Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I seem to recall that you need to wash newborn baby clothes in Non Bio detergent. Quick question: do you wash all clothing even brand new clothes fresh from the shop? And do you end up washing all your laundry in Non Bio - after all you will be holding baby etc.


Having a slow freelance day and trying to compile lists of things I need to buy/do before baby and I swear my brain is not working.

Hi there


I washed ALL newborn stuff before putting it on my LO..definitely less slack nowadays, BUT he got a sore chin over the weekend and I traced it back to the Vanish I'd put in the wash (with non-bio detergent). Once I stripped his sheets and duvet and changed to the stuff that hadn't beeen washed with Vanish, the soreness cleared up, literally overnight..so even at 2 years they can still be sensitive to bio detergents in my experience.

I'm no expert, but I'd say yes and yes. Definitely wash all new clothes before baby wears them (I think it's in case any germs/dust etc have got into them in transit), and you should avoid biological detergents because of their sensitive skin so it's probably just as easy to non-bio for all your washing - can't think of a downside.
I washed all items, sheets, towels, blankets and clothes before letting a newborn use them in non-bio detergent. We tend to use nonbio in the house, but with toddlers and older children also have bio for those really pesky stains and/or very dirty muddy clothes. I don't think you have to go crazy, ie, because your baby is touching you that you have to wash your own clothes in non bio, but as louiseneilan says, it can't hurt.
I'm not sure it's so much about germs when it comes to new clothes - the smell of new clothes makes me think there's some kind of chemical (a fabric conditioner) on it when it comes from the factory and that this could irritate baby skin. I think non bio is milder on the skin too and apparently soap flakes/tablets leave less residue than liquid soap but that's getting very picky ;-)

On the other hand, I didn't wash anything that wasn't dirty (passed down from older sibs) before mine were born. It didn't seem to make a blind bit of difference. They didn't seem uncomfortable or get any odd rashes. they certainly didn't complain! And no-one pointed a finger saying "OMG you haven't washed those new baby clothes before you put them on the baby, call social services!". I would say; wash them if you want, don't if you're not fussed but don't feel pressured into it by anyone else. It's very easy to get a bit too precious over these things for no good reason. But I'm a lazy moo so I would say that.


And when I did wash I used non-bio, though I don't really know why? Less itchy on the skin people say? Never seen any research though - Fuschia, over to you . . . .

I find that biological washing powder (Ecover is a good one) washes better, but for newborn clothes I just gave them an extra rinse cycle.


Oh how blessed we are these days, just to be able to turn the machine over to an extra cycle. My mother was reminding me of her days growing up. Her mother made their own soap on their farm, and their washer was the manual crank-handle type with a ringer over the basin!

I always wash with non-bio anyway as I have sensitive skin, definitely wash baby clothes in non-bio too. Always wash things fresh from the shop, you never know how far its been kicked round the floor etc even if it doesn't look like it has, also germs from other people looking and holding the garment.

A few years ago Bristol University carried out a study into washing detergents, based on the fact that we are the only country in Europe to have non Bios yet the ratio of childhood eczema & skin sensitivity is no lower here than elsewhere.


What they discovered is that the bleaching agents they put in the non bios to get stuff clean are just as aggressive on the skin as the chemical enzymes in the bios. The crucial point seems to be HOW MUCH you use rather than what you use. We all tend to put way too much detergent in our washes, which leads to a build up of detergents in the fabric which your baby is then likely to develop a sensitivity to. Oh some liquid non bios don't have bleaching agents in, but you need to be a chemist to decipher the list of ingredients!


So, check your packets and use HALF what they recommend. For me' Vanish has never caused a problem, but if course different skins react to different things. I find a tiny amount of bio gets our clothes clean most effectively, with a spray of vanish if needed on any bad stains.


I used to have a link to the Bristol Uni report online but I'm not sure it's still there, will have a look.


So, wash new stuff too if you want, but just a short cycle with water alone, or a tiny amount if detergent should do.


X

Umm - I am obv v lazy - I never pre wash (I think I may have the first couple of things I bought before baby was born, but never again) - and we use bio as non bio just doesn't seem to do the job. But then I guess we are lucky and his skin doesn't seem too sensitive.


What's the deal with fabric conditioner and tumble dryer sheet thingies - are they baddies too?

Have to say that due to baby coming 5 weeks early, we hadn't washed ANY of the clothes we'd bought for her! She was in the special care baby unit at Kings and I explained this to the nurses there who thought I was mad to worry about that and told me it wasn't necessary to wash it at all! This advice relating to a baby who was ill at that point means I can't believe it can be that bad if you don't wash anythiny...saying that, am pregnant with 2nd one now and am sure I will wash everything just to be sure!
In that case I may take it easy - wash the stuff that goes right on the baby's skin but not necessarily everything. I am relunctant to wash baby knitwear because if memory serves it's very easy to shrink them to unwearable sizes

I think that's fine supergolden - I always put hand-me-downs through a wash without any detergent simply to get rid of any existing built up in them that my girls might react to (as different from what we use), but new stuff I have to say I didn't bother with 2nd time around.


In all honestly I think most of us worry too much, to a greater or lesser extent, mostly down to marketing by companies that want to sell their products (non bio detergents, 'actifit' nappies (snort), oh - the latest one that had me laughing a handwash that comes in an automatic dispenser so you don't have to touch the - potentially bacteria covered - pump...but er...if you were to touch the pump you're about to wash your hands right...so the problem is.....?????? I was sitting there thinking 'what a clever idea' and then realised how daft it was (assuming you are thorough when washing your hands of course).


Snowboarder, I haven't heard anything dreadful about fabric conditioners or sheets, so I'd say that if you are using them without problems you are probably OK. You could try doing a Google, but it may strike fear into you, be careful what you Google is my rule of thumb these days!!!

Instead of using dryer sheets, try dryer balls for a no-chemi approach.


http://www.ethicalsuperstore.com/products/ecozone/dryer-balls/


I bought similar at the eco shop on LL. They work well, except for sometimes getting lost in the bottom corners of duvet covers.

I think either way the baby will be fine. I washed all of the clothes that I had bought for my daughter before she was born in non-bio but didnt pre wash anything that she was given as a gift after she was born!


in post baby brain frazzle it just didnt occur to me and actually still hadnt until I read this thread-oops!


but she didnt get any rashes etc so guess either way would be fine.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...