to think we need to stop using what we feed our children as the main measure for our parenting skills

[jumpyjan]

I am so fed up with the constant discussion in the media over what we feed our children and have heard some extremelly annoying self rightous people on phone ins regarding the latest packed lunch story today.

Whilst I strongly believe in a healthy diet and believe children behave better when they eat well etc I resent the government constantly telling us how to parent and the way that people seem to measure how good a parent you are on the sole basis of what you feed your child. A childs nutrition is of course extremelly important but it is one element of parenting.

It seems like parents who feed their children certain foods are looked down upon while some parents who feed their children healthy foods expect a pat on the back. It just seems like snobbery to me.

Why can't we make our own decisions about what to feed our children without feeling the need to feel smug/ashamed about it.

I am reading this thread and I don't really understand the paranoia. If you don't want the government to advice and provide information on healthy eating, then who should? Is there such a thing as a non-governmental, unbiased source of information about healthy food?

I certainly don't rely on Nestlé or Tescos for information about healthy eating.

Seeing children' s lunchboxes in school when I joined them for lunch a few months ago was absolutely shocking. It seems to me that many parents haven't a clue. Jam sandwiches? Oreo biscuits? And why pudding as part of school diner? There is absolutely no need for it.

I don't think anything will happen till sugary foods are banned from schools. And I think Jamie Oliver did a great job getting some focus on school lunches.

FWIW, I grew up with organic brown rice and mung beans and never went to MacDonald's till I was 15. My weight is normal and I have never had an eating disorder.

"And why pudding as part of school dinner?"

Because they are yummy? Most days my DS has fruit as part of his pudding. Anyway, he needs the fat and sugar for all the football he plays after lunch. We also have pudding after tea each evening too. The DC's and me aren't overweight but DH is. His family has a history of emotional eating and very poor nutritional knowledge.

I don't think having pudding will make my DC's fat but having a father who thinks nothing of eating 4 chocolate bars in a row or a packet of biscuits because he is fed up will. Do you sense an ongoing argument in our house?

shockers, you raise an interesting question: "where do you stand on the issue of where feeding children crap starts to become a form of abuse?"

Much as I am not qualified to ascertain at which point a light smack becomes physical abuse, I am simply not knowledgeable enough to make a judgement call as to when feeding your child unhealthy food becomes abuse.

Social services have the unenviable task of deciding that one.

at which point does a light snack become child abuse?

misscph1973 - 'If you don't want the government to advise and provide information on healthy eating, then who should? Is there such a thing as a non-governmental, unbiased source of information about healthy food?'.

There is a huge difference in providing information and nannying/telling parents what they can and cannot feed their children. Also I would suggest that a charity such as the British Heart Foundation provide a great source of information on healthy eating/recipes for those people who are seeking this information.

The fact that you think that jam sandwhiches are shocking sums up the way I feel about things - I just really don't think that jam sandwhiches are shocking (or biscuits).

Shockers - there are no doubt some extreme examples but what I am saying is that the majority of parents are not feeding their children a sole diet of kfc/sweets whatever and they should be allowed to make their own decisions as to what they feed their children without feeling like they are being told off by the Governement or other parents who feel that if they are giving their child a biscuit/packet of crisps in public or admit to doing so then they are viewed as being a bad parent.

So we can leave other forms of abuse/ neglect to the authorities but parents can do what they want with food and the government should keep quiet even though children with VERY poor eating habits are likely to become sick as adults?

Most people on here will care about their children's health enough to be feeding them responsibly... with treats as well.

My original post was just asking, in extreme cases, do you STILL think it should be the parent's call?
I think a 6 yr old who is being allowed and encouraged to refuse anything but chips and KFC washed down with coke IS extreme, especially when he cannot function properly due to extreme lethargy.

sorry x post...I was replying to tethersend. I take your point, my question was just about the extreme cases... in particular this one which worries me a lot.

I see a lot of REALLY crappy lunchboxes too.

Oh crikey! Just caught up with this thread and although my dd gets plenty of fresh fruit, home cooked, never fried foods... she does shock horror bake cakes and biscuits with me, will always choose a chocolate variety of anything if its on offer and (takes huge intake of breath in preparation for ultimate confession) has been given a Kinder egg - the uber combination of fat ridden badness and choking/impaling hazard!

Will hand myself into the authorities now

FWIW I do think there is a role for the govt in education but like many things, it does seem to me that the advice goes for the most patronising, talk slowly and loudly tone. These habits will take time to break (just thinking back to the stuff I used to eat, but on the evidence of what I see at soft plays, playgroups etc. I cannot believe that the situation is quite as dire as the 1% of healthy meals touted in the press this week.

You cannot change those who simply refuse to, but we should do what we can to support people who do but for whatever reason may struggle to do so. More targeted support for purchases of healthy food for low incomes and more time on cooking and enjoying food in the curriculum would be great.

"So we can leave other forms of abuse/ neglect to the authorities but parents can do what they want with food and the government should keep quiet even though children with VERY poor eating habits are likely to become sick as adults?"

The government is not Social Services. I think you have taken views from someone else's post and confused them with mine- nowhere have I advocated a laissez-faire governmental standpoint on this issue

ljhooray :

You cannot change those who simply refuse to, but we should do what we can to support people who do but for whatever reason may struggle to do so. More targeted support for purchases of healthy food for low incomes and more time on cooking and enjoying food in the curriculum would be great.

