Parents must make sure their kids eat enough but not too much, and ensure the foods their children eat satisfy the recommended daily allowances displayed on the new national standard, MyPlate. But kids typically eat what they want, when they want, with little regard for accepted norms, be it three square meals a day, the clean plate club, or arugula salad with candied pecans and shaved parmesan cheese. The omnivore child who will eat anything and everything is a rarity.

For some children, the picky periods are short-lived, while others survive for months or years on one or two go-to foods. Where does the picky eating tendency come from? Will all kids eventually eat a variety of healthy foods?

Nature versus nurture
In 2007, scientists found that an expectant mother’s diet during pregnancy and while breastfeeding can affect her baby’s taste preferences. Flavors in a mother’s diet pass to her unborn baby via the amniotic fluid and later through breast milk, in essence creating preferences for certain types of food.

That same year, researchers examined 5,390 sets of twins and discovered a genetic link between eating habits and taste preferences, suggesting that parents may have little control over taste preferences. Researchers concluded that 78 percent of a child’s aversion to new foods is genetically determined, while only 22 percent is affected by the environment.

Still, that 22 percent is what prompts parents to beg and plead, hide vegetables in cookies, cakes, or macaroni and cheese, and ultimately resort to bartering or threats (“No TV for a week!”) in an effort to get their children to eat healthy foods (or any food for that matter).

More recently, a study published in the December 2011 issue of Appetite, examined 104 U.K. mothers with children ages 3–6 years and recorded mealtime behaviors including fussiness, slowness in eating, under-eating in response to emotional state, and how quickly children said they felt full.

Results showed that mothers with fussy children applied more pressure on their children to eat, which in the end resulted in the children eating less not more. Gentle encouragement won the day, with undue pressure a distant second.

Study author, Claire Farrow, a senior psychology lecturer at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, England, told MyHealthNewsDaily, “These findings support other research which has shown that if parents or caregivers override their children’s signals of hunger and fullness—as in pressuring the child to eat when not hungry—then often children struggle to regulate their appetite appropriately in the future.”

In short, know your child’s feeding behavior, hunger habits, eating tendencies, and meal timings, and use them to your advantage. It’s okay to allow kids to not eat when they say they’re not hungry and to create their own eating habits and schedules. On the other hand, giving your child junk food, just so that they will eat something, is rarely justified.

“The more you force your child to eat, the less likely your child will be to eat,” says Ellyn Satter, author of two popular books on parent-child feeding relationships and the focus of an NPR report that basically says “back off.”

There is no silver bullet; no simple solution. Every child is different, but there are some things every parent can do and plenty of places to learn more.

The USDA suggests the following:

• Introduce new foods slowly over time.

• Offer one new food at a time.

• Keep foods simple and separate.

• Offer new foods first at mealtime and in small portions.

• Always eat what you offer your child.

The American Heart Association has more tips related to snacks, mealtimes, and sweets:

• Establish set times for meals and snacks and stick to it. Kids like routines.

• Keep healthy, finger foods available. Toddlers are often eager to feed themselves.

• Serve sweets in moderation, but don’t eliminate them altogether. Children who get a piece of candy or a small scoop of ice cream now and then are less likely to overeat when sweets are offered.

The Mayo Clinic focuses on the shared experience of eating between a parent and child and urges parents to take a longer view. Most kids may get plenty of nutrients over the course of a week even though two days are devoted to chicken nuggets and one day is a food strike. Some tips:

• Children are more likely to eat foods they have chosen and prepared. At the grocery store, encourage your child to select fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods. Toddlers can rinse and stir while you are cutting and chopping.

• Make mealtime fun by cutting foods into various shapes and serving brightly colored foods.

• Encourage exploration. Tasting, touching, and talking about the color, shape, texture, and smell of new foods can make them more appealing to younger children.

Ultimately, if your child refuses to eat, don’t force him to. (And don’t bribe him either.) Respect his appetite. When he comes looking for food, be prepared to dish up some healthy options.

An old idiom claims that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. But what if that horse is thirsty? You better believe he’ll drink, eventually; it just might not be exactly when you want him to drink. Kids are pretty much the same. With a variety of methods to choose from, feeding children is largely trial and error. Like breastfeeding, healthy eating habits develop over time, and often require patience, practice, and persistence. But their importance can’t be overstated.

