MBCD ratings are a crock… See from MBDC observations below.


Forcing your baby to sit in its extremity also a lode of crock.

Talking from experience…

We have found the greenest solution for dealing with baby eliminations. The solution hit me by surprise I initially thought only for tree hugging hippies but it is working for us in the city.

It is called
EC elimination communication

or
Natural Infant Hygiene.

Lots of info on the web, you just need to look.
Dippers are part of a preconceived notion that needs to change our 6month old now often goes for a hole day without using a single cloth nappy. (to go green you need to pee in the garden much more fun, our little one hates public toilets and prefers a bush pee anyway.)



From my experience

I have a 6month old baby and we were looking to make an appropriate green footprint in raising one baby. ( there is lots of info and miss information out there and a lot of preconceived ideas, ) we have tried fitted cloth dippers we have tried cloth dippers with covers we have used Terra nappies and all have been good hell we even tried disposables ) we have even been using a very low water usage washing machine. And I am convinced that washing is more sustainable than disposable – not to mention healthy.

MBDC observations

After reading McDonough and Braungart’ book I felt inspired, I beleved that change could be made. I lost a lot of hope when I began to question the premise. In a lecture in Vancouver Braungart outlined how dangerous genetically modified crops were for the planet, and how both water and food where some of the biggest problems facing the people of the world at this time - I couldn’t agree more, he then went on to promote the use of GM corn and GM potatoes to create biodegradable consumer products, I questioned how he could condone GM farming ( a one way track) as a solution and them condemn it as an environmental Hasid. He reckoned it was just a stepping stone, and we could solve the problems later (that is old world thinking if you ask me)

I was at a Green By Design conference in Chicago there McDonough was talking, (I wont mention any names A because I cant remember them and B because it may constitute slander),br>

But a Fabric manufacturer employed MBDC to help reduce the toxicity of their fabric line (very convincing unless you ask difficult questions). Well the tall and short of it all MBDC hade come up with a rating system from less harmless (a step in the right direction) to totally recyclable ( a closed look technical material)

And this fabric had received the highest accolades by MBDC (MBDC also replaced the toxic colorants with less toxic ones) ie they age there design the best rating. But when I asked how they plan to recycle the product they told me that the technology did not exist ie. they could not recycle or even down cycle the product. And when I ask if they had considered the energy usage in retuning the product they hadn’t considered it because they did not intend taking the product back at this time. So when I see MBDC giving green ratings I think they are a Crock…

I don't have the time or energy to respond to tim's rather uninformed post, but as someone who knows a LOT about Cradle to Cradle Certification, I can truly say that tim doesn't get it.

Maybe tim doesn't have enough upstairs to understand the difference between intelligent design and "green-washing", or maybe Bill refused to sign his copy of Cradle to Cradle--but I can only hope that the majority of people involved in the "green" movement are brighter than timmy boy.

Tim,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and critique of the MBDC rating system/assessment process. However, as Director of Science at MBDC I feel compelled to respond. Before I do, I'd just like to make a comment about the diaper dilemma. Whether you choose to diaper your child or not should be a personal decision. There is no "right" choice here, just like there is no "right" way to raise your child. For those parents that choose diapers, there is now an ecologically intelligent alternative to cloth and conventional disposables.

As for the MBDC rating system being a "crock" I respectfully disagree. Those that know our system well and truly understand what Cradle to Cradle Design is all about will tell you what we advocate is continuous improvement along the Cradle to Cradle trajectory. It is not possible to get to a perfect Cradle to Cradle product overnight, so it's perfectly reasonable for Michael Braungart to support PLA from Cargill even if it's not perfectly "sustainable" at this point. The GMO issue is a complex one, and while it's not ideal to make biopolymers from GMO corn, it's still better than making the same plastic from petroleum.

As for your issues with Bill, please realize that Bill McDonough is the design guy while Michael Braungart and I head up the science/chemistry side. I know exactly what company and product you are referring to and I can tell you that your interpretation of the situation is not correct. I would be happy to elaborate on any aspect of our work (without violating confidentiality agreements, of course) if you would like to continue the discussion offline.

at least tim backed up his opinion, howie. you give us nothing but personal attacks and claims of righteousness.

c2c is a nice goal but it's not necessarily working today in the real world. look no further than the book itself. it weighs as much as 6 books of paper (increased transport costs and discomfort while reading), most will not be recycled (it's not accepted...more plastic getting landfilled), and prints poorly (mine was illegible on several pages).

I so just happen to have a full unopened promo box of these... I don't have any babies lying around the house, so if you want me to ship it to you, email me. Otherwise I'm donating them to a local nursery in a couple of days.

OK, maybe my tone was a bit rough, so Tim--I apologize. I just get defensive when something (Cradle to Cradle) that I have poured my blood, sweat, and tears into over the last 5 years gets wrongfully dismissed as a "neat idea" that is not really making a difference in the world.

Cradle to Cradle has made a huge difference in the way many companies, some huge and some tiny, conceive the design of their current and future products.

Our criteria for certification are the most robust, detailed, and proactive when compared to any current competing stardard. Instead of a single attribute certification (i.e. IAQ, recyclability, DFE, recycled content, etc), we look at a product begining with its production, during its use, and to its ultimate end state. Materials that are approved by MBDC are safe for humans and the environment in the context of their product. I know this b/c I am one of only two people that are currently doing the chemical and material assessments.

Is our process perfect? Not yet. BUT, I feel we do a very good job of balancing all important considerations (material health, reutilization potential, renewable energy use, water stewardship, and corporate ethics) in the product design process.

Whatever we are doing, it must seem right to CEOs of major companies as many are adopting cradle to cradle as their design paradigm.

Dug--the book is simply a concept of technical nutrition. Yes, it weighs a bit more, but remind me why it such a good idea to take a tree, smash it up, and write on it? Seems a bit silly.

Regardless, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but lucky for us, many companies have spoken with their dollars through their investment in C2C Design.

trees are a renewable resource, provide habitat, clean the air, etc.

paper is biodegradable, lightweight, recycleable, etc.

no, it's not a perfect closed loop system, but i don't think it's all that silly. lucky for paper many companies have spoken through their dollars through their investment in paper. (sorry for the snark, but getting investments doesn't prove wisdom)

i'm not saying your plastic book doesn't make for a good concept, but right now it's not even 'less bad', it's 'much worse'. books travel a lot... printer, distributor, retailer, home, recycling center, etc. and then the individual needs to carry it as well. what about the carbon emmissions? or are we simply saying that the book's example of technical nutriition is not a good one?

Although I do not have the technical background that the previous entries displayed, I would like to offer a very simple comment. Kudos to all who are ATTEMPTING to change this world!! I wish there were more people like Bill, Howie and Jay. How on earth can anyone pass judgement on what that company is doing? It is 100% pure and positive. To make these changes, we must all begin somewhere. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Let us at least begin! I also wish there were more folks like Tim. You are changing this planet for the better each day and one person at a time.
I applaud and thank you all, and I am sorry to see any negative attitude amongst you when you are all actually on the same page here!!

I assume these are the diapers Rachel ordered

Dug--
Thanks for proving my point. You are right--trees CAN be renewable if harvested as such, they provide habitat, clean the air, change colors with the season, fix nitrogen, and self replicate!

So explain to me why we should take something so elegant, smash it up, and write on it??? I assume by your post that you think this is a bad idea?!

It looks like you agree with me.

Also dug, you do realize that there is a difference between biodegradable and compostable?

Paper is biodegradable, but I sure as heck would not want it in my compost pile due the Chlorine content and toxic heavy metals likely present in the inks. Just b/c something is biodegradable does not mean it is a biological nutrient.

Just a FYI, formaldehyde is biodegradable as well.

i think trees are a great resource and paper is a smart use. the paper companies around here have actually increased forest space. i'm sure you already know that heavy metals have been largely phased out of printing inks and mulching gardens with newsprint is regaining popularity. you are talking about problems with ink and recycling, not the paper.

i think global warming is a more pressing problem than paper use and this example actually increases carbon output. paper weighs a fraction and cleans the air as it's raw materials are grown.

btw, when i said it's a neat concept, i was genuine.

trees are not a rapidly renewable resource in most cases, and metallized inks have not been phased out to the degree that you mention. Once the ink is put on the paper, then it becomes the paper's problem.

Global warming is a huge issue, which is why we should design products are can stay in true closed loops thereby reducing our reliance on non-rapidly-renewable resources.

I guess we will just agree to disagree.

Thanks for your input.

I just read this article and followed the link to the gDiapers page. My first concern is in their "hook" marketing trick. They say "You’re putting waste right where it belongs, in the toilet. Not in a landfill."

Okay, so maybe I don't understand how the whole sewage/waste disposal thing works, so help me out...the solids left over after treating sewage (ie everything you flush down your toilet or pipes)...doesn't that go to a landfill? If not, it has to be treated with something, some chemical to break the solids down, right?

So right off the bat, I'm skeptical of this product. I don't like it when companies use things like the "throw it out and forget about it" tactic to get my business.

I just started the g-diaper system, and I like it. The price is better that seventh generation diapers, but not as good as cloth. It's does stop up the toilet occasionally, but uncloggs pretty easy with a plunger. They fit nicely and don't leak very often. I really like the concept, and after 4 years of cloth diapering I'm glad to have a break that I can feel good about.

Speaking from the pov of a typical Prius-driving OC resident, I really, really love Gdiapers. I don't really have time to look into these certifications, since I have a toddler, husband, and full-time job. I've always wanted to use cloth but just couldn't stomach them (and don't really have time to deal with my current laundry load), so I've been using disposibles for my 18 mo. old. I feel better with the lower amount of plastic that I'm using, and the smell is a 100% improvement (no diaper pail). I'll be using these for my next daughter, due in February. I think that Gdiapers will appeal to typical consumers for these reasons, and they are a step forward from disposibles, so I'm all for them.

So any innovation attempting to do something for diapered toddlers and infants should be viewed with skepticism? When the owners are trying their best to get a sound, environmentally-safe alternative to plastic diapers, and gets a C2C certification on top of that?

Shit, people, at least try to see the bright side?

So to speak...

Makes me think the extemist, uninformed Lefties are just as stupid as their "junk-science" Rightie counterparts.

Gdiapers...

Can cloth diapers be used in the gdiaper covers as well? I would like to use cloth sometimes to cut down on costs.

Thanks,

Christy 28 weeks preggers

Elimination communication is another way the of bringing insecurity into parenting while allowing the proponents a certain degree of latitude within parental catering, or so they think. As this philosophy exists under the guise that
"other cultures" do it (Indian and African cultures are named) and that no baby is ever left to eliminate on it's own, but must be administered to when relieving itself. This is simply not true, and when it does happen, it happens as a result of necessity (such as when diaper-like clothes are not available). My husband was born in India, and I can tell that although his family had little, and he did literally piss in a pot when he was old enough, during his infancy, he was diapered! I might also add that neither of the two "ec" parents I know continued with the practice once their chidren became mobile.

Hey Christy,
Yes, you can use the gdiaper covers with cloth prefolds and fitteds. I have bought several starter packs to do just that, the pants are so cute!

For everybody who is interested, I keep a Cradle To Cradle Chronology here: http://www.c2c-chronology.com.

It is a very comprehensive list of sources, publications, articles, videos, podcasts, interviews, events and milestones on the Cradle To Cradle subject. All nicely ordered in a chronological manner.

Cheers.

I've noticed a lot of radical disagreement on several boards on the g diapers issue, and I think the point that seems to be missing from the discussion is that eco-consciousness is big business, as such there is good reason to begin with skepticism and move from there. On the other hand, it is quite possible that g Diapers do in fact represent a solid ecological improvement -- but there are no unbiased studies yet available to prove this.

I restate: there are no *unbiased* studies yet available to prove this. MBCD's Cradle-to-Cradle certification is paid for by the companies that seek it. By definition it is biased. That does not mean that MBCD is not working hard to lessen the environmental impact of the companies it works with. It does mean, however, that they do so with the goal of profiting or at least sustaining the company economically. Therefore they are by no means a "watchdog" organization. Compare this for example with the government study done in the UK "Lifecycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Nappies." While some disagree with its methods, it was supported by a independent governmental agency, not by companies with an ability to gain economically by its outcome.

Ultimately, your choice to use g Diapers -- or any diapering solution -- will be based on a "gut feeling" that it is the right thing, and on a match with your personal lifestyle. It's simply not possible, in my opinion, to "trust" MBCD certification regardless of how well-meaning the company is, when that certification and its parameters are paid for by the companies that seek the title, not by groups of concerned citizens. Nor, clearly, is it possible to take everything that g Diapers says about its product at face value.

