Polite Rant about SUGAR and Treats.....

[jewellsmommy]

I have not read ALL of the posts, so forgive me if I am repeating. Our co-op meeting handles this dilemma quite well. Perhaps for future purposes you could get your choir director to do the same. They get someone to sign up for a "healthy" snack, one to sign up for a "treat type" snack, one "other" and drinks. I know her request stated healthy stuff but if it is done this way it is easy to say "thank you, but i already have someone bringing cupcakes, could you bring fruit instead and next time I will come to you when I need cupcakes" etc. Since you have strong feelings on the matter, perhaps, you could volunteer to co-ordinate snacks for her in the future and then approach the parents in person and sign their snacks up in a way that will allow you better control over the situation.

 

I am very anti-hfcs and anti-sucrose. However, I also understand that not all parents are as "enlightened" to the true sugar problem. There was a time that I, myself, was quite clueless so I try not to be too harsh with other people that have not awakened yet. It is, unfortunately, the reality around us that not everyone will have the same standards. I disagree with the poster early on who suggested that these other parents just don't care. It is not that they don't care or they probably would not have volunteered at all. They just don't see it the same way the op does and that is ok. It is not easy to stop your child from eating the cupcakes that another parent brought and have them eat what you brought only. I totally agree. Unfortunately, it just comes with the territory (parenting, that is).

[Mrs Mungo]

And... I could be wrong... but I *think* I've heard that sugar and caffeine can actually calm ADD kids and help them focus, right? Or is that just caffeine (which might make some of us jittery)? So, it makes me think that there are some portions of the population that will react differently to food ingredients that are generally harmless. Even sugar? What do you think?

 

It's just caffeine. Any stimulant calms people with ADD or makes it easier for them to focus.

 

I have to agree with Reya here. An allergy is a specific physical reaction and with peanuts in particular it is frequently life-threatening. The risk of death is serious and shouldn't be minimized. That's why some schools are peanut-free.

 

A sensitivity is quite different from an allergy. Your child may well react to sugar, I don't know. But he/she won't be at risk of death if someone touches sugar and then touches your kid's skin.

 

One of my sons is allergic to eggs and peanuts. When I know there are things being served that he can't eat, I just send along a snack that is safe for him, and I or another adult makes sure he is not sitting near anyone eating peanut products. Even though his allergy can be life-threatening, I would never expect a whole group to modify their plans. It would be quite embarrassing to him (and me) if I were to make a big fuss. I usually make sure that I am signed up for snacks in those situations so I can bake the cupcakes or cookies without eggs and peanuts.

 

So to the OP, I guess I would just do what you are doing, bring a healthy snack, and if you don't want your child to eat sugar, don't let them. My kids know there are some things our family does differently than others, we have different rules, etc. If they threw a fit in public I would consider it a behavior issue.

 

Now personally, I take issue with the concept that a snack is needed at every activity anyway. It seems like every practice/game/rehearsal involves a snack sign up sheet. In my opinion kids over 5 can go 2-3 hours without a snack but some parents think it's necessary -- not my cup of tea but oh well!

 

You could also try to make some kind of amazingly fun veggie dish that will outshine the sugary junk -- little shaped veggie creatures or something.

 

I agree with the rest of this and what Joanne said. I don't think people bringing their choice of snacks to functions is a battle I want to fight. I'll continue to bring things I think are good to eat and limit my kids' intake of the other stuff.

[Reya]

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as a sugar high? There is no crash afterward? I'm telling you, if I feed my daughter carbs for breakfast (and yes, that includes bagels, crackers, toast, etc) vs. something high in protein I can see a marked difference in her behavior and level of concentration. I don't know what sort of study one would need to design in order to test this, but it's a fact, for her. I really am not sure how I would "teach" my child to react different to a bagel than she does to bacon and boiled eggs. It's insulting to act like this is something people have made up.

 

I'm saying that there is NO DIFFERENCE practically speaking between the sugar in fruit, in bread, in cereal, in honey, in corn syrup, in maple syrup, and in cane sugar.

 

If your pancreas is working right, you don't have a big fast swing in blood sugar that would cause ANY kind of noticeable "sugar reaction." (Diabetics and borderline diabetics are different, of course.) There is, however, a difference in the rate of digestion of different foods and how full they make you feel and for how long. Fat content is a biggie--bacon will be doughnuts, hands down, for feelings of satiation over time.

 

But yes, the sucrose scare is completely made up.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm saying that there is NO DIFFERENCE practically speaking between the sugar in fruit, in bread, in cereal, in honey, in corn syrup, in maple syrup, and in cane sugar.

 

I agree with that. That's why I was specific in mentioning that my daughter reacts badly to too many carbohydrates, regardless of source.

 

If your pancreas is working right, you don't have a big fast swing in blood sugar that would cause ANY kind of noticeable "sugar reaction." (Diabetics and borderline diabetics are different, of course.) There is, however, a difference in the rate of digestion of different foods and how full they make you feel and for how long. Fat content is a biggie--bacon will be doughnuts, hands down, for feelings of satiation over time.

 

Feeling full for longer has nothing to do with my daughter's level of concentration. Many, many articles (and experienced moms here) continually tout the benefit of feeding kids protein over carbs for breakfast.

 

For example:

While there's nothing wrong with eating carbohydrates in the morning, an all-carb breakfast is a recipe for inattention. It won't steady a child's blood sugar throughout the morning, help her stay alert, or prevent energy dips that cause a child to lose focus in the classroom. A balanced breakfast - high in protein and carbohydrates from whole grains, fruits, and/or vegetables - ensures a varied supply of nutrients along with enough calories to sustain mental and physical energy until the next meal.

 

"If you don't eat properly, you can become distracted, impulsive, and restless," says Ned Hallowell, M.D., founder of the Hallowell Center for Cognitive and Emotional Health in Andover, Massachusetts, and author of Delivered from Distraction. "Skipping breakfast or self-medicating with food can sabotage the best of ADHD treatment plans. In treating the condition, you must consider a balanced diet an essential component of a proper regimen."

 

 

 

Protein is an important ingredient in that treatment. "Protein helps keep your ADHD child's blood sugar levels steady and prevents the mental and physical declines that inevitably come from eating an unbalanced breakfast containing too many carbs," says Hallowell.

 

 

Simple carbs, complex carbs and protein do have an impact on how people feel. I think this is more true for some people than others. I can tell a much bigger difference in my middle child than my other two.

[8circles]

I appreciate your explanation. I don't think you intended to be disrespectful & I'm glad that you've realized the point that so many of us have been making.

 

I'm sorry that you feel that some posters (me?) have been mean. I don't think I've been mean & it wasn't my intention to be mean.

 

I still think you owe any email recipients with food allergies an apology.

