"Just a Taste" of Solids

Hi there,

My six-month-old DS has just started solids. I'm just experimenting at
the moment, so he's having a few spoonfuls of sweet potato each day this
week, maybe potato then apple in the weeks to come.

My question is about my parents and in-laws. Now that he's "on solids",
I'm a bit concerned that they're taking it as free reign to give him
tastes of anything and everything. For example MIL gave him a piece of
apple to play with/suck on (he has no teeth) today (which is probably
fine), and she gave him a tiny (tiny!) taste of butter on toast (is this
fine?).

I don't want to be paranoid and over-protective about it or make them
uncomfortable around him, but I do want to know what I should stop them
doing for DS's welfare. Is a _taste_ of anything really something I
should worry about?

Thanks,
...oo00OO LoopyNZ OO00oo..

LoopyNZ wrote:
Hi there,

My six-month-old DS has just started solids. I'm just experimenting at
the moment, so he's having a few spoonfuls of sweet potato each day this
week, maybe potato then apple in the weeks to come.

My question is about my parents and in-laws. Now that he's "on solids",
I'm a bit concerned that they're taking it as free reign to give him
tastes of anything and everything. For example MIL gave him a piece of
apple to play with/suck on (he has no teeth) today (which is probably
fine), and she gave him a tiny (tiny!) taste of butter on toast (is this
fine?).

I don't want to be paranoid and over-protective about it or make them
uncomfortable around him, but I do want to know what I should stop them
doing for DS's welfare. Is a _taste_ of anything really something I
should worry about?

Not IMO. But I've been thinking about how to respond to this, because
there's actually a more complicated underlying question he To what
extent should you try to protect your child against any and all harm,
given that protection in itself is going to have consequences?

Theoretically, it's possible that he could have an allergic reaction to
something. There is a theory, for that reason, that you should avoid
giving infants anything with the major potential allergens (milk, eggs,
wheat, nuts, sesame, and some other things I can't think of off the top
of my head). This seems to be the latest "in thing" in child-rearing
theories, and there are recommendations as to what ages you can first
allow morsels of these various foodstuffs to pass your child's lips.

After some heart-searching, I made a deliberate decision not to do this
(with the exception of nuts, which are quite a severe allergen and
really not that difficult to avoid in the main, so I decided I might as
well keep those out of his diet). I wanted my son's learning to eat to
be a stress-free and straightforward experience for all of us. I wanted
him to be able to share in bits of what we were having as soon as
possible. I wanted him to get to know food in exactly the same kind of
fun-new-things-to-experiment-with that your MIL now seems to be doing
with your son.

If we were a family with a history of serious allergic reactions, I
might have made a different decision. (We do have a history of allergy,
but only of mild allergy.) But as it is, I figured, what the hell, I'd
chance it. Ultimately, I want my son to experience life rather than be
wrapped in cotton wool.

(Incidentally, he was completely fine with everything he tried. No
drama there.)

A couple of caveats. Firstly, honey in babies under one year is a
botulism risk. The risk is probably tiny, but since this is something
that's easy to avoid I figure you might as well avoid it. Secondly, as
I said, I did decide that avoiding nuts was worth it, given how easy
they are to avoid and how severe a potential allergen they can be - it
seemed to be a higher risk-benefit ratio than milk or wheat. Thirdly
(OK, so this is more than a couple), the risk from that apple is
actually going to come once he _does_ have teeth, because then there's a
risk of him shaving off a sliver of apple and inhaling it. I don't see
that as a reason not to give him the apple, but I'd personally see it as
a reason to make sure that, once he has his first tooth, he isn't left
alone with a piece of apple or carrot, just in case.

Sorry for the ramble - just got back from a verrrry long busy weekend
away, and my brain probably isn't on full power. ;-)


All the best,

Sarah

--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

.. Thirdly
(OK, so this is more than a couple), the risk from that apple is
actually going to come once he _does_ have teeth, because then there's a
risk of him shaving off a sliver of apple and inhaling it. I don't see
that as a reason not to give him the apple, but I'd personally see it as
a reason to make sure that, once he has his first tooth, he isn't left
alone with a piece of apple or carrot, just in case.

FWIW two babies/toddlers in my area choked to death on chunks of apple
- one given by a mum and one by a nursery. DS will eat big chunks of
banana and will shove a whole rice cake in his face until it dissolves,
but even a small bit of apple makes him gag.

