Most Durable: Kissaluvs Contour, Fuzzi Bunz pocket
- Most Effective: bumGenius pocket, Happy Heinys pocket
- Most Comfortable (perceived): bumGenius pocket, Happy Heinys pocket, Fuzzi Bunz pocket
- Most Attractive: gDiaper, Blueberry stuffable All-In-One
- Best Value: Chinese Prefolds, Kissaluvs Contour
Purchasing gently used diapers can be an excellent way to save some money; I bought a few this way and always had a good experience, receiving "like new" diapers. If you find a reputable vendor who sells used items and you're comfortable with the idea of a used cloth diaper, I say go for it.
I hope this review encourages you to try cloth diapers. Go forth boldly and have fun!
Blueberry Diapers Style tested: Stuffable AIO (all-in-one) front snap, $19.97
Ease of use: 4.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 4.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 5
Value: 3
Total Score: 25/30
Extremely cute! I bought the orange dots print and love it. Micro-fleece works well for my baby's skin and helps to wick away moisture to the internal absorbent layers. In all-in-ones, the absorbent layer is built in, which is handy but makes for long drying times. This diaper is stuffable like a pocket diaper which means that you can load it with more cloth for greater absorbency (good for nighttime). The diaper is very easy to use and durable with the snaps. Drawbacks: long dry time and not inexpensive. [Buy|Company]
More AIOs: bumGenius, Bumkins, Imse Vimse, Kushies
bumGeniusStyle tested: Version 2.0 one-size pocket, $17.95
Ease of use: 5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 5
Comfort: 5
Attractiveness: 4.5
Value: 4
Total Score: 29/30
This is my main go-to diaper. I started off with several of these and added to my stash as the new version came out (old version went on sale). I find the liner to be effective at keeping moisture from baby's skin. Cotton fitted diapers seem to make her bottom irritated even when I'm changing her almost instantly after she's wet.I love the ease of the hook-and-loop closure, although it is showing some wear; for durability, I prefer snaps. The microfiber insert that is included with the one-size pockets is very absorbent and all the baby needs during the day. Version 2.0 comes with one adjustable insert. The new version comes with two inserts - one for newborns and a one-size insert. This change is very helpful and will allow the diaper to fit better at the smaller end of the size range (you can read more about version 3.0 on the company website).
I started using these one-size diapers when baby was about eight pounds and have been using them ever since. I love that they adjust to fit up to 35 pounds, a huge advantage of a one-size diaper.
Because this is a pocket diaper, you will have to pull out the insert before laundering and once clean, re-stuff the diaper before putting it back on your baby. [Buy|Company]
More Pocket Diapers: bumGenius, BumWear, Fuzzi Bunz, Happy Heinys, JamTots
Chinese Prefolds Style tested: DSQ (diaper service quality), $2
Ease of use: 2.5
Durability: 4
Effectiveness: 2.5
Comfort: 4
Attractiveness: 2.5
Value: 5
Total Score: 20.5/30
Traditional rectangular diaper, cost effective, a workhorse. I used the unbleached cotton variety. These must be prewashed several times before they are fully absorbent. They will look fluffy and quilted upon washing. I didn't like the folding aspect and they weren't as absorbent as I wanted, but I appreciate this diaper's simplicity.Note that prefolds require a cover, sometimes called a wrap, in order to be waterproof. I used Bummis Super Whisper Wraps, Proraps, and hand-knit wool soakers.
Prefolds are versatile and have many uses beyond diapering such as burp cloth, wash cloth, and all-purpose rag. [Buy diapers|Buy covers]
Fuzzi BunzStyle tested: Pocket diaper, $17.95
Ease of use: 4.5
Durability: 5
Effectiveness: 5
Comfort: 5
Attractiveness: 4
Value: 4
Total Score: 27.5/30
Fuzzi Bunz has also come out with a new version of its diaper. Check out the website for the new specs. I purchased four of the last version, size small, unused from eBay and paid in the range of $16 apiece.