 

I'm sorry that people feed your children things that aren't good for them & make them behave badly. Seriously.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I really think this is very simple. Whenever you are not around your child, some other adult is the responsible guardian in lieu of you. You hand over that responsibility. If you cannot trust that guardian to respect your wishes, you do not leave the child alone with that adult.

 

This is the same for people who will let a child ride without a helmet, or not use a seatbelt in the car, or watch a movie that you do not allow your child to watch etc etc..... if the issue is big enough for you and you don't trust that adult to respect your wishes, you do. not. leave. your. child. until the child is old enough to stand up for themselves and say "No, thank you, my parents don't allow me to ____."

 

There are relatives in my family who only had supervised access to my children when they were younger because of issues like this.

 

I wish it was. that. easy. but. it. is. not.

 

A parent who would never dream of putting my child in a car without a car-seat might have no. problem. giving. him. sweets. when. we've. asked. they. not. do. so.

 

Locking our child in the house isn't a great option.

 

Bill

[stripe]

Yes, there are many people who feel that disobeying rules makes someone more "authentic" etc.

[Spy Car]

That's because there have been any numbers of studies that have determined that if neither the parent nor child know that sugar (versus a nonsugar fake sweetener) has been consumed, they are completely unable to detect the difference with any reliability whatsoever.

 

I wouldn't sneak a kid anything, but I find the whole preoccupation with sugar to be harmful, as it creates fake "sugar highs" and "crashes"--unnecessary disruptions and drama.

 

Excuse me but I think I know my child Reya. We witness changes in behavior every time he over-consumes sugar.

 

Your post is insulting in the extreme.

 

Bill

[Reya]

Do you think, though, that there *could be* kids in the general population for whom there WOULD be a reaction to sugar. I mean... the studies were limited, weren't they? Did they include any kids who were suspected to have some sort of greater-than-typical reaction to large doses of sugar or foods?

 

I know that if a study was done on a large number of kids to see whether or not barley caused major digestive upset, there probably wouldn't be one in the bunch that would prove the possibility (unless my youngest, or one of the few others I've read about with a barley intolerance, happened to have been in the study).

 

And... I could be wrong... but I *think* I've heard that sugar and caffeine can actually calm ADD kids and help them focus, right? Or is that just caffeine (which might make some of us jittery)? So, it makes me think that there are some portions of the population that will react differently to food ingredients that are generally harmless. Even sugar? What do you think?

 

At least ONE of the ones I read were done on parents who were convinced that their kids reacted badly to cane sugar.

 

Allergies are caused by a reaction to a protein--so is celiac disease (and the barley equivalent???). These cause measurable physical reactions.

 

There are a very, very few other kinds of intolerance. There is an intolerance--not an allergy--to MSG, which is almost always annoying but not life threatening. There are some food dye intolerances that aren't allergies. There's the inability to process lactose. Each of these have specific symptoms, and if you study them, you'd find "behaves badly/is excitable/is crabby/can't concentrate" as a primary symptom to be more than a little suspicious. There is no test for it--unlike all the others I've mentioned. There is no study that's ever found it to exist in any subgroup.

 

I've watched kids go crazy when getting treats--and all it take to squash it is telling them that being "wired" from sugar is nonsense, and if they chose to carry on like idiots, they can be excluded from the next treat session. (I say it SLIGHTLY more nicely than that, but not much.) Then their parents, who convinced them of this ridiculousness int he first place, look at me in amazement when they come to pick up their quiet, well-behaved children. :glare:

 

Caffeine is a stimulant. It helps ADD kids focus just as amphetamines do--because tey are stimulants. Sugar is NOT, despite what so many believe.

[Reya]

Excuse me but I think I know my child Reya. We witness changes in behavior every time he over-consumes sugar.

 

Your post is insulting in the extreme.

 

Bill

 

My mother-in-law thinks that she knows her kids, too, and she thinks they should eat more "fire element" foods in the winter because otherwise they get colds.

 

Guess I insult her, too.

[Reya]

I agree with that. That's why I was specific in mentioning that my daughter reacts badly to too many carbohydrates, regardless of source.

 

 

 

Feeling full for longer has nothing to do with my daughter's level of concentration. Many, many articles (and experienced moms here) continually tout the benefit of feeding kids protein over carbs for breakfast.

 

For example:

 

 

Simple carbs, complex carbs and protein do have an impact on how people feel. I think this is more true for some people than others. I can tell a much bigger difference in my middle child than my other two.

 

(Original post of mine was incoherent--editing to fix that)

 

Totally--to the last bit.

 

Thinking there's an affect in concentration, overall, is not the same as think your kid is made demented by cane sugar--oh, but honey is so much better, especially raw honey... Etc., etc.

 

There isn't the variation in blood sugar that diet sellers want you to believe, though. If there is an effect, it really is likely a lack of satiety even if hunger isn't "nagging" yet. They studied this a bunch after Atkins because the blood sugar "crash" was supposed to be what got to you. (The article you cited had someone making inaccurate statements, btw. It's been claimed, it seemed likely, but it's been disproven--for nondiabetics/non-borderline diabetics. If you have insulin resistance, etc., it's another story....)

 

It's like kids doing better if they have breakfast even if they don't "feel" hungry without it. Full satiety is different from lack of stomach-pinching.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Reya

[Spy Car]

My mother-in-law thinks that she knows her kids, too, and she thinks they should eat more "fire element" foods in the winter because otherwise they get colds.

 

Guess I insult her, too.

 

It's attitudes like yours that make life a trial.

 

Bill

[jewellsmommy]

QUOTE I wish it was. that. easy. but. it. is. not.

 

A parent who would never dream of putting my child in a car without a car-seat might have no. problem. giving. him. sweets. when. we've. asked. they. not. do. so.

 

Locking our child in the house isn't a great option.

 

Bill END QUOTE _____________

 

 

 

 

 

While I sympathize with your situation, I must point out that there is a difference between someone giving a child a snack with the knowledge that said child is not allowed to have that snack (regardless of the reason) and bringing a non-healthy snack to an event to be available to the children. The parent supplying the snack is not forcing their cupcakes into the mouths of the children. You are correct that no one should knowingly give anything to child that they have been instructed not to. You should let a person know that they will never again be entrusted with the well being of your child if that is the level of responsibilty that they will show.