Developed by the U.S. Army and originally used as a pesticide on farm fields in the 1940s, DEET is the active ingredient found in countless over-the-counter insect repellents. Though it was one of the early chemicals to come under widespread scrutiny for its detrimental health affects, no other chemical works as well as DEET when it comes to protecting against insects, especially ticks and mosquitos known to cause life-threatening diseases like Lyme disease, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, the lesser known Eastern equine encephalitis, and the more famous, malaria.

Recent research confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that lemon eucalyptus oil and its all-natural active ingredients can be an effective DEET replacement when it comes to repelling mosquitos. It offers a six-hour window of shield against bites (as opposed to DEET’s 12 hours), but the time discrepancy corresponds to the oil’s testing against lower concentrations of DEET, which have fewer side effects than higher concentrations.

DEET, no matter the health warnings, still earns the best recommendation from the CDC and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it comes to insect protection, but the addition of lemon eucalyptus oil to both agency’s lists of approved repellents is nothing short of blockbuster news for those spending a great deal of time outside during the spring and summer months.

Derived from the leaves and twigs of Eucalyptus citriodora, the plant’s lemon oil shows no signs of the central nervous system effects that DEET exhibits on users, who report mostly lethargy and headaches, but who also report symptoms such as tremors, seizures, and convulsions, though exactly how DEET triggers these effects is unknown. The EPA reports that while DEET is not a carcinogen, it can cause irritation, moodiness, impaired cognitive function, and insomnia. It’s a long and strange list.

As with nearly all insect repellents, lemon oil of eucalyptus should not be used on children under the age of 3, according to the CDC. All repellent products are required by law to list the minimum age for users, so consumers should read labels carefully before purchasing.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states, “Insect repellents containing DEET with a concentration of 10 percent appear to be as safe as products with a concentration of 30 percent when used according to the directions on the product labels.” But the AAP forbids the use of DEET on infants less than 2 months old.

The CDC recommends the following advice when applying all insect repellents:

• Use enough repellent to cover exposed skin or clothing. Don’t apply repellent to skin that is under clothing. Heavy application is not necessary to achieve protection.

• Do not apply repellent to cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.

• After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water. (This may vary depending on the product. Check the label for specific instructions.)

• Do not spray aerosol or pump products in enclosed areas.

• Do not spray aerosol or pump products directly to your face. Spray your hands and then rub them carefully over the face, avoiding eyes and mouth.

Recommendations specifically for children include:

• When using repellent on a child, apply it to your own hands and then rub them on your child. Avoid children’s eyes and mouth and use it sparingly around their ears.

• Do not apply repellent to children’s hands. (Children tend to put their hands in their mouths.)

• Do not allow young children to apply insect repellent to themselves; have an adult do it for them.

• Keep repellents out of reach of children.

• Do not apply repellent under clothing. If repellent is applied to clothing, wash treated clothing before wearing again. (This may vary depending on the product. Check the label for specific instructions.)

• Mosquito netting can be used over infant carriers.

• Avoid products containing both DEET and sunscreen as application instructions for each very substantially.

Planet Green makes the following eco-friendly mosquito-repelling suggestions (click here and here to read more):

• If you use a DEET-based repellent, do not use it in an aerosol can.

• A citronella candle can work well to cover an area, but they don’t remain potent for long on human skin.

• Wear light colors. Mosquitos are attracted to dark colors.

• Remove or cover all standing water near your home to discourage insect breeding.

• Stay unscented. Mosquitos are attracted to floral smells. Avoid scented soaps, perfumes, colognes, or scented sunscreens.

• Mosquitos favor cool skin, so warming up outside may in fact aid in your protection. But insects also prefer moist and sweaty skin, so finding the right balance of warm but not sweaty skin may prove to be your biggest challenge.

For more advice, call The National Pesticide Information Center (800) 858-7378 or visit their website.

Somewhere a biochemist sits, leafing through this newest human milk research and wondering if it will ever end. For more than a hundred years, industrious mothers, doctors, pharmacies, entrepreneurs, and corporations have been trying with varying degrees of success to perfect a manmade formula that mimics human milk. But human milk has been evolving for over 200 million mammalian years. Undaunted, the chemist rises from his chair and continues his pursuit—chasing nature but never catching up.

Formula generates billions of dollars in sales, but formula will likely never earn more than a silver medal, in part because manufacturers don’t know exactly what it is they are chasing. For starters, human milk not only changes from mother to mother but over the course of hours, days, weeks, months, even over the course of a single feeding. Determining its composition, much less recreating it in a lab, is an impossible task. But scientists persist in trying.

What makes human milk so special?
Scientists first discovered that human milk is mostly water (about 85 percent) and some combination of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. Milk production begins as colostrum, a thick, yellow liquid produced during pregnancy and the first days after birth—a high-protein mixture with less lactose (milk sugar) and a higher concentration of antibodies (proteins that protect against infection) than mature milk. Human milk’s ability to resist infection by boosting the development of the infant’s immune system may be the most important difference between formula and breast milk. Several days after birth, milk-producing cells begin to secrete mature milk—lower in protein and higher in fat, carbohydrates, and calories needed for energy and growth.

The changes that occur during feedings can be thought of as appetizer and entrée. First for the baby’s palate arrives foremilk, both watery and higher in sweet-tasting lactose. What follows is the hindmilk—thicker, higher in fat, and more filling. (Interestingly, nature didn’t make dessert).

That’s the basics, the very basics, because still in these fundamental ingredients there are unknowns as to the specific type, amount, ratios, and delivery system of each component, as well as what that means to the final product when it’s ingested and digested.

But it gets even more complicated. Human milk includes live cells and so-called “bioactive” compounds that pass from mother to child, sometimes in indigestible portions of breast milk that remain in the intestinal tract and do who knows what. This is where the front line of the research is happening now, and where formula makers are running into their largest obstacles to date as they tinker with their recipes. Getting certain protein ratios right is one thing; creating living cells (that could survive a shelf life no less) is still science fiction no matter the “complete nutrition” claims formula-makers market.

Mothers’ bodies create antibodies specific to pathogens and viruses that she has been exposed to and passes them to her child through her milk, and science can’t replicate that. Researchers can’t even tell you exactly what is in human milk, and why study after study show breastfed babies are routinely healthier with stronger development of cognitive, motor, visual skills, and immune systems.

Pharmaceutical efforts to replicate human milk highlight the complexity of this living fluid. For example, infants require a certain amount of iron. Formula contains substantially larger amounts of iron than human milk. Why? Doctors use the term bio-available or bioactive to describe the ease with which something is absorbed into the body’s system after ingestion. The iron in human milk is highly bio-available, so only small amounts need to be included. Iron found in formula is harder for the baby to absorb and it loses its effectiveness over time, so more iron is added to formula mixtures in an attempt to compensate for the lack of bio-availability and the time it takes for the formula to get from factory to baby.

Researchers will continue to examine human milk as a source of something completely new, something they didn’t know, some benefit that a manmade product simply can’t copy. In reporting about the UC Davis research, the New York Times interviewed two of the doctors who conducted the study. Dr. Bruce German called human milk an “astonishing product of evolution.” And as if there is any question about what is best for babies, Dr. David Mills added, “It’s all there for a purpose, though we’re still figuring out what that purpose is.”

Increase physical activity at elementary schools; educate the public about high-calorie foods; decrease tobacco use through advertising and free cessation service—all pretty typical point sources to improve health. But there is one more on the list: “Improve support to new mothers to promote breastfeeding, especially exclusive breastfeeding.”

Along with the otherwise typical list of healthy objectives, breastfeeding stands out—exclusive breastfeeding, no less. In the press release announcing the new funding, New York State says that “Breastfeeding has been shown to promote optimal infant growth, protect infants from infections, and reduce obesity in both mother and infant.” As part of this initiative, the State’s Department of Health will provide training and technical assistance on policies and practices to hospitals that provide maternity care and to programs serving low-income mothers.

Breastfeeding has long been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a strategy for obesity prevention, with states across the country supporting breastfeeding in one form or another. But to support it under the banner of general health and wellness programs, along with obesity prevention and smoking cessation, is a major shift in the perceived part breastfeeding plays in the health of both baby and mother.

What does the shift mean exactly? According to New York State, breastfeeding is considered important, very important, and the state believes it to be in your best interest to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months of your baby’s life.

So it’s not just the hippie mom with the tie-dyed baby sling (or choose your favorite overzealous advocate) telling you it’s important—it’s the state of New York. With government not only accepting breastfeeding’s place in the hierarchy of health but advocating it so directly, it could be a new dawn for new and expectant mothers who are now being asked to breastfeed for the health of it!

