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

[natwebb79]

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!

Maybe they thought if you have started him on solids already then you wouldn't mind him having a bit of choc?

Yanbu just eat it yourself. Yum!

Gin palace read the whole thing, it clearly states under the biological section thay the gut and real system is mature enough for complimentary food by 17 weeks, I would think t he society of gasteronologists know something about a child's gut.

Check the best before date. If it is a while off you can save it for her for later, if it is soon, you can eat it yourself. If it was me, I probably wouldn't bother to check the best before date, though.

Someone already made the point that you don't want Grandparents thinking it's ok to feed chocolate when they're babysitting your still very young baby, so you were right to say where you stand. I'm still reluctant to leave my DC (2 and 4) in care of MIL. While I think it's fine to spoil your grandchildren once they're old enough to speak and tell tales to me later if they don't respect your wishes with very small baby they lose privileges. YANBU.

You want me to read every word! [buhmm]

'The Committee considers that gastrointestinal and renal functions are sufficiently mature by around 4 months of age to enable term infants to process some complementary foods, and that there is a range of ages at which infants attain the necessary motor skills to cope safely with complementary feedings.'

That is a quote from your paper. What you said is skewed interpretation. Sufficiently mature for some foods (and it doesn't say what) isn't the same thing as fully mature by 17 weeks latest. It isn't that I don't think they don't know what they are talking about just that you have mis-sold it - you are doing what journalists to do scientific papers, that is picking a choice point and holding it up as the crux of the matter out of context.

You are ignoring some important nuances.

last post for Bruffin

Lots of people have bought my ten month old twins eggs i think because my other ds is 4 and they didnt want to leave them out, i plan on eating them and administering their share through my breastmilk!

Even though i made suggestions earlier in the post id like to point out to OP YANBU as it is up to you what u feed ur baby and other people should respect that but mnrs going on about studys: A-all babies are different & develop at different stages B-mothers know best to what their baby needs & when is the right time to wean.
Happy Easter Op

Ginpalace - you are misreperesenting what I was saying

"The physiological maturation of renal and gastrointestinal function that is required for an infant to metabolise nonmilk foods, and the neurodevelopmental changes necessary for safe and effective progression to a mixed diet, have been reviewed in several reports (9-11). The available data suggest that both renal function and gastrointestinal function are sufficiently mature to metabolise nutrients from complementary foods by the age of 4 months (12). With respect to gastrointestinal function, it is known that exposure to solids and the transition from a high-fat to a high-carbohydrate diet is associated with hormonal responses (eg, insulin, adrenal hormones) that result in adaptation of digestive functions to the nature of the ingested foods, by increasing the maturation rate of some enzymatic functions and/or activities (13,14). Thus, to a large degree gastrointestinal maturation is driven by the foods ingested.

All I was saying was the wait until 6 months because the gut isn't mature enough is nonsense. I wasn't saying that a baby should be weaned on everything from 17 weeks, just that a babies gut will not be damaged by weaning earlier than 6 months.

Yabu. Cant understand why people feel the need to feed babies junk food, and then give you the you're so precious face if you dont. Good reflection of todays society.

Just like any other unsuitable present! Say thanks then dont give him it. My DS is 7 months and got a few eggs too. Like i'd give a baby all that sugar and fat!

bruffin NEVER discuss weaning with a mumsnetter! Unless you waited to you're DC's were 6 months and even then it's essential you BLW. I've asked questions in weaning before and never got a reply!

([bugrin] Smug that my DS was weaned traditionally and is much better at finger foods than my high horse BLW friends).

"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."

I think that advising giving chocolate to a 22 week old baby for a 'treat' is a clear example of projecting an adult's dysfunctional view of food onto the baby.

Bruffin OK. :)

I am happy to conclude from your extract and mine that they are saying that the final (i.e. post-birth at full-term) maturing of the gut to fully cope with solid food begins at around 4 months.
But it is a process (and a complex one at that which even experts still disagree on, as the science on it is still undergoing development), so the gut begins to be able to deal with these foods at 17 weeks(ish) and is aided along with weaning foods (but doesn't say if any particular ones are recommended but certainly not all foods).

This is however also in alignment with saying that the gut isn't fully mature until 6 months, but yes, you are right, they are saying that some foods can be introduced from about 17 weeks.

But, you did say '17 weeks at the latest' for still having an under-developed gut and this is not what they are saying.

Still don't think chocolate would be suitable weaning food though. [bugrin]

Last time I looked chocolate wasn't included in one of the main food groups, nor was it of any nutritional value for children. All this "oh a small piece of chocolate won't kill your baby" no, it won't (unless your baby has an allergy to soya or cows milk or nuts, in which case it might) but it is in no way necessary to give a child that isn't even of reccomended age to drink cows milk something that is manufactured out of sugar, fat and other crap. If chocolate was so good for us we'd all eat it for breakfast lunch and dinner wouldn't we. The Op has just started the weaning process, why on earth would she introduce processed food at this stage?!

And I'll just add my ds was weaned at 4 months with purées as was reccomended when he was a baby (11 years ago).

FoxyRoxy - completely agree. :)

When I was weaning ds1, someone gave me some jars of babyfood, including one of chocolate pudding (marked suitable for his age). I tried him with it, and he rejected it totally - he prefered savoury tastes, and stayed that way for quite some time. He's right over it now, though - but at nearly 19 I am not too worried any more.

He's nearly 19 - not me - I thought I had better make that clear.

FoxyRoxy no it's clear you've not got much of a clue about nutrition if you can say with any sort of straight face that. No food is good in isolation, chocolate is not bad. Having chocolate as a "treat" is certainly a bad idea, and again is showing how screwed up peoples attitudes are here with food, food as a treat is bonkers.

Chocolate in itself is not bad for you, it even has been shown to have positive effects to various things in numerous studies (reducing blood pressure for example) Excessive calories can be bad for, but that's not chocolates fault.

FredFredGeorge I'm sure most positive studies about chocolate are done on those dark chocolates (green and blacks etc) that do have nutritional value. Easter eggs as I see them tend to be the sugary milk chocolate (cadbury's dairy milk, nestle etc) I'm sure there are few studies saying that type is good for you!

fredfred are you talking for adults? or the baby? did I read you correctly you say chocolate as treat is bad? I'm not sure I've followed your post right. :)

The child has another ooh 70-80 years to eat chocolate. Why give them a taste for it so early? I don't agree with foods being "good and bad" but I wouldn't give chocolate to a child of that age. Why would you? As a treat? Then you are back to good and bad foods again

GinPalace Yes, making food a "treat" - as opposed to having a healthy diet and enjoying all food is the problem. Chocolate, cake, crisps, chips, all the "bad" foods which people have as "treats" is screwed up, they're perfectly reasonable as part of a diet, but by associating them with hugely special occasions and happiness, and rewards and all that stuff is disfunctional.

Enjoying nice food can be done at all time, but by making out that chocolate is nicer than other foods, and needs to be kept from you or for special occasions is the sort of thinking which can cause later excessive use of food.

Ignoring all the arguing . . .

OP its up to you what you feed your baby. Learn now to ignore those who think they know better. As long as you are not too anxious about food (as that attitude can pass onto children) and make informed choices then others opinions are irrelevant. Either learn to ignore or tell them its your baby so your choice.