To NOT give DS (6 months) a "taste" of chocolate

[Misswrite89]

On a board on another parenting forum, where all our children are around the same age, someone has asked whether we will be giving our babies a "taste" of chocolate over Easter.

I am certainly not but another poster has said that those who don't are "Scrooges" and that a little bit of chocolate does no harm. In fact it seems quite a few posters will be giving their kids a bit of Easter egg and I'm in the minority.

AIBU by NOT giving my six month old son even a bit of chocolate? I don't want him having any added sugar for the next few months whilst he's in the early stages of weaning and for this reason have avoided giving baby jars/pouches and have made homemade purees. I hadn't thought about when to allow chocolate and other junk food but I suppose the first time I would is on his first birthday when he can have a bit of his cake if he likes. I'm certainly not going to deprive him of treats as he gets older as I don't want them to be "forbidden" and want him to have a healthy relationship with food but I just hadn't intended to give him food with added sugar and other crap until he's old enough to ask for it.

AIBU or indeed a "Scrooge"?

of jars I did try the organix range and elles kitchen. but that was with my first born like almost 9 years ago now. I thought organix was alright, just a lack of variety hence I preferred cooking up my own food.

I should add I'm on DC2 now and most definitely have a "who gives a shit" file! I agree that within the confines of moderation, what treats you choose to give your kids and when fall mostly into it.

I was holier than thou with oldest DC and he had no sugar till he was about two years and then very little. Much more relaxed with next two who had sugar from very early. Roll on 20 years - eldest DC barely touches anything sweet, eats really healthily, just not bothered by sweet stuff. Other two complete junk food addicts. Could be coincidence but if I had my time again I'd keep them all off sugar for as long as possible.

Thanks for your input tellmemore1982. To answer your question about what I am looking for and why I started this thread - I came to mumsnet looking for an opinion on whether I am being unreasonable by denying LO chocolate over Easter. On the other forum (not mumsnet) where the original conversation took place, the consensus was that I am BU, however, lots of posters are quite familiar with each other on that forum and have met several times and, generally speaking, appear to sometimes take the same side of the argument so I came to mumsnet for a completely unbiased view about whether or not I was BU.

I agree that, with my next child, I too may be filing things in the "do not give a shit" file but, to give you some context, I myself have my own issues with food and whilst I can't blame these on my childhood (I am an adult with free will after all!) my issues with food certainly started during childhood where I was raised on, what I would deem, to be unhealthy foods. I suppose this has made me anxious and I do not want LO to have any issues with food, I want him to have a healthy diet but not to be deprived of treats either.

Striking this balance is something that I have no firsthand knowledge of and so I do question every decision I make about LO's food intake. I didn't know whether I was being too strict about chocolate at 6 months based upon my own childhood experience with food and that's why I came to mumsnet for an honest view. Hopefully this answers your question.

I do apologise to anyone if I came across as "superior" about LO's food habits. I am firmly in the "whatever decision works best for you as a parent" camp but sometimes I do question my own decisions.

Thanks for your tips on how to better my argument in the future. I wasn't really trying to put across any arguments (rather I was just giving a bit of background as context) but I will certainly bear your tips in mind in the future!

DS1 doesn't know that it's Easter OP, so reckon that answers whether you're being a Scrooge - ignore them!

It's fine.

My daughter is 9 months and it didn't even occur to me to buy her an Easter egg, to be honest I'd probably end up eating it anyway.

I don't know anyone in my social circle who gives under 1's chocolate etc but a relative with a slightly older baby to mine has been since she started weaning at 12 weeks. Not my baby, not my problem.

YANBU- I gave mine some at that age but there is no rule saying you have to. Plus they don't have a clue what they're missing out on as babies!

I was very strict with my oldest's diet until she was about 2 and became more aware of food and started to realise she was missing out. I didn't even let her have any of her birthday cake when she turned 2 I was very pfb and I think it has shot me in the foot as now she is older she has a really, really sweet tooth and is constantly after 'junk' food as I think she sees it as the forbidden fruit from her younger years. With subsequent DC I was a lot more relaxed as I don't have the time to micro manage their diet so much.

Who knows what the answer is really. We all try and do our best, but at six months they have no concept of food or anything so I absolutely wouldn't give them chocolate at that age. It just seems pointless if nothing else.

The kind of twonks who would call you Scrooge for not giving a baby chocolate are the kind of twonks I'd rather not spend time with.

My view is that it might make a difference to their palette when they're older, so why give them it before they're old enough to realise they're missing out on something!?

However, each to their own & I certainly don't think it's the hell end of parenting to give them a little bit of chocolate before they're 2. But it's certainly not worth name calling either way.

My Ds had a taste of chocolate first Easter so he was 11 1/2 months old..

He had a slice of cake for his First birthday and he went through the roof...

