Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that my 22 week year old should not have chocolate?!

130 replies

natwebb79 · 08/04/2012 10:47

Just had my dad and step-mum round and they had bought my 22 week old DS an Easter egg. They looked at me like I was some controlling precious psychopath when I said he can't have chocolate yet! Poor little mite only started on mashed carrot last week Ffs!

OP posts:
GinPalace · 08/04/2012 12:02

Pompoko babies might need some fats - but refined fats and sugars don't have the same nutritional value. I think you are under-thinking it and possibly not very aware of babies physical developments.

He has a lifetime of chocolate eating ahead of him so no need to rush it and a babies digestive tract is still under-developed until at least 6 months so what exactly is gained by pushing on with processed foods early!? OK it won't kill him but what is the point? Everything is exotic and exciting to his taste-buds just now so chocolate-schmocolate, he won't care if he has it or not and his tummy will be better off without it. [buhmm]

youtalkin2me · 08/04/2012 12:08

YANBU, some ppl r just daft. We told everyone not to waste money on eggs for our LO & wait till she is old enough next year, but IL's didn't listen, morons. Thats fine tho, I will gladly devour them all tonight Grin

melliebobs · 08/04/2012 12:13

My 4wk old got her first egg today. Looking forward to eating that later Grin love white chocolate!!!!

Arion · 08/04/2012 12:13

I have 2 DCs and both were over a year when they had chocolate. DS is 14 months and has had a little bit of chocolate today but has not had an egg as he's still too young. A little bit doesn't hurt but they don't need to know what chocolate is until they are properly eating. Some health professionals suggest weaning on veg before fruit as otherwise they can refuse the more bitter veg so imagine the effect chocolate could have on sch a young palate.

DD as had books from us as she has had chocolate from relatives and she's ny 4 so a couple of eggs is plenty. DS had books from my parents as they know we think he's a bit little yet.

You are definately NOT being unreasonable!

PooPooInMyToes · 08/04/2012 12:17

Pompoko. Im a little concerned that you think there is goodness that babies need in chocolate!

FredFredGeorge · 08/04/2012 12:20

I don't get the horror that chocolate is thought of for babies, it appears to be projecting an adults disfunctional view of food onto the baby, whichever seems a good idea.

It's not a nutritional horror story at all for babies, better than a lot of foods that are commonly given. Neither cocoa butter or milk fats are awful nutritionally - they're the sort of things babies need. It's not a common allergen (and even if it was it's debateable if you should avoid it, it is often mixed with nuts and things which are more common, but rarely in easter eggs)

Wheresmycaffeinedrip · 08/04/2012 12:20

I didn't think u were supposed to use milk that was cows milk in cooking til six months anyway so as chocolate contains milk then definately shouldn't be eating it that young as its not fermented milk as in yogurts :)

squeakytoy · 08/04/2012 12:23

chocolate is only poisonous to dogs.. not children

a tiny taste of it will not kill a 4 month old baby... I do not understand the pearl clutching at the thought of a bit of chocolate going in your childs mouth!

changeforthebetter · 08/04/2012 12:24

ROFL Pompoko "babies need fat"? Really?? Milk chocolate?! Grin Are you the mum I saw in town giving her baby Quavers a while back? Grin

Agree it was probably just a bit of over-excited GP-ing and a nice smile and resolved to scoff the lot yourself is fine.

changeforthebetter · 08/04/2012 12:25

Sorry, what I meant to say was "you should have given them a nice smile..." etc.

Not remotely PFB of you to be a bit Shock tho

pumpkinsweetie · 08/04/2012 12:27

I think some comments on here are way OTT, it is only chocolate & a TINY piece is not going to hurt a 4 month old baby!
Its Easter chill out i bet we all had a piece of choc when we were small babies & we are all still alive.
Op can feed her baby what she wishes but dont make up rubbish about choc being badAngry

MadameChinLegs · 08/04/2012 12:27

We got an egg given to our 15w/o dd. Needless to say, her dad is loving it!

Original poster
natwebb79 · 08/04/2012 12:29

Oh I did smile and thank them. Just got the impression she thought I was an idiot. I know chocolate isn't poisonous to babies but my criteria for what to feed a weaning baby goes a bit beyond 'anything that doesn't kill them'. Sorry! Smile

OP posts:
bruffin · 08/04/2012 12:31

Ginpalace a babies digestive tract is not underdeveloped until 6months. It is 17 weeks at the latest, the introduction of food then actually helps with the maturation of the digestive system.

GhastlyBespoke · 08/04/2012 12:35

Natwebb. Aah clearer to me now. So they expected you to feed her some there and then. I thought it was merely the giving of the chocolate that was this issue.
Well then you are perfectly within your rights to say firmly but politely "thankyou for the thought but I'd rather not"

takingiteasy · 08/04/2012 12:39

I remember walking into our living room and seen chocolate spread around my DS's mouth, he was about 12 weeks at the time. DH thought he wanted a taste. Hmm

Anyway, there was no point in getting all hysterical about it, DS weaned later on with no problems or allergies, but does have a love for nutella.

5madthings · 08/04/2012 12:46

well i ate my 16mth old dd's easter egg Blush she has had a few little bits of her brothers, but she didnt get any last year as she was too little and 22kws is too little imo, none of mine ranging in age from 12yrs down to 16mths had even started being weaned at that age!

Birdsgottafly · 08/04/2012 13:06

Mine are teens now and nutritional issues aside, i can still remember the nappies after they had tried chocolate and such like, that alone was a good enough reason for my babies to stick to recommended weaning foods.

skybluepearl · 08/04/2012 13:13

Any choc eggs given to babies are meant for the mummy right?! That's what I've always been led to believe anyway.

GinPalace · 08/04/2012 13:17

Bruffin - I would be interested where you got that info from as it isn't what I have read. I have another on the way and like to be making informed decisions.... any links?

The maturing of the gut is a gradual process so that is should be all done and dusted by 17 weeks at the latest doesn't ring true to me - that said I have no sources to hand and not going to start trawling the internet for it now, so if you can back that up I would be pleased to see it. Cheers

bruffin · 08/04/2012 13:18

It's in the espghan position paper.

bruffin · 08/04/2012 13:23

here

tiktok · 08/04/2012 13:26

bruffin has a bee in her bonnet about 17 weeks.

She continually cites the ESPGHAN paper on here.

It's very tedious.

ESPGHAN do not have the last word. Their paper is controversial and according to other sources, not evidence-based:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21902806

ESPGHAN do not recommend solids at 17 weeks anyway - this is the start of their window, that's all.

GinPalace · 08/04/2012 13:27

Quick google on that brought up loads of stuff, they've been producing position papers for years. I don't have time to sift through and track down the info so I'll have to take your word for it. Reserve some scepticism though till I've seen the evidence. Grin

GinPalace · 08/04/2012 13:31

ahhh - thanks Bruffin looked at your link and your 'fully mature no later than 17 weeks at the most' is more of a 'don't introduce any solids before 17 weeks'. So maybe it's a case of seeing what you want to see hmmm?

Thanks tiktok I like the healthy discussions this site throws up and not accepting things at face value is the first lesson of any scientist surely? [bugrin]