Strollerderby : feeding babies

Some "Baby Food" Less Healthy Than a Cheeseburger

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:30:00 GMT

The Children's Food Campaign has released a new report analyzing the nutritional value of some of Britain's most popular baby and toddler foods, finding them worse for health than the average cheeseburger or chocolate cookie, claims the Guardian.

Of the foods surveyed, only half were found to be low in sugar, sodium and saturated fat--some even contained the dreaded transfat. But the worst culprit for unhealthy baby food was the Heinz company, of whose surveyed products, only one quarter were deemed to have sufficiently low amounts of sugar, sodium and fat.

Two Heinz products were singled out for headliner status. Farley's Husks, were higher in sugar than chocolate digestives, while mini cheese biscuits were found to have more fat than a McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese. Both are foods aimed at beginning eaters and toddlers.

Okay, so these foods are unhealthy. Do they claim to be healthy? Do parents merely assume anything for a baby or toddler is healthy? I feel that while it would be nice to see the food industry regulated better in certain areas, determining what is a good diet for myself and my young children is my responsibility. In the line of this duty, I take nothing for granted. I read labels, determine what's in the processed food I give my children, then mete out such foods sparingly, focusing instead on whole foods in a nice variety.

Contrary to some opinion, this actually doesn't take a great deal of extra time or energy on my part. Washing and/or peeling and/or slicing a piece of fruit really isn't that much harder than opening a box of crackers and shaking a pile of them into a bowl. And even when the fruit is organic, it's usually cheaper. And it doesn't take a master's degree in nutrition to know it's healthier than the crackers.

So sure, shame on Heinz for marketing unhealthy food to parents. Shame on them for basically trying to get us to train our kids to expect food to taste sugary, salty, and fatty, so they'll have lifelong junk food customers. But ultimately? Shame on us for not taking the four extra seconds to read the back of a box before we throw it in the grocery cart. Really, it ain't that tough.

image: junkfoodnews.net

How To Feed Your Baby Well

Amy Kuras — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:02:00 GMT

One of the most fun parts of having a little baby in the house, without question, is feeding them their first solids. It’s hilarious to see them react to new tastes and textures and get the whole world of food opened up to them with just a few little spoons of puree.

Like most parents, though, I feel pretty clueless about exactly what to feed him and when. Like, is he ready for “people food” in mushy little bits or should I stick with the chunky baby food? Are tomatoes OK or not? How about pasta, tofu, etc., etc. And when is it important to buy organic and when is it OK to save a little bit and skip it?

Enter Well-fed Baby. This, I like. You click on your baby’s age and where they are in the transition-to-solids process, and get a clickable list of various foods you could try with them, along with suggestions for preparation and an adult recipe so you can eat right along with your baby. They also suggest what foods (like apples) make it worth it to buy organic and which ones aren’t.

I’ve been really cautious, probably overly so, on solids – I have tried grinding up our meals a few times only to have my son look at me like I was feeding him dog food, and haven’t ventured much beyond the pasta-and-puree things. When my daughter was a baby, meanwhile, people in our baby group were feeding their nine-month-olds little bits of burger and letting them taste cookies. I also have a terror of food allergies after my daughter had a mild reaction to blueberries at around 7 months –seriously, I was so panicked she didn’t get her first peanut until age 3.5.

So a site like this is nice reassurance that I can be a little more adventurous with my little guy’s food, and has suggestions I wouldn’t even have thought of.

OpEd: Veganism is Bad for Babies

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Tue, 22 May 2007 19:02:00 GMT

Author Nina Planck, a self-proclaimed reformed vegan, wrote an OpEd piece in yesterday's New York Times declaring that a vegan way of eating is "irresponsible" for devloping babies, infants, and growing toddlers.

By now we've all read the story of the vegan couple who was recently tried and convicted of starving their six-week-old baby to death by feeding it nothing but soy milk and apple juice. This is the third or fourth time a "calamity" like this has happened in as many years. In my mind, these tragedies have less to do with veganism and more to do with the parents being stupid, selfish, a-holes.

Says Planck:

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants. Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

And for those that argue that vegans can breastfeed their children (although do vegans consider breastmilk an animal product?) Planck responds, "Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development."

Though not a medical professional, she makes a strong case that babies need a range of nutrients to develop properly. And I'm sure many medical professionals would agree with her. Seasoned vegans will probably poke holes in her arguments and chime in with all kinds of reasons why a vegan diet for babies is perfectly fine, but I wouldn't be willing to risk it.