 

On a side note I must also point out that there are different levels to "healthy" and "sugary" snacks. It will be impossible to please everyone all the time. I make homemade granola that has honey in it. Is that a sugary snack? Depends on who you ask. I also make honey wheat bread from scratch. I even grind my own grain. This is certainly healthy, but if your child reacts to carbs then this is not a good snack. I would rather my child eat these sorts of treats but I cannot ask another parent to deny their child a candy bar just because I don't like what candy bars do to my child. In the same respect, I would never let my child run around a park loose without adult supervision because it is dangerous. However other people do. And when my dd asks how come she can't do xyz when little suzy's parents let her do xyz, I get to use my favorite line: I am not little suzy's mother. I am your mother and because I sad so. I do not go to little suzy's mom and say "Would you please stop letting your daughter do xyz because it makes my dd want to do it too and then I look like a bad guy when I say no." No, it is my job to be the bad guy.

[Reya]

Were those the studies done my Imperial Sugar?

 

Imperialism would make it far worse, of course.

 

:D

[Mrs Mungo]

That's not the same as think your kid is made demented by cane sugar--oh, but honey is so much better, especially raw honey... Etc., etc.

 

I agree with that.

 

There isn't the variation in blood sugar that diet sellers want you to believe, though. If there is an effect, it really is likely a lack of satiety even if hunger isn't "nagging" yet.

 

I disagree with this. There is absolutely information to the contrary.

[Joanne]

Imperialism would make it far worse, of course.

 

:D

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

:D

[Jen500]

So would adding some protein along with a sugary food help improve a child's behavior? Or not make a difference to those kids sensitive to too much sugar?

[Mrs Mungo]

So would adding some protein along with a sugary food help improve a child's behavior? Or not make a difference to those kids sensitive to too much sugar?

 

In my experience, protein does help. I have mentioned many times that I offer protein with every meal and snack.

[The Governess]

I think that saying that no child could possibly have behavioral issues from consuming sugar is taking things too far. Even the researchers who ran the studies that "proved" that sugar has no impact didn't make such far-reaching comments. It sounds like there is not a definitive answer on this subject yet.

 

My dd5 is not allowed to eat chocolate after dinner anymore after she was up until midnight each time she ate it, without exception (and the only times she has ever been up so late). I have the same reaction. I also have a bigger reaction than anyone else I know to coffee, alcohol, medications, or a big plate of pasta. Everybody's body metabolizes things differently. Many people who have allergies don't react to the same ingredients in their whole, unprocessed forms but react severely when they are eaten in highly processed forms. I don't think it's a big stretch to allow that sugar in a highly processed form could significantly affect some people.

 

And studies of small groups of children may show that the average child doesn't show a consistent bad reaction to sugar. But that doesn't mean that *no one* does.

 

As for the OP, I also have a problem with all of the sugary snacks served to kids at functions/sports etc. I brought apple slices and some whole-grain muffins when it was my turn for dd5's soccer snack. The other parents brought donuts with sprinkles, frosted cookies loaded with food coloring, frozen lemonade bars, fruit snacks.....I don't get it. Do their kids eat this stuff at home all week? :glare:

[homeschoolmomtutu]

I just wanted to say there is a difference in table sugar and honey...one is a disaccharide, the other a monosaccharides...and yes the digestion and absorption is different in some people...just perhaps ask a parent of a child with Chrohn's disease or Ulcerative Colitis or perhaps even autism... no doubt the differences in the chemical compositon may have have far reaching effects on the general population, or even a small segment of children for whom the parents of these kids see behaviorial manifestations... http://www.pecanbread.com/scdscience.html

[Mom0012]

It's attitudes like yours that make life a trial.

 

Bill

 

I can see what you mean!

 

Lisa

[zaichiki]

There is an intolerance--not an allergy--to MSG, which is almost always annoying but not life threatening.

 

My f-i-l was rushed to the ER after an MSG reaction: his face and throat were swelling up so he was struggling to breathe. I'm not so sure it wasn't life-threatening.

[Aunty Social]

 

Locking our child in the house isn't a great option.

 

Bill

 

It doesn't have to be the only option. It sounds like you know the people who disrespect your instructions (which I still can't fathom). Limit contact with them. If they ask why, tell them. When your child is going to be around them, you or another trusted adult must be there too.

 

It is not right that you have to do this. People should absolutely respect a parents wishes for their child. People are just that, however......people. There will always be some who roll their eyes and do whatever they want. Some people suck. It's life. Deal.

[grace'smom]

My mother-in-law thinks that she knows her kids, too, and she thinks they should eat more "fire element" foods in the winter because otherwise they get colds.

 

Guess I insult her, too.

 

I think it would be helpful if you could site your studies, the authors, funders, and their research conclusions. I find it hard to believe any researcher could "PROVE" there is no reaction to sugar in all children. I had a large reaction to sugar when I was a kid. I went in for diabetes testing. No diabetes, but it does turn out that I pass out at what is considered "normal" levels of blood sugar. My body is just made differently, it handles sugar differently, and so does my daughter. So I guess you are trying to say that though I do not have diabetes I passed out during a glucose tolerance test because my mom told me sugar made me high? I'll alert my doctors.

[lionfamily1999]

Hmmm... but if I recall correctly from my school days... that wasn't exactly food there in the cafeteria.

No, I wouldn't have called it food either ;)

Am I the only one who *had* to have some cookies or other baked dessert item today? :lol:

We made sugar cookies :p

I wish it was. that. easy. but. it. is. not.

 

A parent who would never dream of putting my child in a car without a car-seat might have no. problem. giving. him. sweets. when. we've. asked. they. not. do. so.

 

Locking our child in the house isn't a great option.

 

Bill

Bill, I wouldn't let them take my child anymore. I'm sorry, but we've had issues with adults that seem to believe they know better than I do, what is good for my children. I took ds out of youth group for that very reason. Granted, it was only for a week, but they got the picture pretty quick. At some point, you either have to put your foot down, hard and toes be darned, or give it up. They're crossing the line. They're also figuring out that you won't do anything about it. Make a statement. Keep little Spycar home for a week. Show them you are serious. Show them that this is not some health nut passing fancy.

[Erica in PA]

This is also very true. But where I was in the thread at the point of posting, there was a lot of back-and-forth about whether or not people can/do/should take sugar sensitivities as seriously as they do nut allergies. My personal preference is if there is something my little can't have, I give him something he can. I have a bunch of snacks in my bag for him for exactly this reason. But some folks were taking a very nonchalant stance toward non-anaphylactic allergies simply because they're not immediately, physiologically life-threatening, so I kinda felt the need to point out that given a true choice in the matter, I'd love to let my little eat whatever he wanted, whatever was offered, with the rest of the kids. But I don't have that option due to allergy - and while it's not as severe as a nut allergy, that doesn't give other parents (be they here or elsewhere!) the right to knowingly give my allergic child a butter cookie and a big glass of milk.

