to give my daughter chocolate?

[SpiraelingSnowflakes]

Ok, a brief bit of background first!

DD is a week shy of 6 months old. She is a bottomless pit hungry baby and enjoys 10+ long BF's per day alongside 3 healthy meals of porridge/fruit/vegetables/yoghurt/etc. Spoon fed currently, but I'm planning on doing a combo with BLW imminently.

For Christmas, we are going down to visit my parents (weather permitting). A few weeks ago my Mum suggested letting my DD have her first taste of chocolate on Christmas Day. She proposed some chocolate buttons.

I countered this with suggesting just one chocolate button, melted (and allowed to cool!) into some baby porridge. As a one-off special treat for Christmas, rather than becoming a regular meal-!

AIBU to allow chocolate at all?

I can't speak/read Italian, so that won't help me, sadly.

Cured meats make sense though. I mean you are supposed to avoid them in pregnancy as well, I imagine for similar reasons. Fried food, though? Why fried food?

Wasn't meaning to sound critical, incidentally - I find cultural differences really interesting. For example people here cheerfully eat salad in pregnancy and are neurotic about cheese, whereas in France that's reversed. Both are slight listeria risks.

I think YANBU, I was in a similar boat last year, my daughter was 7m at Christmas and was only just weaned and I was a bit of a food nazi cautious feeder, but I bought a little jar of Hipp Organic chocolate pud for her to have on Christmas Day and she loved it!

She is 19m now, and has so far worked her way through an entire pack of tree chocolates (either by climbing up and stealing them or sweethearting them off Grandad)!

A little bit of chocolate every now and then is fine - but I know what you mean - its tempting to want to ban anything remotely unhealthy for fear of it becoming more than just a one-off treat!

There is a big difference in how the body processes fruit sugar and refined sugar that you find in cakes, chocolate etc. It is ridiculous to think that a baby will appreciate this as a 'treat'.

I also find it ridiculous that people don't think they can explain to a child that different foods are good/bad for them. I don't ban chocolate for my 4 yo but he doesn't get it regularly and he is aware of which foods are healthy and which foods are ok from time to time.

It really is bizarre that people think they need to introduce unhealthy foods to their children at young ages to stop them having food issues when they are older. Sure why don't we make sure we give them a bit of wine and a few cigarettes now just to make sure they don't become 'forbidden fruit' when they're older

There is a problem with childhood obesity in this country - that is a FACT. Disagree with me all you want but it comes from somewhere and starting babies on chocolate and desserts is hardly good for them. Damaging, you may argue no, but it's not GOOD for them so why bother? Why not give them some fruit instead? At least it has some nutritional benefit!

It comes from not introducing kids to a wide range of healthy and delicious food. And I know a couple of anorexics whose parents took a rigid, no sweets approach in childhood, which may be why I am strongly against such an approach now. Obesity is not the only problem with disordered eating.

No food is bad in moderation, and setting up anxieties about "good" and "bad foods is IMO an unhealthy way to proceed. I highly doubt obese kids grow up, for the most part, in families where a healthy and wide-ranging diet is the norm. It's ridiculous to suggest as much. If a kid grows up in a house stuffed full of junk food and thinks a snack is a bag of crisps or a choc bar rather than an apple, sure, that isn't healthy. But that's very different from the model being suggested, and it's a strawman argument to assert to the contrary.

It's perfectly good to start babies on chocolate and pudding if you yourself eat them only very occasionally. "Going on a diet" doesn't work longterm in almost all cases, everyone knows that, because it isn't sustainable. If you eat sensibly and well, then your kids should be able to eat what you do, too. That includes the occasional treat. I think the modern parental fixation with perfect diet is in tandem with a society that no longer cooks that much. Parents who want kids with healthy diets need to model that themselves, not give their kids a pure and perfect one while they eat altogether differently.

A bit of chocolate, a smidge of ice cream and a taste of apple crumble a couple of times a week is not going to corrupt your precious petal into a life of obesity.