You are so right. When I worked at Tesco, I often saw customers try to buy crisps, fairy cakes, chocolate bars, wotsits, you name it with the "Healthy Eating" vouchers or whatever they're called now - they state right on them they are to be used for fruit, vegetables and milk. It is targeted support for those on low incomes, in order for them to eat more healthily, but believe me, it's not easy fighting a battle with these people all the time. There's nothing like asking a manager to back you up on this issue and being undermined.

ljhooray Your DD has never had fried food. Really? She is missing out. My DD loves things like Pakora. She is a bit of a chilli fan, but we wouldn't have found that out if we hadn't given her little tastes of the things we ate from a early age.

Personally, I can't see how excluding certain foods from a child's diet works. How do they learn to incorporate it into their normal diet as adults if they've never had it?

One of my cousins was never allowed chocolate or sweets as a child. As soon as she was out of site of her parents she used to plead for it and eat loads. I can't see how that is healthy, short or long term.

Its been said earlier, but I'd just like to reitterate, everything in moderation.

Genuinely curious - how do you manage to NEVER fry food? What do you do with onions/mince/mushrooms/garlic for bolognese etc?

saute

well, it is also interesting to read what is supposed to be healthy and what not.
EG if you have sandwiches/toast for breakfast and lunch, what are you supposed to put on them? According to "official giudance" from the "continent" no "processed" =salted meat/ not more than 1 slice with cheese. So therefor they are happy with jam. That is not supposed to be good in UK, so I suppose other slice of bread should be with lettice on it? Or nothing I suppose, dc3 likes to eat bread with nothing on it.

yanbu

Ineedsomesleep, I don't see why "it's yummy" is a valid reason for having pudding with school dinners.

Sugary foods are not good for the body. The blood sugar goes right up high and then falls really low really quickly, so you need another shot quite quickly to deal with it. It ruins concentration (thus learning abilities) to have quick releases of blood sugar.

Read up on "glycemic index".

I do not agree with having puddings and treats on a daily basis - that is not "sugar in moderation", that is far too much. It may not make you fat but it is not good for you.

Besides, charities like British Heart Foundation are government regulated so in my book they fall under government. But I do agree, I am sure that their info is trustworthy.

FWIW, my kids do have treats - on special occasions (birthdays and holidays like Christmas) and on Fridays when they have school dinners.

Maybe it's a culture difference. I'm from Denmark where sugary food are banned in schools. The government informs and advices on nutrition which is not viewed as a treat but as a source of information.

missscph: read up on glycemic index you sound like a right barrel of laughs.Its so over the top to say having a pudding affects learning abilities. My son has pud every day...hes top of the class in everything (brag brag). Anyway, pudding doesnt necessarily mean stodge...it might be yoghurt and fruit. Personally I was delighted by the 'because its yummy' response....thats a lot more important message to send to children to encourage a balanced diet/mentality than 'lets all be paranoid about what we are eating from school age.'

I like hearing about how things happen in different countries and interested to hear about what is happening in Denmark.
How long have sugary foods been banned from Danish schools?
Was their a childhood obesity problem when this was introduced?
Is there any evidence that it is changing things?
Here in France they have removed vending machines selling chocolate, soda etc from the high schools but in primary school the children can take a snack in for playtime and there are no restrictions on what they take, at least not in the local state primaries.

Christ alive! What a palaver. I don't agree that the obesity problem is entirely to do with diet. As a kid, my own diet featured a high proportion of convenience food (chicken kievs, chicken nuggets, pizza, oven chips/potato shapes etc) along with old-fashioned stodgy home cooking like shepherd's pie, macaroni cheese etc, as my mum worked nights as a nurse and had limited time. We also had plenty sugary stuff - I remember jam doughnuts were a regular after-school treat, and there were always chocolate biscuits etc in the cupboards. I had a very hearty appetite as a child and my portion sizes far exceeded anything I'd be able to cram into my cake-hole now and I was often snacking. But I wasn't fat, and neither was my younger brother. We had 2 hours of PE a week at school and at weekends had to go on family walks and stuff, plus we were allowed out in the evenings on our own to wander around the countryside by our house, riding our bikes or hiding in dens.

I know lots of people who grew up in similar circumstances and I do think the obesity "epidemic" has more to do with our increasingly sedentary habits than with our diets. For a start, food has become a class issue, but also people are awfully neurotic about food these days and it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, partly because "official" advice is always changing - one day saturated fat = devil's own food, next day it's fine in moderation, then eggs were bad, now they're healthy, then antioxidants were all-curing wonderstuff, now they might be harmful in large amounts, fruit is good, eat lots of it - OH NO, stop eating so much fruit, it's full of sugar, you might as well be munching Tate & Lyle - the list goes on. It's tiresome.

This is such an interesting discussion.There is very little objectivity where food is concerned there are so many emotional issues caught up in it!!
The thing about sweets and crisps is all about the Salt and Sugar seesaw. The body forms an addiction to them and you crave more 'cos you can't taste anything without extra salt or sugar, this is of course exploited by the huge commercial conglomerates, has anyone noticed that after the xmas sweet bonanza?
if you eat fruit when you're hungry and not too much you get the vitamin benefit from it and it gives a slow sugar lift.it's better for teeth and blood sugar levels to have the odd sweet or choc bar after a meal.
My 3 children are grown up and not overweight I never forced them to eat anything (Iremember putting a sign on my eldest's lunchbox to stop the dinnerladies from forcing her to finish it!!!)

misscph1973 I don't need to read up on it, if I have a differing opinion to you please don't assume I'm ignorant.

DS does chose the sugary option some days and others he chooses yoghurt or fresh fruit. Although I am aware that there will be sugar in the yoghurt.

Like Clankyplanky, DS is doing very well at school and we are really pleased too at my own bragging.

I don't see how having custard and sponge cake a couple of times a week is going to affect his long term future.

Can I just reitterate, again, we live by the motto Moderation in Everything.