in not wanting to give sugar to my baby?

[lowrib]

My DS is 7mo.

I thought the advice was not to give refined sugar to babies.

But everywhere I look there's sugar! this week I've found it in

• own-brand paracetamol solution I got from the chemist
• organic rusks from the health food shop
• baby 'weaning' fromage frais

Surely as sugar rots teeth and is an addictive substance, it shouldn't be among the first foods a baby gets?

AIBU and PFB?

Or am I right - in which case how to explain this to well-meaning friends and relatives who want to give my DS 'treats'?

(There are currently 18 sugary fromage frais in the fridge I don't know what to do with. Hold on I know ... yummmmmm!)

What I did, with the people who I thought might not just pay no attention to me anyway, was this...

Instead of saying 'oh, I'd rather she didn't have that yet' was to choose a time when it wasn't linked to what they wanted to treat DD with and go on about how much she just absolutely loved [whatever was her fave sweet but healthy thing at the time] and they should see her eating it - she's so cute the way she dips the [pear slices or whatever] into the yogurt and makes such a mess of her face' etc etc etc

Then they wanted to try it next time to see her looking so cute and saw for themselves how happy she was with those healthier treats, and didn't need super sweet stuff to enjoy it. It mostly worked with the people I thought it would - some people will never take it on though.

Did only work when she was fairly small though, no good now she's 4.

Of course there were people I didn't need to do that with too - who were just happy with me saying 'um, no thanks I'd rather she just had this for now'

I was going to say the same Girls.. the only things in my fridge is stuff I have got myself - if only others would stock up for me . My PFB had greek yoghurt with fruit added, the greek yoghurt stayed thicker with fruit, others went runny and horrible. She wouldn't actually eat any other sort until she was about 3 and it was a bit of a pain to be honest if we were at someone elses house. Think its reasonable to refuse biscuits etc when offered to your baby, find it a bit odd that people seem to stuff your fridge with things that you don't buy, maybe just say, 'sorry he doesn't like them' in my case that would have been true.

GirlsAreLoud and Wags we're staying with relatives at the moment. Unfortunately I don't have people stocking our fridge at home! That would be nice

I think anyone who complained about you controlling the diet of a 7 month old would be being very silly.

To state the obvious, a 7 month old is a baby and if you want to avoid sugar then that's very sensible and even if you don't agree with it, you'd have to be very pushy to be hassling someone to give their 7 month old this or that particular food

Stick to your guns OP. Some people have very different attitudes. My SIL and MIL were desperate to give my ds chocolate at 9 months but I didn't want him to have it. It's just different attitudes; they were - oh it looks so cute when babies have choc all round their face and it's only a little treat, and I was - why introduce something like that when he's still being introduced to all the HEALTHY foods? Does not mean your attitudes are wrong

When my ds was toddling around I did lighten up on the choc/biscuit thing and yes he had sweetened fromage frais too! But I think the timing of that change should be down to you as parent and that is not a strange thing to want!

no you are not being OTT OP, there is nothing wrong with laying down healthy eating habits, getting them used to the taste of real food etc.

I was exactly the same with mine, they are now a bit older and of course they have cake and so on when the situation calls for it. But no I woudln't have given them at this age.

FWIW btw though I'd rather they had sugary calpol than the aspartame filled crap. Woudl be quite nice if there was a no-anything-added option though-I don't really want my kids medicine tasting nice, tbh, I think it increases the risk of accidental OD. At least it would be nice to have the option of soemthing neutral tasting, or some powder we could put into a drink or something.

I agree with Fillyjonk and don't think you are being at all PFB. You are sensibly trying to make sure your child has a healthy start in life and that's a good thing.

There is no need at all for a 7 month old to have sugar as part of their diet. If people give you stuff put it in the cupboard / fridge and say you'll give it in a few weeks when she's old enough for it.