I would just let her have the buttons as finger food. I think she'd enjoy them more as buttons than melted into her breakfast.
Also, as it's Xmas I would let her have more than one.

perfectstorm - how does explaining about food groups etc set up anxieties about food? Anecdotally, I know some people who had 'no sweets' policies growing up and are NOT anorexic, similarly people with anorexia can come from families with a relaxed policy to sweets - it means nothing!

"Parents who want kids with healthy diets need to model that themselves, not give their kids a pure and perfect one while they eat altogether differently."

Well and good if the parents don't have a rubbish diet - it would be much better for a child then if they did have a different diet to their parents.

"A bit of chocolate, a smidge of ice cream and a taste of apple crumble a couple of times a week is not going to corrupt your precious petal into a life of obesity. "

Why give it to them at all though? They don't NEED it and they'd probably be just as happy with some nice fruit and a yoghurt. What is the obsession with 'treating' children with sugar?

I don't obsess about "treating" ds. I simply have a rule that he can eat what we do. It's definitely the case that I am more mindful of what we eat as a result, but I am simply not willing to be neurotic about food for him, or for us. I agree that there is a real issue in the way some people treat kids with sweet things to comfort when upset, for example - that makes food a comfort object which I think is also bad news - but I don't see any reason to deny them sweet things now and then, either.

I give DS apple and cheese sticks as a snack, or dried mango, not chocolate. But if we are eating pudding, then he'll be offered some. Most of the time, incidentally, he doesn't want any. I think normalising that is the way forward. I don't think a diet of junk food is healthy at all, and in point of fact a parent who eats that is not going to overcome the damage by feeding their kids perfection. Kids learn, as we all know, by observation. They aren't going to eat healthy food if what is modelled is junk, just as soon as they can choose for themselves. Banning any foodstuff strikes me as ridiculous and over the top - restricting, sure. I'd never give mine coco pops fpr breakfast, for example. In this house that is either porridge or eggs on toast. I buy healthy - low salt and sugar bakes beans, lots of fruit and veg, and so on. This thread isn't about an overall bad diet, it's about allowing kids treats as part of a healthy one, and I think they're psychologically important. Hell, Jamie Oliver has said the evidence he's seen says the same and he is hardly the poster boy for unhealthy food for kids, is he?

Can I just point out that your own blanket assertions are constant, yet when I point out a different point of view you say my reasoning means nothing? I'm interested in this subject and have actually read pretty widely on it. I comprehensively disagree with your position, not because I am stupid or ignorant but because I don't feel the evidence or common sense is on your side. I appreciate you feel the reverse, but I would be grateful if you could start to treat that dissent with a modicum of courtesy. Capital letters, rolling eyed smilies and "it means nothing" in response to my opinion is flat out rude.

I think a lot of the YABU posters on the thread have a very odd attitude to chocolate themselves. Instead of seeing it as food - which might be a taste that is pleasant - it appears it's seen as some sort of demon or reward.

It's true that DD won't see it as a treat - but then it's not a treat it's food, and the question should really be about is it appropriate food for the DD. And yes, it's suitably nutritious, little risk of choking, it's a pretty good food.

"just as happy with some nice fruit and a yoghurt."

But fruit and yoghurt is sugar too. Chocolate is simply a denser, fat-laden means of ingesting sugar.

I love the nice use of 'nice'.

As another point, I had my daughter in Asia and mine and my paeds there are very old fashioned when it comes to weaning. BLW is an anathema to them. TCM is widely used for confinement and during pregnancy. I think sometimes they can be behind the curve.

And when you are pregnant they don't really give you prescribed lists of foods to avoid. I was happily eating everything and spoke to an English friend who was horrified.

hmmm - I think it was you that used a rolling eyes emoticon in response to my post actually perfect storm and when you use something as serious as anorexia to back up your idea that a restrictive diet is bad then yes, I am going to disagree with you!