The Human Milk Banking Association of North America (HMBANA), United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC), International Lactation Consultant Association/United States Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA/USLCA), and La Leche League International (LLLI) are jointly issuing an urgent call for human milk donations for premature infants in Haiti, as well as sick and premature infants in the United States.

A press release announcing the need for milk noted that this week the first shipment of human milk from mothers in the United States will be shipped to the U.S. Navy Ship “Comfort,” which is stationed outside Haiti and set up with a neonatal intensive care unit and medical personnel to provide urgent care to victims of the earthquake. An International Board Certified Lactation Consultant and pediatric neonatologist are on board to aid the organizations in responding to requests to provide milk for both premature infants and at-risk mothers who have recently delivered babies on board the U.S.N.S. Comfort.

Once there is an infrastructure in place to ensure safe storage and distribution, donations will be made on the ground as well. In the meantime, relief organizations are urged to follow the guidelines for Infant Feeding in Emergencies and to remember that the safest source of human milk is a child’s own mother.

Mothers who are willing to donate human milk should contact their regional Mothers’ Milk Bank of HMBANA. A list of regional milk banks is available on their website at hmbana.org or call 408-998-4550.

It was only a matter of time: before the countless chemicals humanity dumped (and continues to dump) on the earth made their way into mothers’ breast milk; in the past mothers turned to formula, amid concerns that the contamination meant illness for their infants.

It’s a fair worry—who doesn’t want the best for their baby?—but according to a new, independent scientific review published in the journal Breastfeeding Medicine, it’s a worry that is unfounded.

Point blank from the introduction, the authors state that “the benefits to the infant from breastfeeding outweigh potential risks associated with environmental chemical exposures associated with breastfeeding.”

The review came about because researchers witnessed an uptick in concerns being expressed by parents and the need for health care providers to respond to those concerns.

There have been reports of subtle effects on infants associated with chemicals in breast milk but there has never a study on dioxins in breast milk. Now there is, and “the essential conclusion for health care providers and new parents,” the authors conclude, “is that in studies of breastfed versus formula-fed infants across time, including times when levels of environmental chemicals such as dioxins were higher, beneficial effects associated with breastfeeding have been found. The current evidence does not support altering the World Health Organization recommendations promoting and supporting breastfeeding.”

What are they? And how do they get into human milk? Dioxins are a group of compounds that are largely by-products of industrial waste and incineration. They find their way into humans through contaminated foods, most often meat, dairy products, fish, and shellfish. Dioxins accumulate in the fatty tissues, where they can persist for months or years. Just as adults become contaminated through eating dioxin-containing foods, infants are exposed through their food, human milk.

Dioxins are considered ubiquitous in modern society and are largely unavoidable. In this newfound era of eco-consciousness, however, more governments are beginning to enact stricter standards on food products in regards to dioxin levels. And though there is no evidence to support a need to limit breastfeeding or a breastfeeding mother’s diet to ward off infant exposure, restricting fat in the diet will help to lower dioxin levels.

If going vegan isn’t an option, experts suggest choosing lean cuts of meat and poultry, trimming as much fat as possible, and sticking with low-fat dairy products. And above all else, they say, continue to breastfeed.

A new study by the AAP, however, shows that past successes are being stripped away, breastfeeding again fighting an uphill battle toward overall acceptance.

From November 2003 through May 2004, 875 pediatricians shared their opinions, practices, and recommendations related to breastfeeding. Also placed under the microscope were doctors’ personal breastfeeding experience and its effect on their work.

Nearly every finding was a surprise to the authors. Overall, compared with 13 years ago, 2004 found pediatricians lost faith that breastfeeding benefits outweighed difficulties or inconveniences. Meaning, doctors were quicker on average to tell new mothers that breastfeeding was not necessary if mothers found it even uncomfortable. Worsening the outlook, fewer doctors believed that nearly all mothers should be able to successfully breastfeed and follow the original medical recommendations.

The most glaring data point found that 51 percent of mothers exclusively breastfed at seven days yet only 14 percent at six months. How that relates exactly to the fact that more doctors are finding more reasons not to recommend breastfeeding is unclear, but the data is alarming to breastfeeding proponents. Even when imperfect conditions were compatible with breastfeeding—lengthy time requirements, immaturity, low milk supply, irritated nipples—the doctors more so than ever advised mothers to cease breastfeeding.