 

Does that make sense, or did I just talk myself in a circle? :blink:

 

That does make sense, but just to reassure you, just about everyone who addressed that aspect of it did say that they would never do that. Personally, I don't consider it *as serious* to have a hyperactive child for a few hours from sugar as to go into anaphylactic shock and be rushed to the hospital, either, but I still wouldn't give your child a butter cookie if you told me he couldn't have one. The fact that one has more serious consequences than the other doesn't mean that parents don't have a right to say what their children should and shouldn't eat, and I think the vast majority of parents respect that. People do balk, though, when such parents go beyond, "Don't give my kid that," to "Don't give *any* of the kids that, because mine can't have it." And that's what I think people were reacting to in this thread.

[stripe]

My mother-in-law thinks that she knows her kids, too, and she thinks they should eat more "fire element" foods in the winter because otherwise they get colds.

You too? My in laws believe fervently in certain types of medicinal benefits to sugar consumption. Apparently it "builds blood."

 

I have no clue what it means, but, since I view excessive sugar consumption as a fundamentally good thing (and survived a childhood where my parents also claimed I had "bad behavior" after eating sugar), I am a very willing believer.

 

I think most sugary treats are not well made. Personally, I think that's the real problem: too many low quality sweets. Cheap lollies, frosting that tastes like toothpaste, cake mixes, and so on. Certainly that includes all rubbish from a school cafeteria. Bring on the high quality stuff!

[usetoschool]

I think it would be helpful if you could site your studies' date=' the authors, funders, and their research conclusions. I find it hard to believe any researcher could "PROVE" there is no reaction to sugar in all children. I had a large reaction to sugar when I was a kid. I went in for diabetes testing. No diabetes, but it does turn out that I pass out at what is considered "normal" levels of blood sugar. My body is just made differently, it handles sugar differently, and so does my daughter. So I guess you are trying to say that though I do not have diabetes I passed out during a glucose tolerance test because my mom told me sugar made me high? I'll alert my doctors.[/quote']

 

I have been frustrated by parents blaming their children's bad behavior on too much sugar so I did some looking into it. What Reya said about studies indicating sugar does not make you hyper is correct. But I think this is one of those apples and oranges things. There was a meta study done of the 23 studies found to meet scientific study requirements, and yes those studies did show that giving kids sugar did not make them hyper - as in eat a cupcake, bounce off the walls, blame the cupcake. However, big fat however, the studies did show that children are much more sensitive than adults on the down side of blood sugar. Blood sugar going up did not make kids "hyper" but when their blood sugar was going back down after a high blood sugar level, an adrenaline response kicked in at a much higher level than was typical of adults. So a typical adult has to get pretty low on the blood sugar scale before the adrenaline kicks in, but kids adrenaline kicks in at a level that would still be considered normal blood sugar level for an adult. And that did affect their behavior - aggressive, can't think clearly (what you feel when you have that flight or fight response or when your blood sugar is really low) etc. The typical reaction was about 4 hours later (which is why they are having trouble at midnight after having dessert.) So the solution is to keep their blood sugar stable, not what causes the peaks and valleys because any food can do that...but that applies to a lot of things mentally, healthwise, immune response, etc. anyway.

 

And of course everyone's body reacts differently to foods and sleep and stress and exercise and temperature and on and on, not discounting that at all, just seems like common sense. My original frustration was with people who's kids are bouncing off the walls and the parent says they had to much sugar and then goes on chatting with friends and leaving the people in charge of the activity to deal with their little monster. :glare: Ummm, no, I think this is a case of too much bad parenting. ;)

[stripe]

People also have to learn self control. Hard for a kid, but MANY places have a bowl of candies and so forth. It is a continuous effort.

[Laurie4b]

My f-i-l was rushed to the ER after an MSG reaction: his face and throat were swelling up so he was struggling to breathe. I'm not so sure it wasn't life-threatening.

 

MSG can trigger heart problems as well.

[lionfamily1999]

This is in fact how things operate. So we have to learn how to function in the real world. If I'm going somewhere and I know they won't have food that I am willing to eat, I bring my own. This isn't different in a work setting as an adult either. I had many jobs where people often had small office parties and people brought food to share. It was often total junk food. So, if I didn't want that, I brought my own.

 

Ideally there is also healthier choices, but you can't always control that.

You do control it by bringing your own or (better, imo) bringing enough for everyone.

 

(This is a general response, not one directed at *you*)

I've read a lot about bringing your own healthy foods to get togethers, because no one else brings healthy food. My question is, how is it better to supply your own snack without bringing enough for the group? IOW, doesn't that just add to the irritation and problems, when a healthy snack IS brought, but only for personal use? How great would it be to take your child to a get together only to watch other kids, with the same issues, going without, driving their parents crazy with begging, while your little darlings snacked?

 

I'm just surprised by the amount of anger at the cookie bringers that is followed by advice to only bring enough for yourself. Wouldn't it be closer to fixing the problem if all the 'healthy' parents brought enough for everyone?

[katilac]

You do control it by bringing your own or (better, imo) bringing enough for everyone. <snip>

 

I'm just surprised by the amount of anger at the cookie bringers that is followed by advice to only bring enough for yourself. Wouldn't it be closer to fixing the problem if all the 'healthy' parents brought enough for everyone?

 

I think the idea here is that 'healthy' snacks have a very different meaning for each family. A low-sugar snack does not solve the problem for kids with celiac, egg allergy, lactose intolerance, etc etc.

 

I don't automatically equate low-sugar with healthy snacks. Goldfish are junk food like any other, yet they're widely regarded as 'better' than cupcakes or such. They might be better for a sugar-sensitive kid, but they're worse for my dye-sensitive kid, and so it goes.

 

You politely bring your own snack by saying, "Johnny can't have certain foods, so we brought this for him." Of course, if Johhny eats any of the other stuff, one must also provide a group snack.

 

I'm sure that part of the unwillingness to be one of the lone providers of healthy snacks is economic: they are simply much more expensive.

[lionfamily1999]

I think the idea here is that 'healthy' snacks have a very different meaning for each family. A low-sugar snack does not solve the problem for kids with celiac, egg allergy, lactose intolerance, etc etc.

 

I don't automatically equate low-sugar with healthy snacks. Goldfish are junk food like any other, yet they're widely regarded as 'better' than cupcakes or such. They might be better for a sugar-sensitive kid, but they're worse for my dye-sensitive kid, and so it goes.

 

You politely bring your own snack by saying, "Johnny can't have certain foods, so we brought this for him." Of course, if Johhny eats any of the other stuff, one must also provide a group snack.

 

I'm sure that part of the unwillingness to be one of the lone providers of healthy snacks is economic: they are simply much more expensive.

I'm not trying to say it is rude to bring your own food. For years I brought food especially for my toddlers, not because of food issues, but because they were too young to partake in the general fare. What I'm trying to say is, simply, if you aren't part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Or, if you don't plan on making things better, then don't complain when no one else does.