I actually think we agree on quite a few things (so I'm not sure why you 'comprehensively disagree' with me, we also eat the same (relatively healthy diet) as our children to lead by example and we don't forbid things like cake and chocolate although we do restrict them. Where we do perhaps seem to disagree is age. I see absolutely no point in offering a small child who has absolutely no concept of what it is that you are eating, things like cake, chocolate, sweets etc when they would be just as happy with a much healthier alternative. I understand when a child is older that it is a bit pointless to offer them an apple why you devour a bar of chocolate.

otcha - Yes, 'nice', because some fruit is nicer than others - just as some chocolate is nicer than others :) Of course that is at the discretion of whoever is eating it! Fruit has other things besides sugar (which I have also said earlier - it is a different type of sugar anyway) vitamins and fibre for example which make it a healthier choice - did no one else study this type of stuff in school?

Fruit does contain fibre and vitamins. So does chocolate. In fact, chocolate (particularly high cocoa percentage stuff) is quite densely packed with vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. Of course, a dietician wouldn't recommend a diet heavily based on low-grade chocolate but there is nothing inherently wrong or unhealthy about small amounts of chocolate.

Yes, I did study this and other things at school and university. Your patronising tone does nothing to foster your debate.

Sorry, should amend that to say cholocate doesn't contain much fibre, but as long as eat sufficient fibre in other meals, that's fine.

And isn't it rather subjective which fruit is 'nice'

I think durian is nice, but many people wouldn't eat it for its cloacal stench.

Yes it is otcha which was why I said it was at the discretion of the person eating it! There are very small traces of vitamins in chocolate and a heap of saturated fat to go with them. It is not 'healthy' by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, dark chocolate is slightly better but I think we were talking about chocolate buttons here which are no where near 70% cocoa! Are you really trying to say that a baby would get as much from a chocolate button as from some fruit? In the early years I think it is even more important to have a healthy diet and not fill our children up with empty calories.

No, I shouldn't have retaliated to your rolling-eyed smiley at 20.36 with my own, bubbly. I agree, no excuse for meeting childish rudeness with the same, and I will happily apologise for that.

My thoughts on restrictive and controlling parental attitudes on food being linked to anorexia are in fact backed up by research, so yes, it is in my opinion highly relevant. You may of course disagree, though again, I'd appreciate a tad more respect in your manner when so doing. Personally, I think your comparing very occasional sugary treats to allowing children cigarettes and alcohol is ridiculous, though I was trying not to say so that openly. Alcohol damages a developing brain - it's dangerous to children when it isn't to adults. And cigarettes are dangerous to everyone. Sugar, in moderation, is not. The problem I have with making sugar this great big bogeyman is that we all eat it, we all enjoy it, so why deny it to kids as an occasional part of a good diet? It's not harmful, unless given in regularly in large amounts. GI/GL matters, absolutely, and I do try to be aware of that when cooking. But pleasure matters, too. Joy in eating, and in a relaxed way, matters. My son gets that from eating scrambled eggs ("delicious, mama!" he said this morning when getting down) but he also gets it from the couple of mouthfuls of pavlova he ate yesterday. And I think that's as it should be.

I think the best way to bring up healthy kids is to teach them by example. And I don't see why you'd deny the pleasures of sweet things to them, if you don't deny yourself. If the family are eating choc buttons, then no issue IMO offering them to a baby, too. It would be a problem if that were a daily occurrence. My DS refused solids very firmly until 7 months and chocolate until this past couple of months, which is the other thing - OP's dd may refuse the taste, anyway.

I suppose my touchstone with food is to be relaxed about it. For the same reason I don't fret if he eats nothing much one meal - he will the next. I think so much psychological weight is loaded on the subject, and right from infancy. Breast/bottle, baby-led/purees... sometimes, it feels like people think food choices = how much you love your child. It seems like the only explanation for the sheer level of rigidity and heat expended on the subject. And while I cheer on Jamie Oliver's efforts to educate people whose diets are so poor their kids are at genuine risk, I also know a lot of yummy mummies who are, frankly, bonkers in the other direction. I've seen a child cry at a 2nd birthday party because his mother banned the cake all the others were eating. Not for allergy reasons, or because they were vegans; because it had refined sugar in it. My apologies if you aren't one of those parents, my sense from your posts is you sounded as if you might be. Babies are curious, and if they want to sample everything, why not? I didn't offer DS choc at 6 months because it never occurred to me, but had it been Xmas, then I might have.