But the findings weren’t all negative. At the time of delivery 59 percent of mothers breastfed their infants in 1995; in 2004 that jumped to 74 percent. At six months, the percentage went from 22 percent in 1995 to 42 percent in 2004—but it’s important to note this is not exclusive breastfeeding, rather only some breastfeeding combined with formula feeding. But pediatricians were more likely to recommend exclusive breastfeeding, especially if they had personal experience with the feeding method.

So what does it all mean?

The researchers conclusions sound like a paradox: “Although pediatricians seem better prepared to support breastfeeding, their attitudes and commitment have deteriorated.”

The lone silver lining and thus maybe the only solution, the study alludes, is personal experience. And so the recommendations of the researchers focus on that:

“Personal experience continues to have a tremendous effect,” the authors state, “on the advice to breastfeed and the clinical experience with breastfeeding management… Given the changing demographics of pediatricians and new work hours for pediatric residents, more pediatricians may be starting families early in their careers and attending to the needs of their children. Providing worksite accommodations for residents and young pediatricians to facilitate a positive experience with breastfeeding may be one method to enhance future attitudes and skills about breastfeeding. Pediatricians may also serve as role models for mothers contemplating infant feeding decisions.”

But they go on to conclude that “creative strategies need to be developed to enable more pediatricians, regardless of personal experience, to adopt practice behaviors that support exclusive breastfeeding… Practical solutions must be developed to improve pediatricians’ beliefs so that mothers can successfully meet their breastfeeding goals.”

To see it for yourself is always the best education, but first-person experience isn’t always possible with the unique act of breastfeeding. So what are the options for these creative strategies and practical solutions? In a culture rife with immaturity and ignorance in the realm of health and sex, not to mention a billion-dollar infant formula industry pushing their products, breastfeeding proponents are left with little choice but to target doctors working on the front lines of infant care.

Maybe a study of those doctors—not their feelings, but the doctors themselves (age, sex, ethnicity, education, experience)—is due, because indeed finding the right doctors is pertinent to patients making the right decisions. Making the best decision for a baby should be something mothers understand without a doctor’s input, but the reality is, short of making infant formula available by prescription only to ensure it is used only by those who truly need it, the education of both doctor and patient is the only option to make mothers take baby to the breast instead of the supermarket.

The July 2008 issue of the journal Nature reported that “the engineered mice showed symptoms that mirror human SIDS: sudden drops in heart rate and frequent deaths in early life. The majority of them died before reaching three months of age.”

The mice were meant for anxiety and aggression studies, but they immediately started dying. Scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Monterotondo, Italy, eventually looked into the SIDS connection and determined that manipulating serotonin in a certain way could cause death.

How exactly the change in serotonin causes the symptoms is unknown. And unlike humans, the engineered mice die from symptoms after reaching adulthood. With humans, SIDS occurs only in infants and most often during napping, when serotonin levels fluctuate.

Further complicating the issue, a British study released in May 2008 in The Lancet found high levels of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli bacteria in children who had died of SIDS, suggesting a possible link, since most SIDS deaths occur between 8 and 10 weeks of age when the level of antibodies that protect babies from infection is low.

Determining whether or not the death of the mice is related directly to sleep is the next step for the Italian research team, with the immediate hope being that support for SIDS research will grow thanks to this serotonin link that puts scientists on track to unlocking this mysterious syndrome.

Where does the New York Times come up with the scoops?

As I was filing this article into the common sense bin (read: trash) I realized I needed to give it a second look. Maybe pointing out that cane sugar (sucrose), the usual choice for organic products, is potentially worse for you than other sugars is worth noting, especially for children, given the obesity, health, and addiction issues Americans have with their food.

In the cross-hairs of the gray lady—surely a breastfeeding supporter, that old journalism wind bag with thinning pockets—is Similac Organic formula, the only major brand made with cane sugar, making it sweeter than other organic formula brands, not to mention breast milk.

Tests showed Similac Organic to have the sweetness of Country Time lemonade. Um, yeah, that can’t be good for a baby.

No specific health claims have been made against Similac Organic, but the doctors surveyed by the Times worry that, “Sucrose can harm tooth enamel faster than other sugars; once babies get used to its sweeter taste, they might resist less sweet formulas or solid foods; and some studies suggest that they might overeat, leading to rapid weight gain in the first year, which is often a statistical predictor of childhood obesity.”