I actually make things up to stop my MIL giving DD stuff I don't want her to have. Like "The HV said babies shouldn't have chocolate until 18 months in case of allergies" . It works too.

ok,i am about to potentially shove the cat amongst the pigeons here-my eldest daughter (who is nearly 15)is as likely to grab hummus and pitta/toast/banana as she is to grab a tub of ben and jerrys as a snack.
this is because we don't have 'good food and bad food' and we never have had-when you say 'this is a treat because you have been a good girl'you are instilling the value 'this is better/naughty/nicer/a reward' and therefore you send a message-my friends children who were rationed from the get go are the ones who at parties end up clearing plates full of biscuits and getting into near punch ups over who had one smartie more than them.
it's all a bit desperate.My baby eats what we eat,unless you are going to cut all sugar out of your life then the best example to set is to have a balanced approach to everything-demonise something and it will come back to haunt you so unless you are sugar free (and imho sugar is much better for you than sweeteners/chemicals) then you can't really expect your kids to be.
As for the babies-well it's all about moderation-one can sound very prissy forbidding grandparents from handing over a chocolate button.I wouldn't make a fuss-all it's likely to do is raise an eyebrow (and give them ammunition the first time you are seen bribing dcs with cadburys finest...!)

I asked dh to use avocado instead of mayonnaise in dd2's lunch he was making. He asked with a heavy sigh if she was going to have a dense brick of a cake made out of banana juice for her 1st birthday like dd1. I thought about it. She probably will have a healthy cake with sugar involved this time round.
All things in moderation, you can get a bit ocd I think. Sugar isnt necessary in our lives but my goodness it helps. I think sleepless makes good point that they are going to eat what we do so abstinence is going to have to go for a burton at some point.
DD1 is obsessed about cakes and sugar but tbh I think she would be whether I had it in the house or not...she loves fruit and veg too.

i personally would rather my boys had sugar than artificial sweeteners any time.

Fothergill....banana juice?

How on earth do you juice a banana? Or were you joking?

I used to be very PFB about what DS ate - it was fruit and plain yoghurt all the way for ages, and then he started taking biscuits off other babies at groups, and I just shrugged and let up a bit! I don't give him refined treats for himself like chocolate (I make sure he hardly ever catches me eating it) but yes, he has the odd half of my sweet biscuit at a toddler group, and ice lollies are now considered fair game if he sees us eating one. It's all about moderation. And also that he shares the treats he catches us with sees us eating rather than being given his own packet of buttons or whatever. Chocolate and biscuits are mummy treats that she will share, and therefore not something he thinks of as having a right to himself.

God, that sounds SO control-freakish!

I think you may be a bit PFBish. I was like this at first but then I realised everything in moderation and make it clear to well meaning friends and relatives (grandparents mainly ), it is the exception not the rule.
It was my DS 1st birthday yesterday and we had a pub tea with friends and relatives. He had a winnie the pooh cake made of sponge and icing, he has had cake twice before then at nursery. He had a small piece (I have never seen him wolf something as fast, didn't touch the sides) and my Mum declared gleefully "ohh he can have cake now". I very quickly pointed out that it is a treat and not an invitation to ply him with the stuff. I think I still have PFB syndrome but balls to it my DS, my rules .

My dd was fed on home made vegetarian organic food until she was nearly 3, when she had a piece of chocolate cake and looked at me with a"There's stuff like this in the world and you've been feeding me spinach?" look on her face.

Ds found a malteezer under the table at a party at 9 months and never looked back. They are both equally healthy, and eat a brilliant diet with sweets in moderation.

But I do think 7 months is a bit young for chocolate!

Yanbu. Babies don't know they are missing out on unhealthy food, so get them used to decent stuff. Rachel's are the only yoghurts without added refined sugar that I know of.

I had this problem. My philosophy was always that I would not give my DDs chocolate / sweet stuff until they were old enough to work out what it is and request it.

With DD1, it worked a treat... she never ate any chocolate or sweet stuff until she was 3, by which time she wasn't particularly fussed by the stuff. Even now (at almost 6), only last month she ate the raw broccoli in her lunch box and left the chocolate coin. She loves broccoli, spinach and lettuce for some strange reason! Chocolate and sweet stuff she can take or leave.

DD2 on the other hand, worked out chocolate by about a year... and now at almost 3 loves anything junk. She is the complete reversal of DD1. Doesn't matter whether it is sweet or savoury - as long as it is junk she wants it!

These things never work with subsequent children.

That said, you can buy rachel's organic yoghurts (first tastes) that are sweetened with fruit juice rather than yoghurt.

I don't agree with "everything in moderation" for very small children. I think when we are pretty much 100% responsible for their diets, its ok to just not let them KNOW about stuff that is going to do them no good at all. Sugar isn't actually a health food, they don't need it, they are much better off getting energy from complex carbohydrates, fruit, etc. And a small child won't learn to regulate their own sugar intake. Their bodies are programmed to seek out and consume as much sugar as possible, because in the wild it is a scarce and useful source of quick energy. Unfortunately, the amount of sugar an average toddler eats in a day is probably about as much as they are set up biologically to eat in a month or even a year-there aren't that many sources of pure sugar in the wild! We are seeing the payoffs from this in terms of childhood obesity, early onset diabetes, dental cavities, fussy eater.