We generally took the approach you did Sarah. We would do the same
again except not give eggs before a year. Ds is allergic to eggs but
because none of the literature warned against giving eggs before a year
so we didn't realise what it was making him sick until a few really
horrible vomiting episodes later.

My dp's parents have ds for a few hours a week and made it clear they
wouldn't give ds anything without asking us. I'm glad they did because
when they suggested bickipegs for teething we were glad of the
opportunity to ask them not to. We would do the same again.

In the end you have to make sure you know the real no-nos of
introducing solids and then make decisions on what you feel comfortable
with.
Jeni

Sarah Vaughan writes:

Secondly, as I
said, I did decide that avoiding nuts was worth it, given how easy they
are to avoid and how severe a potential allergen they can be - it seemed
to be a higher risk-benefit ratio than milk or wheat.

Did you (or anyone else knowledgeable) read the New Scientist article a few
weeks/months ago about peanut allergy? It hypothesised that what many of us
do, avoiding giving our small children things with peanuts in, but not
going so far as to eschew the vast range of bought food that says "this
product is made in a factory that also makes foods containing peanuts" (or
whatever the wording is) is actually a good way to *maximise* their risk of
peanut allergy. The idea, as best I remember it, is that we're exposing
them, repeatedly, to miniscule quantities of peanut proteins, and that
theory and animal experiments suggest that this is even more likely to set
up a serious allergy than exposure to macro doses of the stuff.

(Since you describe it as "easy" to avoid nuts, I assume that you're
following the kind of procedure I described, rather than doing the full
avoidance of everything that might be contaminated with tiny quantities of
peanut that someone with a very sensitive actual peanut allergy would do.)

Sidheag
DS Colin Oct 27 2003

LoopyNZ wrote:
Hi there,

My six-month-old DS has just started solids. I'm just experimenting at
the moment, so he's having a few spoonfuls of sweet potato each day this
week, maybe potato then apple in the weeks to come.

My question is about my parents and in-laws. Now that he's "on solids",
I'm a bit concerned that they're taking it as free reign to give him
tastes of anything and everything. For example MIL gave him a piece of
apple to play with/suck on (he has no teeth) today (which is probably
fine), and she gave him a tiny (tiny!) taste of butter on toast (is this
fine?).

I don't want to be paranoid and over-protective about it or make them
uncomfortable around him, but I do want to know what I should stop them
doing for DS's welfare. Is a _taste_ of anything really something I
should worry about?

Thanks,
..oo00OO LoopyNZ OO00oo..


Personally, my concerns on this issue would range beyond the food
issues. The other posters have given good thoughts on the actual food
issue, but I would worry about larger parenting issues. This comes
from my personal experience, so that is not to say it will be your
experience, but it might be something to keep in mind.

If your parents and in-laws are willing to feed your child food you
have not approved, what other things will they do with out asking you?
For instance, my parents put my child in a vehicle without a carseat
and drove it. Yes it was only a short distance (not out of the
driveway), but they did it KNOWING that I would not approve and not
allow it, had they asked. And then they wouldn't acknowledge that they
had done anything wrong - I got the whole "you didn't have a carseat
when you were a baby and you are fine" spiel.

So, the food issue is really the first time that grandparents can do
something with the child that the parents might not approve of. I
would think about what precedents are being set.

Again, this is all based on my issues with my parents, so your
experience might be different.

Stacey

I don't want to be paranoid and over-protective about it or make them
uncomfortable around him, but I do want to know what I should stop them
doing for DS's welfare. Is a _taste_ of anything really something I should
worry about?

unless you've got allergy problems in the family and you are planning a slow
introduction of solids 1 at a time, then I see no problems, both of mine
went pretty fast from exclusively breastfed to a very mixed diet. I wasn't
concerned about dairy past 6 months, I was careful with eggs, didn't give
them scrambled eggs til almost a year, but was fine with giving them a taste
of cake that had eggs in it.

Anne

FWIW two babies/toddlers in my area choked to death on chunks of apple
- one given by a mum and one by a nursery. DS will eat big chunks of
banana and will shove a whole rice cake in his face until it dissolves,
but even a small bit of apple makes him gag.

I was thinking the same, but then realised it was you and it was the same
area! One of these incidents happened the very same day we first gave Ada
apple pieces, gave us a bit of a fright, but in the end we decided she had
to learn and we'd have to cut out more than just apple if we wanted to
protect her. I also went on a pediatric first aid course at the next
opportunity.

