To think party mum should have checked before giving out inappropriate prizes

[SoonToBeSix]

Genuinely don't know if I am being unreasonable. I was at a birthday party today with three year old ds and he won musical bumps. He was swiftly handed a packet of haribo . I tried to encourage him to " save" them for later ie I would put them in by bag and through them away but he was so upset I let him have them.
I do not give my dc sweets ever with the exception of a small amount of chocolate at Easter from well meaning relatives. Most eggs get given away.
I really feel she should have checked first before handing them out.

Op you have 6 children and are shocked that there were sweets as prizes at a children's party? Seriously?

Btw love love the coke in the bottle post. Mumsnet madness at it's very best.

You people don't allow children lollipops because of choking fears!!!!! Wtf? All food or indeed anything represents a choking hazard. You just have to keep an eye on them. Next you'll be saying you keep your cupboards and drawers with those stupid little safety catches on them. Have none of you protesters ever heard of the word 'no'? Works a treat!

I didn't let my young dc have lollypops because they're awful for their teeth. Sucking on sugar for 15 minutes? Very bad idea for a toddler.

Agree. Mine rarely had a lollipop and sweets an occasional treat except at birthday parties and Easter or Christmas. My dd was 7 before she'd eaten a creme egg but blood mil gave her chocolate at age 6 weeks

Why would people give chocolate but not Haribo? Chocolate is marginally better for their teeth! I suppose, in that it's not chewy, so is slightly less likely to stick.......
Raisins, however- loads of sugar and stick like glue.

Coke? Sod that, I get them to mainline heroin.

I was told by a dentist that chocolate is better than sweets for teeth. I just hate sweets , they taste of pork fat which is essentially what they are .

"I just hate sweets , they taste of pork fat which is essentially what they are"

Eh?

Hakluyt - are you not aware that Haribo contain gelatine, which is essentially the boiled boiling skin, tendons, ligaments, and/or bone of animals?

Sorry for the "double boil" there.

But gelatine isn't fat

No, not fat, to be fair. Just all the other bits!

Tut tut moomin, did your HV not tell you that early heroin weaning can cause issues when baby is older? She should be at least 12 weeks old

My dentist says raisins are as bad as sweets, full of sugar

Badly timed reading of this thread

I just shared these with my 2 year old and 3 year old and now i feel bad.

I should have eaten them all myself!!

490 posts over a packet of haribo? WTAF?

I find it astounding that someone can have six children and not know that most children will be exposed to sweets/chocolate etc before they are three.

There is a vast difference IMO between not wanting your own children to have sweets/chocolate ever (although somewhat naïve as they gain some independence soon enough and make their own decisions in that regard) and actually thinking that other parents should take this into consideration when this is not the norm.

I agree whocansay, it can make kids sneaky.

I had a df at school who got a chocolate Easter egg as a gift then her dad ate it. she was 9. I think that it was
mean.

everything in moderation. why make your dc stand out, they have enough to contend with.

fridage - I doubt you were 3 years old when your parents started giving you alcohol with sunday lunch! the point being that not allowing a 3 yo to have something does not mean that you are never going to allow them to have something so all the worry about children rebelling and having food issues because their parents didn't allow them sweets when they were very young is a bit ridiculous.

Also, it's not just teeth that people are thinking of when they dislike haribo. At least raisins have some nutritional value - fibre, calcium, iron etc.

"why make your dc stand out, they have enough to contend with."

The child is 3yo!

Nobody's trying to argue that haribo have any nutritional value. Just that as a one-off prize at a party, it isn't going to necessitate a trip to the dentist for rotten teeth removal, nor condemn the child to a life-time of obesity.

A little perspective is surely require in instances such as these.

I was expecting at least a air gun from the OPs title. Sweets at a party? Quick inform the church elders!

'A little perspective...' well let's just keep in perspective that OP only thought 3 was a bit young and her older DC has unrestricted access to sweets at an age that OP thinks is appropriate. No ban has been advocated. Yet apparently OP is setting her 3 year old up for an eating disorder? Even though she has accepted that expecting others to share her sense of when Haribo is age appropriate is unreasonable, people are continuing to speak as if she's insisting on a macrobiotic diet for all of her children, forever. It's really not the OP who has lost perspective here.

As a PP pointed out, the implication that Haribo for 3 year olds is supportive of an overall healthy attitude to food is a bit odd. I'm pretty sure describing something as a treat sets up a similar sense of distortion around its value as banning it entirely - both positions cultivate desire for the thing for the sake of having that specific thing, because it has particular meanings.