My mother started on my son the other day about how he'd not get any pudding unless he ate his main course. I was really cross. He would eat as much as he wanted of each, and we don't usually have pudding, anyway (he refused his pudding after all that, because he doesn't have a sweet tooth). What a way to make him devalue his main course. That was her generation's way, and it can't be all wrong because we eat well as adults. But most of us enjoy sweets sometimes, because they taste really good. The world is an amazing place to a baby, everything is new and exciting, and I don't see anything wrong in including chocolate amongst the smorgasbord of flavours available to them, as an Xmas one off. I really don't understand why that is any sort of a big deal. It's just offering a taste of one food amongst many, and the fact the OP is even thinking about whether or not it's a good idea rather makes me suspect that she won't be one who thinks a bag of monster munch and a wagon wheel washed down with a can of coke is a balanced supper.

YANBU. It's one button, it's Christmas. No big deal IMO.

When DD was weaned I was terribly pfb about her diet. I managed to get her to 2.5 before she tasted anything sweet except fruit (and bm). This was quite hard work as my mum and my gran thought she was dreadfully deprived.

When DS was weaned, DD liked to 'help' so it was more a case of 'oops, he's had chocolate' than any conscious decision to give it to him. I think I'd probably have gone nuts if I'd tried to restrict his diet too much.

They're both rather skinny teenagers now and, while they like their junk, it's not really the sweet stuff they go for, it's crisps, noodles, fried chicken etc.

Perfectstorm, I wasn't trying to compare the health impact of chocolate against alcohol and cigarettes, merely questioning the logic that says we should give open access to sweet food so our children don't have food issues. Does it follow that by not giving our children cigarettes and alcohol they will all smoke and drink excessively? I sincerely doubt it! So why do people think differently about food?

I think children should know that certain foods are healthy and other ones are not and are better in moderation. If you think it's ok for your children to eat sugary things x number of times a week or whatever then fine. I would rather that my children filled themselves with something more nutritious and not filled with saturated fat. I just don't see the point especially in young babies. This foes not mean that my children NEVER have sweet things btw. I have already said a few times that they aren't banned.

Actually, lots of us do follow that logic when it comes to alcohol, although not when they're really little.

yanbu, chocolate is great, no one should be denied.

Well that's my point plenty. Would it make a difference to our children's attitude to food if we wait until they are older to give them a bit more freedom in their choices? Or do we have to start offering them chocolate and cake from 6 months to make sure they don't having food issues? Personally, I think monitoring what children eat when they are young and developing is important and I don't think that giving them healthy food and cutting back on the sugar and crisps for the first few years at least will give them food issues as some other posters have suggested.

I dunno, I suspect most of us over-think it. If the parents' diet is basically healthy I see no harm in allowing babies to be weaned onto the family diet, including occasional treats.

I think i little in moderation won't hurt, i would avoid adding it to things such as porrige as she might expect it in there all the time.
But at the end of the day though it is your child and you need to do what you feel best as your the one who has to look after her.

Perfectstorm, yes, sorry, pointing you to the Italian google wasn't very helpful

The reason why here in Italy they advise against giving cured meats and fried food when weaning a small child is again because they are food that an immature liver find difficult to process (while cured meat during pregnancy are best avoided for the risk of toxoplasmosis, which can be dangerous to the foetus).

As you said, it has lots to do with local habits and cultural differences. For instance, despite having lived in the UK for a long time, I still find it difficult to view fish finger as a suitable food for small children .
And I'm NOT precious at all, I really don't think twice about offering them salame

I'll catch up with the rest of the thread later.