About a different meal to the one that's been slaved over?

[breakthepattern]

Person A thinks that's what's been served for dinner (2 adults, 2 DC under 7) is what we're eating. End of. If you don't like it, you don't eat it, that's your choice. It's delicious and not "out there" or very unusual.

Person B thinks if you've never had it before, try it a little and then say you don't like it, it's ok for you to be made an alternative just for you, so you don't go hungry.

Who is BU?

For further info it's one of the DC refusing the food.

It's squash risotto with sage and pine nuts so quite "adult" depending on your perspective / diet.

And the replacement alternative was a ham and cheese wrap, no cooking involved.

I would ask them to try it then make the wrap if they hated it.

I think if it's your own children, neither is the wrong option. Personally with my own child, I do the same as person B. If my daughter tries everything on her plate but doesn't like it, I will quite happily make something like toast with some fruit.

I have been person B on many an occasion with a very fussy child. He's a strapping 15 yr old now and tucks into most things including curry so I stand by my approach, even though many people around me at the time would have no doubt thought I was making a rod for my own back.

I agree with Ben.

If they tried it then an alternative should be offered. I wouldn't personally eat that so not surprised one child refused to eat it.

*B!

My kids who eat pretty much anything for some reason absolutely hate risotto. Tried different types etc and they really can’t stand it.

So I’d say if they had properly tried it, 4/5 big mouthfuls and there is food in the house then give them an alternative. But they actually have to really properly try it first

Person A is BU. It's something new, how would they feel being forced to eat something they have just tried for the first time and didn't like??

And pine nuts with sage are quite an adult taste as well

as long as the alternative wasn't mentioned prior to them trying it then I'd say B is fine.

I wouldn't make them a whole new cooked meal but I wouldn't want them to go hungry either so I'd give them a sandwich or toast or something pretty easy and bland. You don't want to get into the habit of offering alternatives but if you make it something dull and boring they'd probably be more inclined to try new meals as a family knowing they won't get anything exciting as an alternative.

At the end of the day there are foods I don't like so I can't expect my kid to enjoy everything I put in front of him.

Ooh I made that minus the nuts for us all this week! Dd didn't like it so had an alternative - same sort of idea, crumpets or something not another cooked meal.

As a child under 7, the words squash and risotto would not sound appetising.

Even as an adult, I would not fancy it with the especially enticing ingredients of sage and pine nuts

Poncy shit - sorry

B wins here for me. On the proviso that at least a couple of genuine mouthfuls had been tried.

To force someone to eat a meal they dislike is cruel imo.

However if it was something they’d eaten and enjoyed many times before and I knew they were just being awkward, then A’s method would win.

In our house you’d get given a plain sandwich but not made to starve.

There’s not a chance I would have eaten that as a child, and would probably only choke it down now out of politeness. It’s pretty cruel to make a small child go hungry just because they don’t like something they’ve made the effort to try. Why make food a battle?

The risotto sounds lovely. But slaved over? Who slaves over a risotto?

If you make a meal that you know the child likes and they say they’re not eating it and they want a cheese sandwich then that’s not ok. If they’ve never had it before, they give it a good try and they don’t like it then that’s not really their fault. I wouldn’t eat a meal I didn’t like and no one would expect me to.

You wouldn't force an adult to eat something they don't like or go to bed hungry, how fucking mean.

I find sage a horrible taste so I don't think it's fair to describe food as 'delicious' when it's such a subjective thing. I wouldn't find that taste nice at all let alone 'delicious'. Feed the poor child.

We have a compromise solution where DC have to eat a token amount of the 'exotic' dish, with some sort of stomach-filling alternative (e.g. bread, rice) to go with it. Otherwise they don't get pudding (i.e. 1 biscuit or similar). We find this makes our DC far more likely to eat the damn fish we do also try to meet them halfway by not mixing in fresh herbs until serving, blending ingredients they're known to hate, etc.

In our house it would be person B’s view too, but only after they had actually tried it properly (if it’s clear they really don’t like it) is Offer a quick no cooking alternative

I'd be with B
Here if it's something new, then it gets served with some stuff that can be eaten instead (bread, crackers, cheese, salad) as long as the new thing is tried. D's gets cooked for separately anyway.

Sage and pine nuts sounds grim (sorry!)

I'd be person B I think. Which one are you op?

I think I would go B. But it depends if the child is opting out every single day or not. In our house you make you own alternative once you are 9 or so.

When I felt that my 12 year old was making himself a sandwich pretty much every day, I let him choose the meals for the week, within my parameters of one fish two veggie. (He chose basically all fake-away). It reset him into eating the same dinner as us and worked pretty well.

With person B, absolutely.