OK, I've thought about this every which way, and still don't think it's a good idea to give sweets and chocolates to an under-one

[welliemum]

Have seen few AIBU threads recently on the topic and there's a pattern here. The OP in these threads is complaining because their mum or MIL is giving the baby sweets or chocs.

Lots of people then say, yes, YABU, because

• a few sweets won't harm the baby
• grandparents love to give babies treats
• babies love sweet stuff

... and I agree with all of that.

BUT - there's one problem with giving babies even a little bit of sweet stuff, and that's the question of teaching their taste buds about sweetness.

"In the wild" - neolithic times which is as far as we've physically evolved - the sweetest food available would have been fruit. So it's easy to see why babies would have a sweet tooth and would want sweet things whenever available.

But now we've worked out how to purify the sugar in plants to make food which is intensely sweet, a sweetness never found in natural food. And it's available all day every day.

And (the real issue for me), this stuff is far sweeter than the natural sweetness of fruit. If you eat a slice of choccy cake and then a plum, the plum will taste quite tart.

So I do worry that giving babies sweet stuff will reset their taste buds to the sweeter end of the spectrum. I've definitely noticed with my 2 that they went off fruit for a bit after encountering biscuits.

It means you can't just let babies eat whever they want nowadays - they won't naturally eat a healthy diet because they're "wired" to go for sweet stuff and the sweet stuff we have isn't good for them in huge quantities.

I know there's a lot of luck involved here, but dd2 has just turned 1 and she really enjoys eating fruit and sweet potato, and I can't help wondering if part of that's because it tastes sweet to her as it's pretty much the sweetest food she knows.

Sorry, very long winded and boring, but I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same, ie that this is an area where "everything in moderation" doesn't necessarily work.

Anyone?

(I'm specifying under-ones by the way, because I think this only works while they're too young to notice what other children eat. After that, IMO, it's cruel to withold things that they see others eating.)

UCM I had the same situation as you. My ds is a very picky eater. He had biscuits and sweets from an early age and I do sort of blame the grandparents. They were looking after him while I was at work, it's difficult to complain when someone is doing you a favour! Anyway, cue dd who is not looked after by anyone other than me and she did not have any sweets etc until she was over 1 year old. She has a much healthier diet and we even call her our fruit bat because she adores fruit so much.

Having said that another part of me thinks that being picky is sort of hereditary as I was a very picky eater as a child, in fact right up until adulthood (although I will now eat anything).

I think you are right to try and restrict sweets / biscuits for under 1's and for as long as you can get away with. But be careful not to make them greedy as there will be a time either in nursery or school when someone brings in cupcakes, cookies, sweets etc and you can always tell the ones who aren't allowed them at home. Practically beating the others out of the way to get their share! So once good habits are established it's ok to have a little treat now and again imo.

Just bumping because it's topical and I haven't the energy to retype all that!

wha'?

Never mind

Do you live in Scotland?

Ach, no, of course no'.

Shan.

This thread is shan.

So are you.

Get a life.

Um, is it bedtime maybe expat?

Why, because I don't agree?

I think you're being shan.

I really and truly do.

So scold me and tell me it's bedtime?

Can I have a biscuit and milk for supper then?

Just seems to me that you're not your usual lucid self - but am happy to listen to arguments about why you think under-ones should have sweets.

I completely and utterly agree with you welliemum. In defense of the UK crowd (not that they actually need defeding tbh but it's easy to see why some people have trouble) I do think it's much easier to be healthy with DCs in Oz (not sure about NZ tbh but am tarring you with the same brush). Here I can get DD takeaway smoothies and fruit salads and chocolate dipped strawberries and it's so easy. It the summer it's easy to go to restaurants and sit outside and eat lovely light freshly prepared food.

There isn't really much convenience food here and so there's no choice but to make healthy food yourself.

At a recent nutrition seminar (Oh yes, I'm keen ) we were told to only shop around the oustside of a supermarket - the aisles have all the processed stuff. I thought this was rather clever.

But, getting back to your point, I just didn't give DD anything processed/crap/sweet at all under 1 because I thought she'd end up rejecting more bland stuff (ie pureed sweet potato/banana etc) otherwise.

Now she's nearly 5 we negotiate on the odd sweetie based on fruit consumption but junk food/processed food is still out.

You're right, arfishy, I think it's easier for children to eat well here than in the UK. There's plenty of junk around but lots of fruit etc as well easily available, and people don't look at you as if you've got 3 heads if you order fruit salad for a child in a cafe.

I was interested in the thread about not giving biscuits at NCT groups, because plates of cut-up fruit, rice crackers, hummous, all that kind of thing would be very common toddler group food here. If someone said they didn't want biscuits they might be seen as being a bit over-precious, but they certainly wouldn't get the level of derision that that thread provoked.

Interesting.

I'm just contemplating the 'shop around the outside of the supermarket'. I'd be able to buy a newspaper, an iPod and a trolleyful of booze. lol.

If you don't want yer baby to have sweets then don't give them.

It won't make the slightest of difference.

The 'sweet tooth' taste buds thing it rubbish.
(my dd loves sweets and olives and pickled onions!)

No, it's truly the case that your taste buds adjust to different levels of stuff. It's well described and fits with what we know about sensory thresholds.

Whether this makes a difference to a baby's willingness to eat fruit is much less clear. It's not about a baby liking sweets and hating olives, it's about whether they can appreciate the sweetness in fruit if they're used to the sweetness of pure sugar.

You must have had the experience of eating a meal cooked by someone who used either more salt or less salt than you usually do - it's really noticeable.

DH and I cook without salt and we think our food is lovely - but you should see visitors lunging deperately for the salt pot.

Message withdrawn

agree. can never understand why anyone woudl give babies sweets or even chocolates. they dont need them and if you dont 'start' it they dont know any different and are more likely to be happy with their healthy finger foods. or maybe im just lucky that my DS loves eating brocolli trees and pieces of melon!

I didn't give DS (14 months) sugar up until he turned 1. He only rarely has it in stuff (if I buy rice pudding rather than making it, for example) but I did say that he could join in at a recent birthday party and have a tiny bit of cake and a couple of chocolate mice. Would never buy them for him but a teeny bit once in a blue moon is ok - I don't want him thinking certain foods are taboo! There was an interesting experiment that shows if you restrict a food children want them more (this also applies to healthy foods too, so you can use it to your advantage!)

Oh, and to the "does it matter, there's more important things" crew, of course it matters, in context, and if it doesn't then why aren't you busy off concerning yourself with things that do?!