 

Speaking from an economic stand point (as one that brings carrots and celery), I've nearly always found vegetables cheaper. However, I do understand the desire to do 'good' by bringing a snack, coupled with the issues of costs, resulting in quantity rather than quality. I don't hold it against people who bring cheap food :) I don't think I'm superior for bringing carrots and celery. What I do think is that people with some of the biggest problems with sugary snack foods or junk should not just be bringing food for themselves, if they truly see this as an epidemic type thing. They should be part of the solution.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I wouldn't let them take my child anymore. I'm sorry, but we've had issues with adults that seem to believe they know better than I do, what is good for my children.

 

The problem, Julie, is that it's not a "them" issue. As if it's one isolated family or group.

 

Somehow "societal norms" these days seem to be that it's OK to give other peoples children sugary-treats without asking.

 

For sake of example, we were at a neighbors the other day (lovely people who we enjoy spending time with) and they asked:

 

Is it OK is William has some Mac and Cheese?

 

Sure no problem. I'm happy they asked.

 

But did they ask when they gave him a fudge-sickle 15 minutes late? What do you think?

 

Nice people. We like them. Their daughter and my son play frequently. They know my son doesn't do well if he has too much sugar.

 

It's one teeny-tiny example. But multiply it writ-large and there are days when he melts-down because too many adults have given him treats.

 

And this is a kid who is pretty even other-wise. Social, enthusiastic, bright-eyed, not a "problem-child." He's a sweet kid.

 

And if you dare mention limiting sugary treat handouts to kids people do not like it. And/or you get compared to someone's nutty mother-in-law.

 

Bill

[caitlinsmom]

I could have written your post. We have the same issue here and it is irritating and tiresome to deal with it all the time. Most parents look at me like I am the psycho. LOL I tell them to hand my kid something sugary and they will learn the meaning of psycho.

 

Most people dont understand is what it boils down too. Their kids can hadle things like cupcakes and juice with no issues. For us to say NO WAY blows their mind because they have no experience with it. I remember 2 years ago my dd went to a b-day party where they made and decorated their own sugar cookies, had b-day cake, made colored lemonade drinks, etc. I warned my friend that even if it seems mean please please please limit the amount of sugar she actually ingests. My loving friend smiled and nodded but did not listen. When I picked up dd 3 hours later she gave me a hug and apologized numerous times. Finally she got to see what happens.

 

Anyway I am sorry you are dealing with this, I understand the irritation that comes with other peoples lack of knowledge and/or sensitivity regarding this issue. The frustrating thing to me is why is all this food acceptable as a snack? Why does sugar/fat laden items equal a good time treat? Hmm who knows.

[lionfamily1999]

The problem, Julie, is that it's not a "them" issue. As if it's one isolated family or group.

Bill

What did you do once he got the fudge pop? Did you cave and let him keep it, or throw it away? I know it seems outrageously rude to throw away 'good' food, but Bill, it's just like with kids, you have to make yourself clear. I've had these problems, insane stupid issues with people that thought it was okay to give my kids table food when they were.not.ready. I've had to be a real jerk and take the food away, make them sit through the tantrum and appear to be the meanest human being on earth. Frankly, lots of adults are like children and if you don't draw the line in big and bold, they will ignore it.

 

I'm sorry those people are such beasts.

 

It's tempting to say, turn about it fair play, and tell you to start offering other people's children things their parents would not like, but of course that only makes it worse.

 

I would've lost my temper some time ago, in your situation. The line would've been obvious, because it would have been written in screaming letters a mile high :(

[Caribbean Queen]

I think we should avoid telling people that their food makes us sick/we don't like it/it's unhealthy. The polite thing to do is eat what you like, and say, "No thanks." if someone offers you something you don't want. If (and only if) anyone cares to know why you won't eat certain foods then you can tell why, but it is best to be understated. "We don't eat sweets, but thanks for offering." is a classy thing to say. Don't say anything that comes off like, "My child could die from one grain of sugar." "My child will have a transformation like The Incredible Hulk." "This food is so unhealthy I wouldn't feed it to my dog."

[2cents]

What did you do once he got the fudge pop? Did you cave and let him keep it, or throw it away? I know it seems outrageously rude to throw away 'good' food, but Bill, it's just like with kids, you have to make yourself clear. I've had these problems, insane stupid issues with people that thought it was okay to give my kids table food when they were.not.ready. I've had to be a real jerk and take the food away, make them sit through the tantrum and appear to be the meanest human being on earth. Frankly, lots of adults are like children and if you don't draw the line in big and bold, they will ignore it.

 

I'm sorry those people are such beasts.

 

It's tempting to say, turn about it fair play, and tell you to start offering other people's children things their parents would not like, but of course that only makes it worse.

 

I would've lost my temper some time ago, in your situation. The line would've been obvious, because it would have been written in screaming letters a mile high :(

 

:iagree:

It isn't the path of least resistance but it certainly will get the message across. If the parent caves and lets the child have the treat that also teaches the child that in certain situations they can manipulate the rules regarding what choices they need to be making. What it boils down to is that it is ultimately the parents responsibility to manage the diet and if it is something they feel very strongly about then they'll tackle those awkward moments to achieve the goal. I, personally, would probably take away the fudgesicle but in the interest of not wasting 'good' food, I'd make the sacrifice and eat it myself. :lol:

[Aunty Social]

The problem, Julie, is that it's not a "them" issue. As if it's one isolated family or group.

 

Somehow "societal norms" these days seem to be that it's OK to give other peoples children sugary-treats without asking.

 

For sake of example, we were at a neighbors the other day (lovely people who we enjoy spending time with) and they asked:

 

Is it OK is William has some Mac and Cheese?

 

Sure no problem. I'm happy they asked.

 

But did they ask when they gave him a fudge-sickle 15 minutes late? What do you think?

 

Nice people. We like them. Their daughter and my son play frequently. They know my son doesn't do well if he has too much sugar.

 

It's one teeny-tiny example. But multiply it writ-large and there are days when he melts-down because too many adults have given him treats.

 

And this is a kid who is pretty even other-wise. Social, enthusiastic, bright-eyed, not a "problem-child." He's a sweet kid.

 

And if you dare mention limiting sugary treat handouts to kids people do not like it. And/or you get compared to someone's nutty mother-in-law.

 

Bill

 

If you were there as well, (and I'm assuming so because you state that you enjoy visiting with them and that they asked about the mac and cheese) then how did they manage to give your child a fudgesicle without your knowledge?

 

If you saw him with it, why did you not take it away (while loudly mentioning how he isn't allowed sugar because of his reaction so the clueless parents get it)? I know a 5yo is going to put up a fuss if you take a treat away, but isn't a little fuss now better than an hours long problem later?

 

And, if you can't trust them not to offer it, then all playdates must take place at your house.