And oh by the way, Europe is going to ban sucrose-sweetened formulas at the end of 2009.

But why? According to Similac’s nutrition expert, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that sucrose is “safe and well-established.” The expert went on to say that Similac “did not ‘optimize for taste’ when developing infant formula,” and that the company’s “primary focus is to support normal growth through optimal nutrition and quality ingredients.”

Just a nice coincidence, I guess, that the sweeter the food, the more a baby will eat of it. Surely, Similac’s nutrition expert knows this fact, right?

Dr. Benjamin Caballero, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an expert in risk factors for childhood obesity told the Times that he “would be very concerned about this as a pediatrician. The issue is that sweet tastes tend to encourage consumption of excessive amounts.”

So what to do?

• Breastfeed your baby; problem solved.

• Use common sense; choose wisely.

There is that term again—common sense.

There are multinational corporations like Similac that will quote a nutrition expert that says things like—the FDA tell us that sucrose is safe and well-established. So you need to be at least a bit savvy when it comes to free-market capitalism and the grocery store. “It’s organic? Sold!” Not so fast.

Just reading labels isn’t good enough anymore—all natural, organic, whatever. Some may argue that the FDA isn’t good enough either. But really, it’s not the government’s job to tell parents what they can and cannot feed to their babies.

That’s what living in America is all about: choices.

Making the right choices is up to you.

This comes with an exclamation point for mothers and their babies, who share a physical connection for potentially years, and face a full court press from companies selling thousands of products—made especially to safeguard babies.

We’ve known for years about the ecological benefits of breastfeeding, thanks in part to this extensive report from Andrew Radford of Baby Milk Action. In it, he notes the plausibility of breast milk toxicity, but vets that this risk is almost nonexistent to a general public not directly exposed to a contaminate. Mothers living behind a diesel bus stop without air filtration—or in Chernobyl during the meltdown—should have their milk tested, but for most, this isn’t something to fret about.

What all mothers might want to start thinking about, however, are those things typically accepted as safe. Consumers by and large trust the products on a drugstore shelf, but should they? We learned recently about the health risks associated children’s cough and cold medicines. And now baby lotions are the new nemesis of baby bottoms everywhere.

The billion-dollar baby business has long been force-feeding mothers with what their baby needs, but as more products containing a myriad of chemicals come onto the shelves—often without testing—mothers need to be especially careful.

Enter the organic baby
As we learn more about the special sensitivities of babies, a burgeoning market has opened up for environmentally friendly products advertised as better for your baby. First it was caring Mom-and-Pop brands. Now it is international conglomerates offering organic and eco-friendly versions of every product imaginable. The marketing messages are decidedly mixed, but the gist is this: Isn’t your baby worth it? Don’t you want to be a good mom?

Is it time to redo your entire nursery in order to protect your baby? It wouldn’t hurt, but don’t let the marketing get in the way of common sense.

Like Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade, looking over the assortment of cups and chalices before choosing the holy grail, it is important for mothers to first educate themselves on products both traditional and “green” and then choose wisely.

And remember, the wisest choice is often not choosing at all.

Unlike choosing breast milk over formula—the ultimate (and cheapest) eco-friendly decision—the benefits and detriments of organic or green baby products aren’t so clear-cut. And hundreds of articles, books, and websites preach their doctrines for a price. It’s not that the products aren’t worthwhile, but if you simply use some old-fashioned commonsense, you’ll be able to navigate your way through the green future, while keeping some green in your pocket at the same time.

Here are two basic rules for you and your baby to live by:

1. Hand-me-downs (except for car seats which should always be purchased first-hand from a reputable source) are always the best environmental choice, especially for a baby who will outgrow everything in weeks. Even better than recycling, re-using something—onesies, furniture, toys (without harmful chemicals obviously)—keeps it out of the trash and continually reduces the carbon footprint of producing new products. By the time something is passed down, any chemicals used in its construction have likely long since been washed out. If you must buy a new product, go with an organic product that is clearly certified as such, and give it away when you’re done.

2. Don’t buy it. Bottom line, if you don’t buy it, it can’t hurt your baby. Does your baby really need another round shiny toy? Can you not wash a cloth diaper? The fact is, much like breastfeeding, if you can adjust to a new (and sometimes challenging) schedule, you could save a lot of money while saving the earth. An organic product from a local company is great, but nothing is greener than not buying anything at all.