To bore you with another baby/chocolate thread?

[arabella36]

If yes then sorry!
Following on from the PP's question re her 6 month- old, tell me what age you gave your baby their first chocolate or sweet?

Mine is 10 months and I was just assuming most people left it until age one. But I suppose this is a bit arbitrary.

Oh christ, cant remember with my dd, but my ds who is now two has choc/ice cream/sweets every day. I cant help it, Im a sweet fiend myself, and they just follow suit!

It was Easter - seems like a good a time as any and she was either 5 or 6 months. Depends when Easter was that year!

6 months. A tiny amount as BLW so he just has what we have. When I had a chocolate he had a tiny sliver.

DD (pfb) was chocolate birthday cake on her first birthday.

DS - had chocolate muffin shoved in his mouth by helpful DD at 7-8 months

Dd was 10 months. I gave her a hipp organic chocolate pudding. She had one bite, she opened her eyes wide, sat up straight and said an excited "yum!". She ate it all.It was very funny.
We plan on letting her have 2-3 chocolate button on Xmas day.

two weeks

Depends on who gets there first.

When DS2 was born I had to intercept a malteser which his older brother kindly wanted to share with him (he was 1 day old).

Funnily enough the scene was repeated in September following the birth of DS3, this time it was DS2 trying to give him a haribo sweet and DS3 was about 7 hours old!

Thank you for all the replies. I think I'll have to let her have a taste of chocolate at Christmas then. Big deal to me but I suspect she'll not notice!

On an aside, I use the baby biscuits sweetened with fruit concentrate. You know the "plum organic" brand? Anyway, my mum tasted one of them one day and said they are very very very sweet, and so would she not be better off with a boring biscuit like a rich tea? It would be less sweet, (possibly less sugar??).

What do you think? I suppose I'm wondering am I just being a sucker to the description on these biscuits as being organic, no added sugar, specifically for baby etc, assuming they're better?!

dd2 grabbed it out of my hand and stuffed her face with with while I was like this . She was now older than 6.5 mo.

yes you are a mug

do read the paxket of the expensive organic baby biscuits and compare with normal ones

fruit sugar is still sugar

we are rich tea fingers all the way here, they are about 1/10th the price too

(oh and re chocolate, the 3yo is still on very strict rations, so no hope for the 11mo just yet)

That's exactly the conclusion I arrived at Mrs Badger! Isn't it such a gimmick!

A bit like leaving your baby on expensive baby cereals for months and months when ready brek/weetabix has sufficiently low salt to be fine(after a certain age I know).

Agree too with the rich tea. Just because the sugar comes from an apple doesn't make it better sugar, surely. Fruit concentrate is very sweet - just think of undiluted ribena! I think it's a great marketing hook - think apple = healthy.

My view, fwiw, is that if you don't make it an issue it won't become one. As long as your dd has a balanced diet, cleaned teeth and isn't sucking on sweet things for a large part of the day, she'll be fine.

I was a bit annoyed today when I read DS's (14months) nursery daily sheet and the pudding was chocolate trifle. I know it's christmas but that seems a bit too much!

I gave him a teeny teeny teeny bit of choc digestive at about 7 months as he was grabbing and I'm BLW so that is the way to go. I also gave him the smallest possible bit of mini roll at a party a few weeks ago as he reached for it. But usually I eat that type of stuff where he can't see me! My MIL thinks I'm cruel for not giving him sweet stuff. I think what is the point??!

My Mum was letting my 2 month old taste a candy cane last week! She's a shocker for saying 'it's only a little taste'. It doesn't bother me too much tbh it's not something she'd do or I'd allow, on a regular basis.

DD was around 6 months and she grabbed a chocolate brownie out of my hand while she was in the sling and took a good nibble... It may have been the first solid food she ate (or that may have been the banana she took out of my hand in the same way)

I was a bit surprised but not bothered. If I'm eating chocolate in front of her now I'd probably give her a tiny piece. I believe in a balanced diet and plenty of exercise. A bit of chocolate fits in fine, esp. since she brushes her teeth every day.

Unfortunately, DD refuses to eat white chocolate or any other "kiddie" chocolate that doesn't taste sufficiently chocolatey. This means that I've taken to hiding my bars of Maya Gold etc.. in between books on the top shelves of the bookcases and she watches me like a hawk whenever I walk past them.

actually there is no salt in readybrek at all

With DS1 I think I may have been more precious but it was so long ago that I can't actually remember. He was my first but I come from a big family of very relaxed parenting so maybe not so precious.

With DS2 it has been a free for all since 6 months, he eats what we are eating, it is just better than all the phaffing.

Though like whoknowswhatthefutureholds DS1's 1st birthday cake was a chocolate mud and he was grabbing fistfuls so it must have been before one, but I think he mostly smeared it in his hair.

The thing that always makes me chuckle about the anti sweets brigade ,are the ones who give their children fruit ,dried or otherwise and fruit juice (ask any dentist ,tis evil stuff ) , these things are sweet because they contain SUGAR , doesnt matter if its fruit sugar or processed sugar ,it is still sugar

No arabella, not a gimic- they are sweetened with fruit juice not refined sugar. There is actually a difference and it's not to do with teeth - it's not 'just' sugar. There are different types and the body processes them different ways. Simply put, fructose (sugar from fruit) is processed much slower, giving the body more time to react and putting it under less stress than refined sugar which it has to process very quickly. Of course, if you don't really mind giving your baby refined sugar, then there's probably not much point in buying the fruit sweetened biscuits but a lot of mums, including me, would rather stick with sugars that don't put such a strain on a young body that's just learning to cope with new foods.

Cake on her 1st birthday. Can't remember when she had her first proper chocolate.

around 10 months I think

As far as teeth are concerned (and there are plenty of DCs having supposedly healthy diets who have decayed baby teeth) sugar is indeed sugar. Combine the fructose with acids found in fruit and juices, they're more damaging to teeth than the odd choclate button.

Obviously dried fruit is even worse as it sticks to teeth. Perhaps not in the way toffee does, but consider how many toddlers have raisins as a regular snack. I imagine fruit-sweetened biscuits aren't much better tbh.

WRT chocolate - of course babies/toddlers don't need it - but there are lots of things they don't need that we give to them. It would be a pretty joyless world otherwise.