I don't think that not giving sugar to a small child equates to demonising it, either. I know plenty of kids from my childhood raised on a low-sugar diet-not one that demonised sugar, but one where the effects of excessive sugar were discussed, where nice alternatives were availible, etc. Their kids are not generally being raised on a sugar binge. Yes to just say "no you can't have sugar, its very bad" would probably produce a sugar-loving rebel, but thats not what most sugar-restricting parents do.

hmm, when all these mums start reaching for the 'nice alternative carob bars' rather than a bar of dairy milk i'll agree with you...

but I don't eat chocolate in front of my kids and then tell them they can't have it

Sugar has a good short term effect, and small kids only really get short term effects. More than that adults and kids are different, physiologically. Kids are growing. Kids are laying down a lifetime of habit.

"Everything is moderation" is clearly not a tenable position anyway. There are some things we all recognise as poison. We don't give our kids arsenic in moderation. Neither do we say "well, they need to try arsenic now when they are small because, you know, if we put it off limits they'll only binge on it when they're older.". It IS possible to respectfully teach kids about the issues with sugar. This is a lesson that is well combined with a discussion of global capitalism, imo...

I think the real debate is probably over whether sugar is basically harmless, or in fact quite a nasty, addictive substance that has become very normalised in our society (odd that, when it helps sell cheap food ).

but fillyjonk-do you eat chocolate?

I don't get this obsession with the evils of sucrose tbh.

So many packets blazon "NO REFINED SUGAR" and then when you look at the ingredients you find that it contains high levels of concentrated grape juice, date puree, spelt or corn syrup or similar.

And people feel that by giving their children these "healthy" snacks, they are protecting them from the evils of refined sugar.

Well guess what? The sugar found in fruit etc still rots your teeth and causes a blood sugar spike. There is a reason why diabetics are cautioned to avoid grapes etc.

YANBU

I have felt the same about both of mine and will be the same for number 3 who is still cooking . However, I'm aware that the vast majority of the world regards this as odd, even though it's actually following health guidelines . I don't care and will parent the way I choose.

No need to give rusks or biscuits to a baby. Plain breadsticks, rice cakes, toast or whatever go down perfectly well.

Plain natural yogurt is yummy, and if you buy in big tubs and decant then cheaper than kiddie yogurts too. If you want fruity ones, then mash up some fruit like fresh raspberries in with it.

Medicines are usually a straight choice betwen sugar or artificial sweeteners. For those, I'd usually choose sugar and out of preference a colour-free brand too. But the doses are so small and infrequent I don't see it as a big deal.

People who feed their children organic rusks, and snacks high in added fruit sugar/fruit juce, highly-processed puffy organic bear crisps made out of carrots and bars of chewy stickiness made only of fruit thinking these are healthier also puzzle me.

I've tried to google low sugar biscuit/rusk recipes for the bairn and everything I found was highin dried fruit etc, so what's the difference really?

I'm trying to raise her without making one type of food more interesting than the other by declaring it a 'treat'. I'd rather have her regard a piece of fruit or veg as much as a treat as sweets. So I've got more healthy stuff around, but also have let her have a lick of my ice cream (she's quick as lightning anyway, how could I have stopped her) and let her have a biscuit made with sugar, too, when I went for a coffee at the local deli.

She's 7 months old by the way and seems to prefer the healthy stuff anyway, if given the choice, so I think we're doing it right.

I also don't think this is about categorising food as 'treats'. I would never refer to any food as a treat. Some foods we eat less frequently than others and do not routinely have in the cupboard, e.g. biscuits crisps. I wouldn't offer these foods to a baby or young toddler, but once bigger they aren't banned, we just don't buy them or eat them routinely. If they are offered at other people's houses or parties or whatever then that's different.

YANBU
When dd was weaning I spent ages combing the shelves for products that didn't contain refined sugar. Shockingly few exist. They get plenty in the fruit etc. I think there is one brand that contains only fromage frais and puree, is it Jumbles? I used to buy big pots of plain yoghurt and add my own fruit puree to it.

Of course now dd is bigger I think very fondly of those days as she is well into sugary foods!!!

I think before their teeth have developed fully and you can brush them properly it's worth restricting refined sugars.