I never called anyone in particular any names np, I said that I think (and this is my opinion), that there is a certain "smugness" about "people" whose children never eat the smallest unhealthy thing. And I stand by that.
How many food threads do we have on here, people "judging" the fact that they saw someone allowing their child to eat a sausage roll in the pushchair, or that their children were offered fruit shoots at a party, or that someone dared to give their child chicken nuggets for tea. And out of all of those threads there are those who sit there in judgment with their "my child would never be allowed to do that so I'm better than you" attitudes. And maybe that's not how they mean to come across, but it's certainly how it looks.
IMO there can be middle ground. No I don't feed my child nuggets, I don't feed him coke and I don't feed him chips. But he has the occasional fruit shoot, he has the occasional biscuit and he has sweets. so what.
IMO if you feed your child on a diet consisting wholey of chicken nuggets and chips, biscuits, sweets and fruit shoots, then you run the risk that your child will be unhealthy and will be obese in the future. And if you feed your child a diet consisting only of organic fruit/veg, salads, pasta and rice, you will have a very healthy child, but if you do not allow that child any sweets, bisuics, ice cream, (and by none I mean none at all), then you run the risk that when that child has unsupervised access to said "treats" he/she will not have learned any self control around these items, and will eat more than he/she should.
But every parent has their own way of doing things and ultimately it is their choice how they raise their children. But just as some feel they have the right to judge me for giving my child the occasional fruit shoot, so I also have the right to say that I think that someone who never allows their child any treats is smug and theinks they're better than me.