 

My dd has several friends that are "our house only" friends - not because of food issues, but for other reasons. Sometimes it's hard, but it's worth it to us to keep our child safe while still allowing her a social life.

 

Bill - I really don't mean this as harsh as it will sound. I have great respect for you from what I see on these boards, and know how frustrating it is when people don't respect your wishes. *deepbreath* It seems to me that you don't want to take responsibility for your child's dietary issue. I keep hearing "but what about.....". There is no "but what about". Your child's health is your responsibility. If there are people that you cannot trust to follow your instructions, don't be around them. If someone's child has a food allergy/sensitivity/intolerance, then there will always be some situation where they (or their parents) have to be vigilant and either pick from the slim amounts of acceptable food, or bring their own. There will be occasions that they have to take food out of their child's hand (or mouth) while stating loudly that they are not allowed that. They will have to spend hours, days, and years training their child about how to avoid the food, and how to tell the difference in how he feels when he's had some and when he hasn't. It's part of the life of an allergic person. It's not fun. It's not easy. It downright sucks sometimes. It is also necessary. We are a food intensive culture. And as someone else said.....with the myriad of allergies, it is almost impossible to bring something that everyone will be able to eat. It is up to the parents to make sure their children choose from what is available acceptable foods, and to bring their own if there is a chance nothing acceptable will be there.

 

Of course, I still think that there are way to many sugary treats offered, at the expense of more nutritious items. I am seeing that slowly change......but it will be years, maybe decades, before the nutritious offerings outweigh the junk.

 

I hope this comes across in the loving way I mean it, and not as blame or snark.

[zaichiki]

What did you do once he got the fudge pop? Did you cave and let him keep it, or throw it away? I know it seems outrageously rude to throw away 'good' food, but Bill, it's just like with kids, you have to make yourself clear.

 

I think it's like a pp alluded to -- how big of a deal IS the sugar?

 

Think like a parent whose child has an allergy to wheat, dairy, nuts etc.

Would they just "let the child have the food?" I'd probably take it away from ds and apologize to both *him* and the person who gave it to him: "I'm sorry, but ds really can't eat that. It causes ____." Here's something he can enjoy instead (and hopefully I'd manage to reach into my pocketbook and pull out something he REALLY does like to soften the blow).

 

If the sugar doesn't cause a *serious* reaction, then we're likely not to enforce the rule... and lots of people pick up on this. Maybe THAT'S the reason they don't take the "no sugary snacks" seriously?

[Spy Car]

If you were there as well, (and I'm assuming so because you state that you enjoy visiting with them and that they asked about the mac and cheese) then how did they manage to give your child a fudgesicle without your knowledge?

 

Because they gave it to him in the kitchen when we were not in sight.

 

If you saw him with it, why did you not take it away (while loudly mentioning how he isn't allowed sugar because of his reaction so the clueless parents get it)?

 

Because it was basically gone by the time I saw it. Kid's aren't stupid, they know how to lie-low.

 

I don't understand why I have to be "on the defensive." These folks know how we feel. And it's not like a finger-of-blame at them in particular. It the way it goes everywhere. People seem to think a sugar-treat and a sweet drink to wash it down show "love." I suppose?

 

Bill - I really don't mean this as harsh as it will sound. I have great respect for you from what I see on these boards, and know how frustrating it is when people don't respect your wishes. *deepbreath* It seems to me that you don't want to take responsibility for your child's dietary issue.

 

Quite the opposite. I want to be responsible for what he eats. My wife and I make very healthy meals for him. He eats and enjoys vegetables (even things like kale and brussels-spouts). We don't feed him sweets because he doesn't tolerate them well when over-consumed.

 

Occasional desserts in small amounts are indulged on occasion, because we are not orgres, food-fanatics, and we have a good idea what the boundaries of his tolerance are on top of a full meal.

 

We also attend birthday parties, because he's a very social boy, and try to make sure it's either cake, ice-cream, or the sweet drink. Pick one. Our plan is not always "fool-proof" and post-party "melt-downs" are not uncommon. It's behavior we never see other-wise. Never.

 

So we make our best judgements about what's best for him trying to balance a social world with our concerns for his emotional well-being.

 

Your child's health is your responsibility.

 

I agree.

 

If there are people that you cannot trust to follow your instructions, don't be around them.

 

Unfortunately that would eliminate most of the people we know, it would have eliminated his coop nursery school (which he/we loved) and his kindergarten (which is also a great experience thus far) and most (if not all) of his play-dates (which he also greatly enjoys).

 

If someone's child has a food allergy/sensitivity/intolerance, then there will always be some situation where they (or their parents) have to be vigilant and either pick from the slim amounts of acceptable food, or bring their own.

 

Granted. But understand, most people if they know your child is diabetic or is allergic to a food will make an effort to not give a child a "problem food." And here I understand the vast difference between a food that could send a child into "shock" and less serious food issues.

 

But if you say to these same well-meaning persons, my son doesn't do well with excessive sugar intake, please don't feed him treats, the request is often ignored, and sometimes you face people who will presume to know your child better than you and they will compare you with their crazy mother-in-law. Or figure you are just uptight. Because their kids can down a soda, have a piece of cake and a bowl of ice cream and have seemingly no problems dealing with it. My son can't.

 

It doesn't sent us rushing to the hospital. My heart goes out to those who face that possibility in their lives and their children's lives. It really does.

 

In comparison our problem is "minor." But it doesn't mean we don't want the best for our boy. And it means a lot of compromises. But what I'd really like is to be allowed for us (my wife and I) to be responsible for feeding our own child.

 

 

They will have to spend hours, days, and years training their child about how to avoid the food, and how to tell the difference in how he feels when he's had some and when he hasn't. It's part of the life of an allergic person. It's not fun. It's not easy. It downright sucks sometimes. It is also necessary.

 

He's pretty well-regulated for a 5 year-old. He turned down a Gatorade at the soccer game and had a water instead. On the other hand, we don't want to create food-phobias, nor deny him occasional sweets in amounts he's able to tolerate.

 

But when you have a child is is sensitive, you become aware how readily people hand kids candy and other treats. I understand they are trying to be "kind" but wow!

 

We are a food intensive culture. And as someone else said.....with the myriad of allergies, it is almost impossible to bring something that everyone will be able to eat. It is up to the parents to make sure their children choose from what is available acceptable foods, and to bring their own if there is a chance nothing acceptable will be there.

 

I don't disagree. We do provide our child with food.

 

Of course, I still think that there are way to many sugary treats offered, at the expense of more nutritious items. I am seeing that slowly change......but it will be years, maybe decades, before the nutritious offerings outweigh the junk.

 

I think it is actually getting worse. And I don't understand it

 

I hope this comes across in the loving way I mean it, and not as blame or snark.

 

Not mean. Not snarky. I'm not sure you are fully appreciative of how hard it is, but sometimes one can only understand when you're in it. Life is like that. Normal.

 

Bill

Edited October 23, 2009 by Spy Car
typo

[lionfamily1999]

I, personally, would probably take away the fudgesicle but in the interest of not wasting 'good' food, I'd make the sacrifice and eat it myself. :lol:

Lol!

I see what you are saying. Yes, ideally one would bring enough for the group.

 

I think people bring things like cupcakes because they are easy and inexpensive.

 

I'm not anti cupcake or treats, but I do realize that many people are. So I try to bring healthier options. Unfortunately, I then start to worry that people will insist on it being organic, etc. It has gotten to the point where I feel like people are religious or political about food. I don't even know what is healthy anymore (there is a lot of disagreement).

 

I feed my kids well before we go somewhere. This cuts down on them eating too much junk. Otherwise, I don't lose sleep over occasional treats.

For those people, I would recommend they bring snacks (for everyone) specific to their own preferences, because you can't make everyone happy (just ask the cupcake people), but you can try to make it better (from your own pov) by bringing things that make you happy.

 

Being nice takes thick skin :(

I think it's like a pp alluded to -- how big of a deal IS the sugar?

 

Think like a parent whose child has an allergy to wheat, dairy, nuts etc.

Would they just "let the child have the food?" I'd probably take it away from ds and apologize to both *him* and the person who gave it to him: "I'm sorry, but ds really can't eat that. It causes ____." Here's something he can enjoy instead (and hopefully I'd manage to reach into my pocketbook and pull out something he REALLY does like to soften the blow).

 

If the sugar doesn't cause a *serious* reaction, then we're likely not to enforce the rule... and lots of people pick up on this. Maybe THAT'S the reason they don't take the "no sugary snacks" seriously?

That's what I mean about making the line big and bold. If you perpetually cave, preferring to face the side effects rather than be seen as rude, then people are going to believe it's not that important to you.

 

Grab a soapbox, preach it, then chuck the trash and apologizing for being abrasive, but make it unquestionably clear how you feel, iykwIm.

[lionfamily1999]

Not mean. Not snarky. I'm not sure you are fully appreciative of how hard it is, but something one can only understand when you're in it. Life is like that. Normal.

 

Bill

Sort of o/t, but I'm hoping you'll see the connection. My dd and myself have terrible reactions to most topical things that are 'hypoallergenic.' I don't know how or why, but both of us with break out into an incredibly painful raised rash wherever the lotion or cleanser, for instance, has touched our skin.

 

I have had people swipe me with h/a lotion, to prove me wrong. I could not believe that they would, but I've had both family members and strangers (strangers!) who, upon hearing of this bizarre issue, feel a need to prove me wrong.

 

The raised red rash that shows up immediately, even if I wipe it off as quick as I can, makes them feel like the heels they are.

 

For dd, I've had people tell her that I'm full of huey, there's no way to be allergic to h/a stuff, that's why it's h/a. She knows, she's experienced the joys of h/a. It's easier for her to say no, at the risk of seeming rude, because her body's response is very painful.

 

I understand that people will want to prove that you're nothing but a worried old woman. I really do. What I've found, in the case of h/a as well as food preferences, is that I have to say 'no' and etiquette has to take a back seat. If they want to say I'm a worry wart about this, fine, whatever. As long as they know that I mean it, I'm not joking, and the response (should they choose to ignore me) will not be something they can ignore.

 

:grouphug: Sometimes the only answers seem worse than the problem.

[Corraleno]

I've read all 26 pages, and I gotta say I'm just flabbergasted at (1) the bile directed at the OP, and (2) the dogpile on Bill by people who are either not reading his posts or not understanding them.

 

Bill says: my son reacts badly to sugar and even though I am constantly telling people that he can't have sugar, people keep giving it to him against our wishes.

 

Responses: Lighten up, it's not like he's gonna die or anything.

Well, then just don't let him go any place where people do that.

You just have to take responsibility for your own child (like he doesn't???)

 

If someone posted "Our family believes in Creation, but our friends, neighbors and relatives keep trying to give my kids books on evolution behind our backs" (or the reverse: "Family and friends keep trying to convert my kids to their religion"), people would be outraged. If someone posted that their child had a physical problem that limited their ability to exercise, and the Sunday School teacher/scout leader/father-in-law/etc were always making their child run around the block, people would be outraged. But someone posts that other people constantly give his child something the child has a bad physical reaction to, and the general response is tough luck/that's your problem or it's no big deal it's just sugar.

 

Which exactly proves his point!!!

 

Jackie

[Harriet Vane]

I've read all 26 pages, and I gotta say I'm just flabbergasted at (1) the bile directed at the OP, and (2) the dogpile on Bill by people who are either not reading his posts or not understanding them.

 

Bill says: my son reacts badly to sugar and even though I am constantly telling people that he can't have sugar, people keep giving it to him against our wishes.

 

Responses: Lighten up, it's not like he's gonna die or anything.

Well, then just don't let him go any place where people do that.

You just have to take responsibility for your own child (like he doesn't???)

 

If someone posted "Our family believes in Creation, but our friends, neighbors and relatives keep trying to give my kids books on evolution behind our backs" (or the reverse: "Family and friends keep trying to convert my kids to their religion"), people would be outraged. If someone posted that their child had a physical problem that limited their ability to exercise, and the Sunday School teacher/scout leader/father-in-law/etc were always making their child run around the block, people would be outraged. But someone posts that other people constantly give his child something the child has a bad physical reaction to, and the general response is tough luck/that's your problem or it's no big deal it's just sugar.

 

Which exactly proves his point!!!

 

Jackie

 

:iagree:

 

For Bill: As the mother of a lactose intolerant son, I feel your pain. People truly don't respect the explicitly stated directions of the parent. I cannot tell you the number of situations we have been in wherein people have said, "It's only a little bit." NO. I'm sorry. That "little bit" of dairy product will put my son in agony. I have learned through hard experience to be very stern with others about this, and actually, so has my son. Poor ds had a terrible, terrible reaction to hidden dairy in the candy coating of some popcorn. He was in pain for three days. This experience scared him so badly he has become almost as militant as me about policing the food people offer him. He has even asked people to call his mom and read the ingredients to me over the phone. Once ds took charge of this my job got easier, but there are still many, many, many people who just. don't. get. it. There are also those who perceive my vigilance in this area as my being a "smother mother." And there are those who really don't believe lactose intolerance is a big deal. And there are even those who have tried to override my son's concern and tell him it's okay to eat something that he knows he cannot have (like being offered goldfish crackers at church). :confused:

 

I have read all your responses in this thread and respect the kind way in which you have tried to explain the reality you live with. The bottom line, though, is that people who do not live with this just do not understand what it is truly like to live with it.

[Aunty Social]

I've read all 26 pages, and I gotta say I'm just flabbergasted at (1) the bile directed at the OP, and (2) the dogpile on Bill by people who are either not reading his posts or not understanding them.

 

Bill says: my son reacts badly to sugar and even though I am constantly telling people that he can't have sugar, people keep giving it to him against our wishes.

 

Responses: Lighten up, it's not like he's gonna die or anything.

Well, then just don't let him go any place where people do that.

You just have to take responsibility for your own child (like he doesn't???)

 

If someone posted "Our family believes in Creation, but our friends, neighbors and relatives keep trying to give my kids books on evolution behind our backs" (or the reverse: "Family and friends keep trying to convert my kids to their religion"), people would be outraged. If someone posted that their child had a physical problem that limited their ability to exercise, and the Sunday School teacher/scout leader/father-in-law/etc were always making their child run around the block, people would be outraged. But someone posts that other people constantly give his child something the child has a bad physical reaction to, and the general response is tough luck/that's your problem or it's no big deal it's just sugar.

 

Which exactly proves his point!!!

 

Jackie

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but my response would be the same if this was a religion/disability issue. It is unacceptable for others to disregard the parents instructions! I have said this over and over.

 

However, there are going to be people who do disregard - either in the case of allergies because they don't get it, in the case of religion because they are concerned for your child's soul (applies for any religion), in the case of atheism because they are concerned your child believes a fallacy, and in the case of physical limitations because "they should just try harder".

 

Let me be clear - I do not believe any of those reasons! They are examples of how some people will think.

 

In the case of those who disregard, choices are limited. They have repeatedly shown that they will not follow your instructions. They cannot be trusted. Therefore, limit contact, be there always, or.....what?

 

As far as take responsibility - I know that Bill is a loving parent. He would not invest so much in his child's education or well being otherwise. My point is that in group situations, it is almost impossible to provide something that is acceptable to everyone in the group. Therefore, take the responsibility of monitoring the offerings and making sure only appropriate choices are made, and bring your own food. I dealt with allergies in my own family. I have many, many friends with multiple allergies. I do understand how hard, how tiring, and how frustrating it is. I understand wanting to smack someone upside the head and say "Hey, moron! I said don't do that!" Unfortunately, they still won't get it, and we are back to the original choices of avoiding, constant monitoring, and providing your own.

[katilac]

Because they gave it to him in the kitchen when we were not in sight.

 

Because it was basically gone by the time I saw it. Kid's aren't stupid, they know how to lie-low.

 

I don't understand why I have to be "on the defensive." These folks know how we feel. And it's not like a finger-of-blame at them in particular. It the way it goes everywhere. People seem to think a sugar-treat and a sweet drink to wash it down show "love." I suppose?

 

So we make our best judgements about what's best for him trying to balance a social world with our concerns for his emotional well-being.

 

Bill

 

But this is solved so, so easily! Why don't you have a rule that Spy Kid is not allowed to accept food of any type without asking? We have always had this rule. My kids have never questioned it, but if they disobeyed, we would impose a logical consequence the way we do for any other act of disobedience.

 

If he breaks your rule at a neighbor's house, the logical consequence is that the fun visit is now over. If he persistently breaks it, the logical consequence is that he is not considered mature enough to be out of your sight on playdates and visits. Yes, it's bloody hard to do, but that's kids for ya. When one of my girls was four or five, we all missed out on a lot of fun things for a while, until she understood that misbehaving in public meant 'no public' (not food issues, but the same idea).

 

Only you can decide if you think that certain people are doing this deliberately, and if they are, only you can decide if it's a friendship you wish to maintain in the face of it.

 

If your friends make it clear that they think it's a funny thing to do, I personally wouldn't be keen on investing time in that friendship. But do keep in mind that, although they may 'know' your son has a sugar sensitivity, it's not on the top of their mind the way it is on yours. I've mistakenly offered my friend's kid peanut items more than once, even though I know full well she has an allergy. I'm simple not constantly concious of what does and does not contain peanuts. I'd hate to think she would ever imagine that it was deliberate.

[8circles]

I've read all 26 pages, and I gotta say I'm just flabbergasted at (1) the bile directed at the OP,

 

Seriously? What bile?

[hornblower]

I have read all your responses in this thread and respect the kind way in which you have tried to explain the reality you live with. The bottom line, though, is that people who do not live with this just do not understand what it is truly like to live with it.

 

I HAVE two childred with lactose issues.

 

I HAVE very close relatives who would undermine me on any & all sorts of issues the moment my child was out of sight. Many of those issues - if I mentioned them here would probably make you laugh but they were important to me.

 

One that was NOT funny was the issue of bottles when they were babies. Someone very close to me really wanted to teach the kids to accept a bottle. I was an adamant exclusive breastfeeding mom & no, I was NOT going to introduce a bottle of anything. That was my preference for a variety of reasons. And yet, this person told me flat out they would not honor this.

 

The solution WAS simple. I didn't let my child out of my sight with these people.

 

I'm wondering if there's some cultural bias happening about leaving kids places or letting them learn 'independence' or letting them play at other people's houses without me etc etc etc. My kids just did not go to people's houses except to the few who I KNEW would follow my instructions. They did not go to playgroups, I did not leave them many places. Actually I can probably count on one hand the situations where they would have been out of my sight. I was always there, until they were able to deal with it themselves.

 

I don't actually understand that part. Why can't the adult just be there? Birthday parties? I stayed. Visits with relatives? I stayed. Visiting friends? I stayed & if it was a large house, I'd regularly check in on my kids.

 

I guess I'm just one of those hover moms.... :confused:

[Aunty Social]

 

I think it is actually getting worse. And I don't understand it

Huh. Maybe it varies depending on where you live. I've noticed a crackdown on the sugary treats in some group settings around here. Not all, but some.

 

 

 

Not mean. Not snarky. I'm not sure you are fully appreciative of how hard it is, but sometimes one can only understand when you're in it. Life is like that. Normal.

Phew. Thanks for your understanding. I was afraid it would come across as me picking on you.....you just give really good examples/discussion starters:D.

 

One thing that struck me on my 3rd or 4th read through of your post is that it may be harder for you than those with a more life threatening allergy to get people to listen simply because you can allow the occasional small treat. These people see that, and figure that they can let them have "just one". They don't see the mental calculations that go into deciding if he has had enough dinner to balance the sugar out, or the mental calendar saying he hasn't had sugar in this amount of time, so his system isn't already overloaded. Doesn't make it right for them to give it, but maybe that's what they are thinking.

 

Bill

.