I reserve these diapers for nighttime and they work beautifully. I stuff the Fuzzi Bunz with its own microfiber insert plus a folded Hemp Babies Little Weeds insert used as a doubler. This combination does the trick for overnight. I find snaps slightly trickier to use than hook-and-loop closures, but they are sturdier. The two rows of snaps allow for more adjustments around the waist and thighs. Another advantage of these diapers is that they dry very quickly. Because this is a pocket diaper, you will have to pull out the insert before laundering, and once clean, re-stuff the diaper before putting it back on your baby. [Company]
More Pocket Diapers: bumGenius, BumWear, JamTots
gDiapersStyle tested: Flushable diaper with cover, prices vary
Ease of use: 4
Durability: 4
Effectiveness: 4.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 5
Value: 3
Total Score: 25/30
gDiapers offers a thoroughly researched and well-designed hybrid diaper. The diaper consists of an inner absorbent pad which nests into a liner which is subsequently snapped into the “little g” pant (akin to a cover). If you're confused by my description, hightail it over to the company's website which has detailed information in an easy to understand format. Many questions you might have will be answered there. And if the website doesn't address your particular question, the company is happy to take phone calls! I found gDiapers to be quite user-friendly.
Learning how to assemble the diaper for use is similar to any cloth diaper. What frightened me the most was the prospect of flushing the liner. It wasn't that I mistrusted the diaper design as much as I feared the plumbing gods. The gDiaper website has much information on flushing and plumbing which encouraged me to give it a go. In order to flush, pull apart the liner. The absorbent pulpy stuff instantly breaks up in the toilet bowl so I knew it would go down easily. The outer part of the liner I found to be trickier because it is a longer papery piece that doesn't just break apart. Nevertheless, on my flushing attempts, all went down with ease. The dDiaper is an innovative, attractive, and trim-fitting option for your baby.
Price may be a drawback. gDiapers currently run $26.99 for starter kit (2 "little g" pants and 10 flushable inserts), $16.99 for individual “little g” pants, $14.49 for 40 size small flushable inserts, and $52.00 for a case of 160 size small inserts. [Buy|Company]
Happy Heinys Style tested: Heiny Hugger fitted, $10.95
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 4
Value: 4.5
Total Score: 24.5/30
Great fabric, sturdy and absorbent, and similar to Kissaluvs' fitted diaper with a more generous fit. Once you've gotten familiar with your baby's size, you may prefer either a generous or a trim fit.
Keep in mind that these diapers (and most fitted diapers made from cotton fabrics) need to be prewashed several times to achieve maximum absorbency. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy|Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, JamTots, Kissaluvs, Swaddlebees, Thirsties, Under the Nile
Happy HeinysStyle tested: One-size pocket, $18.95
Ease of use: 5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 5
Comfort: 5
Attractiveness: 3.5
Value: 3.5
Total Score: 26.5/30
A great one-size diaper on par with the bumGenius one-size discussed above, but with some differences. The hook-and-loop closure is comprised of large tabs that can be overlapped and are highly adjustable, which is useful for small waists and bigger waists as your baby grows.
The microfleece inner liner that touches baby's skin is very soft and lightweight. It “rolls out” by design, which means that when the diaper is on, the fleece will be visible from the outside around the edges. Don't try to mess with it and tuck it back in - wetness doesn't go there, it stays on the insert.
The entire diaper is very lightweight and dries quickly. I appreciate the two insert sizes that are included with this diaper. Because this is a pocket diaper, you will have to pull out the insert before laundering and once clean, re-stuff the diaper before putting it back on your baby. [Buy|Company]
More Pocket Diapers: bumGenius, BumWear, Fuzzi Bunz, JamTots
Kissaluvs Style tested: Contour, $6.99
Ease of use: 3
Durability: 5
Effectiveness: 2.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 3
Value: 5
Total Score: 23/30
I found these a bit clumsy to use. While they don't need to be secured by a pin or a Snappi (shown in the photo, sold here), I actually found them trickier to use with a cover than a regular prefold. I also had more leaks with these as opposed to a fitted diaper with elastic at the thighs. Still, these diapers are a great value, use wonderful fabric, have extra fabric where needed, and come in only two sizes (no need to buy three or more sizes as baby grows).