We generally took the approach you did Sarah. We would do the same
again except not give eggs before a year. Ds is allergic to eggs but
because none of the literature warned against giving eggs before a year
so we didn't realise what it was making him sick until a few really
horrible vomiting episodes later.

hmm, I had it pretty clear in my mind that the advice as far as allergens
was concerned was egg yolk 9 months, egg white 12 months, no idea where I
read that and it always amused me the way they separated the two, it seems
to be true in terms of how allergenic they are, but how do you reliable
separate them, particularly as it's the white you want to cut out!

Anne

Did you (or anyone else knowledgeable) read the New Scientist article a
few
weeks/months ago about peanut allergy? It hypothesised that what many of
us
do, avoiding giving our small children things with peanuts in, but not
going so far as to eschew the vast range of bought food that says "this
product is made in a factory that also makes foods containing peanuts" (or
whatever the wording is) is actually a good way to *maximise* their risk
of
peanut allergy. The idea, as best I remember it, is that we're exposing
them, repeatedly, to miniscule quantities of peanut proteins, and that
theory and animal experiments suggest that this is even more likely to set
up a serious allergy than exposure to macro doses of the stuff.

however how do you increase the exposure without actually giving nuts
themselves which is a choking risk? With a zero history of allergies we were
not conciously avoiding anything but I doubt either child has had much more
exposure to nuts than that anyway, they've had marzipan, but almonds fall in
a different category, I think. Neither of us like peanut butter, so they've
barely had that and I can't think what else would have nuts as ingredients
but not whole nuts, that you would give to children?

Anne

Sidheag McCormack wrote:
Sarah Vaughan writes:

Secondly, as I
said, I did decide that avoiding nuts was worth it, given how easy they
are to avoid and how severe a potential allergen they can be - it seemed
to be a higher risk-benefit ratio than milk or wheat.

Did you (or anyone else knowledgeable) read the New Scientist article a few
weeks/months ago about peanut allergy? It hypothesised that what many of us
do, avoiding giving our small children things with peanuts in, but not
going so far as to eschew the vast range of bought food that says "this
product is made in a factory that also makes foods containing peanuts" (or
whatever the wording is) is actually a good way to *maximise* their risk of
peanut allergy. The idea, as best I remember it, is that we're exposing
them, repeatedly, to miniscule quantities of peanut proteins, and that
theory and animal experiments suggest that this is even more likely to set
up a serious allergy than exposure to macro doses of the stuff.

(Since you describe it as "easy" to avoid nuts, I assume that you're
following the kind of procedure I described, rather than doing the full
avoidance of everything that might be contaminated with tiny quantities of
peanut that someone with a very sensitive actual peanut allergy would do.)

Fascinating - thanks! No, I hadn't seen the article, and, yes, I was
doing precisely that. I'll obviously have to look into it and rethink
if we have a second child!


All the best,

Sarah

--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Gorgon Park wrote:

Personally, my concerns on this issue would range beyond the food
issues. The other posters have given good thoughts on the actual food
issue, but I would worry about larger parenting issues. This comes
from my personal experience, so that is not to say it will be your
experience, but it might be something to keep in mind.

If your parents and in-laws are willing to feed your child food you
have not approved, what other things will they do with out asking you?
For instance, my parents put my child in a vehicle without a carseat
and drove it. Yes it was only a short distance (not out of the
driveway), but they did it KNOWING that I would not approve and not
allow it, had they asked. And then they wouldn't acknowledge that they
had done anything wrong - I got the whole "you didn't have a carseat
when you were a baby and you are fine" spiel.

So, the food issue is really the first time that grandparents can do
something with the child that the parents might not approve of. I
would think about what precedents are being set.

Again, this is all based on my issues with my parents, so your
experience might be different.

There's a big difference between someone not checking whether or not the
parents approve, and someone doing something they specifically _know_
the parents don't approve of. I suspect (and, obviously, I don't know
the situation and could be wrong) that it simply hasn't occurred to the
OP's in-laws that trying different foods could even be an issue.

I'd be angry if somebody went against my expressed wishes in taking care
of my son, but that doesn't mean I think that I can reasonably expect
anyone who looks after me to check every bite of food with me before
feeding it. If there's something I feel strongly about, then I see it
as my responsibility to let people know, not theirs to ask.


All the best,

Sarah


--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell