# "Not intended for sleepwear"



## owensmom (Feb 23, 2002)

What is with clothes that say "not intended for sleepwear" on them? They always seem to be something soft and warm and the brand is something like "Night Night Snugglebug". But they aren't supposed to wear them to bed? Does anyone know why? Are they maybe just not made with flame retardant material? Or is there a hidden danger about them?


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

They are not inherently dangerous, they are jsut not made with fire retardant synthietic fabric, or cotton treated with retardant material. For flammable fabric, they are supposed to be very tight fitting. So anything else has to say not intended for sleepwear. My child sleeps in day clothes. I keep her away from open flame. I find the sleepwear standards ridiculous. I have no open element heaters, smokers, or fire in my home. If a fire gets that close to my child, smoke inhalation will probably already killed her. I suspect the standards were codified after many kid's clothes began being made with super flammable synthetics.


----------



## LunaMom (Aug 8, 2002)

I think it's mostly a CYA thing (cover your a$$), because by law, all children's pjs have to be either made of flame-retardant material, or if not, has to be very snug-fitting so that there is no air trapped between the clothing and the skin, which can increase flammability. Some companies make items that are clearly pajama-like, but since they do not meet those standards, they need to put that warning label on them. You know how litigious people can be in this country...

My dd wears only 100% cotton pjs, so they all fit very snugly. She looks cute that way!


----------



## owensmom (Feb 23, 2002)

Ah, good to know, and bummer! I saw the cutest red longjohns that were on clearance today. They said that, so I didn't buy them, even though they seem fine. You know, it would be just my luck because I overlooked something obvious. Now I will know that it is ok, unless ds is smoking in bed...


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Yeah, they're not flame retardant.

as if...

Dss wear 100% untreated cotton jammies.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

The best pajamas are the "Long underwear" lable "not intended for sleep wear" Thaty is pretty much how we judge if it will be good and comfy


----------



## Mothernature (Jun 10, 2002)

Ok, I had to laugh. Children sleep in whatever they have on when they fall asleep. So I guess anything that isn't intended for sleepwear isn't intended for childwear either.


----------



## Court (Oct 31, 2002)

My ds never could wear the snug fitting pj's. He's too big and hot natured. I remember trying to get one hand through the sleeve and the cuffs were so tight that he couldn't get it on. He's also got quite a little buda belly...so it seems like it would be uncomfortable. He always sleeps in a t-shirt and sweat pants or whatever he's wearing when he falls asleep.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

My assumption is that flame retardant sleepwear is most important if your child is sleeping in another room. If your babe is right beside you, what are the chances that flames could reach her before you were aware of it and took action? Comfort is more important, imo. And most of that flame retardant stuff is not so soft...


----------



## shanleysmama (Mar 9, 2002)

The fabric is not flame retardant. Some believe that sleepwear should fit snug, because looser fitting clothing could be flapping behind the child as they run from flames and catch on fire (although then why do they make nightgowns?). Also since a lot of fires happen at night there is less reaction time to get away since everyone has to be roused from sleep, so something snug fitting and flame resistant is definitely beneficial. It's probably also the CYA thing too.
Melanie


----------



## zevulon (Dec 26, 2001)

Here's another vote for just ignoring that warning--I agree it's all done for a legal reason. Taking it further, most all the toys that our 21-month-old has are "prohibited" for under three years of age (at least they have been once he stopped putting everything into his mouth). The sleeping clothes don't have to be flame-retardant if we are in the same bed and the toys don't have to be lawsuit-proof if one of us is with ds every minute of every day. Peace of mind and an early entry into Lincoln Logs--another advantage of AP.

But if you are still worried...there are some 100% cotton clothes that are flame-retardant and approved by the powers that be (who are they anyway, Haliburton?). You can find them through many of the companies that advertise in Mothering.


----------



## mom3 (Sep 27, 2002)

The 'Not Intended for Sleepwear" thing started years ago when many people still used open flames to heat their homes. (We had a huge discussion about this in one of my fashion classes at college.) Children would get burned horribly and parents would sue the clothing manufacturers and when a jury sees a horribly burned child of course they're going to give a large settlement to the parents. The only thing these labels mean is that it will be harder for the parent of an injured child to collect damages from the company that manufactures the clothing, otherwise known as covering their a$$. I basically ignore any labeling like that and buy whatever I want for my boys to sleep in. I would avoid the cotton sleepwear that is "treated" just because I don't know exactly what the chemicals are that make it flame retardent and don't really want stuff like that near my dss skin KWIM?


----------



## *~*SewHappyNow*~* (Sep 25, 2002)

Guess I shouldn't let my 4 week old smoke in bed or else I best buy this flame retardent sleep wear









always thought those labels were silly........

seriously.. smoke inhalation is what kills you in fires, not being burned to death

you're better off buying smoke detectors and replacing the batteries regularly


----------



## *~*SewHappyNow*~* (Sep 25, 2002)

.


----------



## kaje62 (Nov 20, 2001)

yeah we have smoke detetectors and I would rather not have my babe in those chemical loaded clothes.


----------



## Rebecca (Dec 4, 2002)

I'm with Clarity.. we don't have candles, space heaters, etc, we don't smoke and (this is brutal) if there was a fire and we couldn't get to the baby for whatever reason, bad stuff will happen whether he's wearing flame retardant fabric or not.

The flame retardant chemicals wash away over time anyway. I prefer not to have my son sleeping in those icky polyester jersey sleepers that catch every bit of dry skin on your fingers. Yuck. Sean sleeps in blanket sleepers or 100% cotton jammies (or whatever he fell asleep in). LOL!!


----------



## reesa (Apr 22, 2002)

Just for a bit of cross-cultural comparison - none of our sleepwear says that over here and most pyjamas are 100% cotton. It is legal thing, sleepwear in the US must be flame retardant by law although this wears off as soon as you use fabric softener.


----------



## owensmom (Feb 23, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by BeccasApronStrings_
*I prefer not to have my son sleeping in those icky polyester jersey sleepers that catch every bit of dry skin on your fingers. Yuck.*
Boy I agree, that feeling makes my skin crawl!


----------



## Liz (Mar 8, 2002)

The jammies from the Gap and Old Navy are all cotton but super tight fitting so they qualify as "Intended for Sleepwear". I hate them! Sure, he looks really cute but it's hard just to get his hand through the sleeve and he is not a chubby boy anymore.


----------



## vitrinhanim (Sep 5, 2021)

I hate them! Sure, he looks really cute but it's hard just to get his hand through the sleeve and he is not a chubby boy anymore. Best Sexy Nightgown


----------