Must be prewashed several times. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy|Company]
More Contour Diapers: Imse Vinse
KissaluvsStyle tested: Fitted, $12.50
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 4
Value: 4.5
Total Score: 24.5
A sturdy and absorbent diaper with a trim fit. Very good for newborns. Snaps allow for adjustability and a decent size range even with the first size (size 0). My husband likes the fitteds because he can toss the whole deal into the diaper pail instead of messing with taking inserts out of pockets. I prefer the pocket diapers for their absorbency and wetness barrier for baby's skin.
These and most other fitted cotton diapers need to be prewashed several times to achieve maximum absorbency. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy|Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, Happy Heinys, JamTots, Swaddlebees, Thirsties, Under the Nile
SwaddlebeesStyle tested: Organic cotton velour fitted, $15.95
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4.5
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 4.5
Value: 3.5
Total Score: 24/30
Similar to other fitted diapers, but tweaked just enough to be perfect for a smallish newborn. The front scoops down to accommodate an umbilical stump. This was the first fitted cloth diaper I ever bought and when it arrived in the mail I nearly melted before its cuteness. I don't find fitted diapers in general all that cute, but when they are so tiny and replete with organic goodness...
Keep in mind that these diapers (and most fitted diapers made from cotton fabrics) need to be prewashed several times to achieve maximum absorbency. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Buy| Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, JamTots, Happy Heinys, Kissaluvs, Thirsties, Under the Nile
ThirstiesStyle: Fab Fitted, $14.25
Ease of use: 3.5
Durability: 4
Effectiveness: 3.5
Comfort: 4.5
Attractiveness: 5
Value: 4
Total Score: 24.5/30
A very cute fitted diaper, due in large part to the great colors of cotton velour outer layers. Microfleece layer touching baby's skin will probably keep your baby drier than other fitted diapers, although it depends what you want touching your baby's skin and what works for your baby. Some may want to avoid synthetic fabrics entirely. Nicely absorbent inner core. Use with a cover for a waterproof system. [Company]
More Fitted Diapers: All Together, Bamboozle, Imse Vimse, JamTots, Happy Heinys, Kissaluvs, Swaddlebees, Under the Nile
More Brands
The market seems to be evolving quickly, with companies turning out new and improved products often; some of the products, like the Fuzzi Bunz and bumGenius, were updated even while I was undertaking my review diapering. In addition, many WAHMs (work-at-home moms) sell their own designs on a much smaller scale of operations; finding one of these that works for you would be a great option as well. The choices are endless. I would love to try every cloth diaper, but I probably couldn't have enough babies for the time it would take just to gather all the types out there!
If the above reviews aren't enough for you, the following is a list of other brands you might explore, linked to Amazon.com (if sold there) or a company web page. There are many more brands which seem to lack websites but are offered in online cloth diapering shops.
All Together | Bamboozle | Better for Babies | Blue Penguin | Bumkins | BumWear | CJ Swag | Dream Eze | Drybees | Imse Vimse | JamTots | Little Beetle | Knickernappies | Kushies | Mommy's Touch | Monkey Doodlez | Motherease | Tiny Tush | Under the Nile |
Cloth Diapering Resources
Directories: DiaperPin | HyenaCart
Forums: DiaperPin | DiaperSwappers | The Diaper Jungle
Used Diaper Exchange: DiaperSwappers
Tools: Cost Calculator, Cloth vs. Disposables | Cloth Diaper Sewing Patterns | Prefold Folding Instructions | Wipes Recipes
Comments are welcome, but please confine them to general diapering comments, tips, or resources, rather than the promotion of individual brands.
Browse Z Recommends
-
recent posts
I think this kid is braver than I am Puppies, puppies everywhere: Peaceable Kingdom’s Lost Puppies game HABA picks a winner with Hit the Throttle Sesame Street and the Case of the Missing Gordon A daily calendar for kids Missing a friend today Crochet your own Space Shuttle Pampers to settle Dry Max class-action lawsuit Superbaby Ken dumps Barbie over Mattel’s contribution to rainforest destruction
- categories
- blog archive
- blogs we read
Looking for something?
Search
The ZRecs Guide
1360 products, 261 brands, and counting...
Get ZRecs’ monthly newsletter
Learn about our privacy policy
More good stuff
Advertisements
Advertisements