He is a good eater, eats very little sweets and choc.. is that luck probably... I just saw it as he had precious time to develop his tastebuds..Refused Yoghurt's for months as he refused to be fed but couldn't feed himself with a spoon..

Who knows...

Either way...Raise your child the way you want.. I think when you get to debating anything Some people get all judgey no matter what decision you make..

This seems more like a "I'm a better mother than you because I don't give my precious first born a teeny bit of chocolate" post.

There is no harm, so no, a little bit of chocolate won't harm the child in anyway. To be honest the child's face expressions when first experiencing any food I think are amazing.

But in saying that, if you don't want to then don't! It's your baby.

Fgs you're not better than them for choosing not giving chocolate, they're not better than you for choosing to give it.

but really, they're only just on solids. It does seem a bit unnecessary. Def. not a Scrooge.

Ds was weaned at 18 weeks on medical advice. So he wasn't only just on solids.

yes I too was fed lots of sugary and salty things as a very young child and do believe it affected my taste buds growing up and I would only eat crappy (unhealthy) foods and wouldn't touch the good (healthy) stuff as I was never given it so hadn't grown accustomed to it.

That's anecdotal. Equally I wasn't allowed it and stack weight on when I left home. Ate loads of shot and wouldn't touch healthy stuff.

It's still all filed under...do what you want and let others do what they want.

I can't get worked up about it either way tbh. There's no need to give a 6 month old chocolate but neither is it going to harm them.

The only time I have an issue is when parents put down other parents simply because they make different choices. I looked at the "birth board" on another website and honestly couldn't believe how people can get so worked up over blw vs puree etc.

I make homemade food for my babies and try to give them what we eat most of the time but they do have organic pouches a few times a week. Check out the ingredients op you may be pleasantly suprised.

OP, the concept of denying chocolate at 6mo as you say was directed st you actually gets to the root of the issue.

You can't deny something that is not asked for. A 6mo absolutely cannot ask for chocolate. If you put any food in front of them they will want to try it, therefore just don't put chocolate in front of them until they're old enough to want to make a choice. When they turn 18m - 2 or so and start to notice other children having treats at parties etc they will be more inquisitive.

To that point, you're absolutely nbu to not give chocolate.

From the time children start to ask for, notice and question things, then the concept of denying them something (and the consequent debate over whether this later fuels desire) comes into play.

This is the point I feel you're trying to identify and manage with your lo in order to encourage good food habits and associations. I would say when you get there, educating children and leading by example is key to promoting healthy lifestyle choices.

In the context of this post though, 6mo is far too young for that so yanbu at all.

I really don't understand why people want to give babies unsuitable/unnecessary foods and then throw a hissy fit when the parents object to that.

There's not much cocoa in cheap chocolate, which is high in sugars to counteract the fats used to bulk it out which would otherwise make it unpalatable. So, if you were to buy a cheap chocolate Easter egg and give that to your 6-month-old, you wouldn't actually be giving them much in the way of chocolate. Just sugary, fatty stuff that will coat their teeth.

And once a baby has been given a chocolate Easter Egg as a "treat", then giving chocolate as a treat can become the norm. That "Scrooge" mum might end up with problems if she continues to "treat" her baby to high-sugar, high-fat foods.

I don't think many people give their baby a whole easter egg wanda

My little girl is 11 months and she won't be getting any Easter eggs, I've bought her an Easter bunny balloon instead. She loves it and it will last longer than chocolate. Treats don't have to be sweet things.

clare1971 ditto. Exactly what happened to mine. Ds will eat anything. Dd is a nightmare. I blame myself for being lazier and more relaxed third time round and having been judged by bloody family for being so strict with ds I thought I'd relax with dd. Wish I'd trusted my own judgment

One day he'll drink 10 pints and some ridiculous shots then eat a donner kebab. His intention will be to eat a pizza too but he will fall asleep in that instead.

It doesn't matter either way if you give him a chocolate button now or not.

Agree with WandaFuca - don't store up problems by introducing chocolate in toddlers - they will become poor eaters of the good stuff they are meant to eat (vegetables etc). I never let my kids have any sugar for the first year and rarely sugar in their second year and they all, without exception, have eaten healthy meals/food without a problem. When they were 3 and 4 and upwards, they had more sweets/chocolate, but by that point they had had a good grounding in eating right and were old enough to understand that sweets etc were an occasional treat. A baby of 6 months or a year has no concept of easter or xmas or birthdays. You are not depriving them by not giving chocolate and if people suggest otherwise, they should be made to justify why it would be such a good idea.

Scrooge is for Christmas not Easter surely...

don't get me started on calling it Easter Day not Easter Sunday

YANBU I made sure I didn't give my dd any junk for as long as possible! Ensured all her food was homecooked. No jars etc. I think it does no harm to keep them away from sweet things as long as you can so they don't get a sweet tooth.

personal choice. I was very careful with dc1 when found dc1 holding up his Easter egg for dc2 to lick around same age I let them get on with it