On g Diapers own site, they state "Flushable refills are plastic-free, organic material. So they really will break down in the landfill." Anyone who knows anything about landfills knows that this is simply not true. Scientific studies of landfills have unearthed 50-year old newspapers that were still readable, and grapes that had not yet decomposed.

Ultimately, I have to agree with Jennifer's comments above. My problem with g Diapers is that they make claims that simply cannot be made with a breezy confidence that assumes I either don't know the facts or won't bother to find out. That having been said, however, I will probably still use them. As I research their claims I find some that are outlandish, but some that do seem to be backed up by good science.

Before I make that choice, however, it's up to *me* to find out whether composting the wet refills will be toxic to my vegetable garden! The g Diapers site states with confidence that the SAP crystals do nothing but act as 'water storying granules.' But in much the same as I do when my doctor says "vaccinate" I don't make a move without doing the research. For better or for worse, in these complicated times we all of us need to act based on information and educated decisions -- blind trust just gets you into trouble.

Hi all of you,

so what's the opinion of those of you who really seem to know a lot about the environmental stuff and paper and toxins and so on:
Wouldn't it be better if people who absolutely do not want to use cloth would use gdiapers or a system like it?
Even if there is still some problems, isn't it better than the pure disposables?
This is really a severe question as I'm trying to talk my sister into using them who absolutely will never use cloth diapers.
Thanks for your opinion!
And one more: Does anyone of you know about the "super absorbent lock-away cells" in the gdaipers as they write themselves? Is this harmful if you flush or compost it? Is it still better to use g instead of disposables?

Thanks so much, Laura (from Germany so sorry about mistakes)

I use gdiapers for both of my diapered little guys and i love them. I barely ever use the disposable liners though. they are a three part system consisting of the cloth outer layer, a barier vinyl strip that snaps in and then the third part is the disposable but i use cloth inside. i prefer these over everything else because if it's just a wet diaper then i just change the cloth liner and the vinyl strip only sometimes (almost every time with a poop) the vinyl is nicer than the pants one can find everywhere (like gerber or whatever) and they are easily hand washed and dry quickly. they are also super cute so that's a plus! don't get so hung up on all the details.
the only way to avoid issues in diapering would be to organicly grow, weave and sew your own hemp diapers and wash them in rainwater and even then. how do you keep from contaminating the ground water with baby poo. ha! no, seriously these are great, though there is a learning curve. i wish they'd use organic fabric. but they are a domestic company and i understand that the disposable is made in ohio. check out the yahoo group for more. they are OBSESSED!

gDiapers doesn't claim to be the best, they claim to be better than landfill diapers--which they are--including 7th Generation. They biodegrade in a landfill in about 150 days whereas a regular disposable takes 500 years.

Cloth diapers aren't actually the most green option either because of the resources needed to clean them--water and energy. I am not saying they are as bad as regular disposables... but many companies have done comparisons and find both have seriously harmful impacts on the environment.

Really, what it comes down to, there is no perfect solution for diapering your child. No matter which option you choose--disposables, cloth or gDiapers--you WILL be harming the environment in some way... its a matter of choosing the lesser of 2 (or in this case 3) evils here. Regular disposables are the worst, then chlorine free disposables... lastly, imo gDiapers and Cloth are on the same level --just in different ways.

The only PURE Green solution for diapering your child... is not to... but seriously, is that a viable option? you'd do more wash cleaning EVERYTHING... so... pick the lesser of the evils that works best for you and feel better knowing that at least you aren't putting 5,000 (approximate number of diapers a child will use before potty training) pieces of trash in a landfill that EACH will take 500 years to decompose.

I lvoe the passion everyone has given on these posts... and its people like us who are at least trying to make a difference who WILL make a difference. perhaps not for ourselves, but for a distant future generation.

the gDiapers will compost in your garden... things don't compost in landfills for different reasons. I read it somewhere but can't seem to remember where. It is because of how landfills are created, sustained or something that things that normally would biodegrade, don't or take longer. But... I'd rather have a gDiaper liner made of natural fibers than a plastic-chlorine bleached toxin filled diaper sitting in a landfill--wouldn't you?

as to the fact they don't use organic cotton, they give a reason for this as well on their site. They are looking into it, but I think it had to do with resources and costs... but like I said before... they are still better than plastic disposables!