Cow and Gate bear biscuits - in the news

fernliebee

Mely wrote: »

Unless Farleys rusks have changed their recipe since i was a baby, many moons ago, i dont see any harm in giving them to babies. I was very premature when i was born (2lb 4oz) and my mum gave me rusks as a baby and they never harmed me. I also gave my daughters rusks as babies, and they are fine too. I think a lot of women are very ott in what they feed their babies, and i bet a lot of them bottle feed their babies anyway!( which isnt good). And also take them to McDonalds, and let them have sweets when their older! Its all down to sensible,consistent parenting:D

Obviously I'm not suggesting they alone will cause harm to your child, what I do believe is why give sugar to a baby when they would be quite happy to eat healthier things? IMO it would be like a child asking for an apple and the parent saying, no, have these chocolate buttons instead!

I'm not saying your like this, or that you feed your children badly or anything like that, I am only telling you why I personally would not give them to my child. You may feel I am OTT but I am very careful to eat a healthy diet so why would I do differently for my baby? She eats what we eat, so we cook without salt/ sugar etc.

I also believe that many people think "I'm alright and my parents gave them to me" however things have changed, it wasn't so long ago that smoking whilst pregnant was considered fine, and dipping babies dummy in whisky etc. All we can do is do the best for our babies, whatever we consider this to be. I'm not saying people shouldn't give these, just that I personally will not!

xmaslolly76

It is very frightening a lot of mothers give these foods to their children under the pretence that it is good for them or at least that they dont contain anything bad for them. On another count it is also very frightening because some mothers dont know how to cook and this is all the nutrition the baby will have sounds silly to all the bright switched on women who frequent this site that women out there cant cook but they cant look at the woman on jamie olivers show who fed her little ones takeaway everynight. Some kind of regulation needs to be put in place to stop these companys taking advantage of our fears as mothers and should be made to show concern for the babies that are being fed their cr*p.

emlou2009

mountainofdebt wrote: »

When they say a farleys rusk (which every baby I've known eat since the dawn of time) contains more fat than a mcdonalds, do they mean the whole pack or just one rusk?

they mean the pack and percentage wise :rolleyes: so its not quite as bad as you would be led to believe, its another case of the news blowing a story out of proportion again IMHO!

naijapower

So where does this leave all the innocent consumers who bought in good faith thinking rightly than these items never conatined so much sugar or hydrogenated fat?
Do with get refunds etc

amersall

Mely wrote: »

Unless Farleys rusks have changed their recipe since i was a baby, many moons ago, i dont see any harm in giving them to babies. I was very premature when i was born (2lb 4oz) and my mum gave me rusks as a baby and they never harmed me. I also gave my daughters rusks as babies, and they are fine too. I think a lot of women are very ott in what they feed their babies, and i bet a lot of them bottle feed their babies anyway!( which isnt good). And also take them to McDonalds, and let them have sweets when their older! Its all down to sensible,consistent parenting:D

hear hear, it wont be long before you wont be able to eat anything, all things in moderation, i am the eldest od five children(49) we all had farleys rusks etc and not one of us have high colesterol levels or are obese with heart conditions, these experts need to get a life!! my grand parents were brought up with milk brought round on a cart with a horse, not tampered with straight from the cow, there were no reduced fat this no sugar the other, they all lived to there 90s, just be sensible for gods sake. a bit of what you fancy does you good

amersall

emlou2009 wrote: »

they mean the pack and percentage wise :rolleyes: so its not quite as bad as you would be led to believe, its another case of the news blowing a story out of proportion again IMHO!

yes thats right, its just like swine flu, all the hype causing panic, what will be will be

myrnahaz

The sad thing is that they're not stopping production of these items for another month, and it's up to the stores to decide whether they're removed from the shelves in the meantime, so they will still be available to buy for months.
I've bought the berry bear biscuits for my DGS (just the one pack) and, even though we've thrown the uneaten biscuits away, I'm not too worried as occasional use of these foods wouldn't harm anyone - it's only diets high in sugar and fat (even those high in hydrogenated fats) that are harmful, so I don't think we need to beat ourselves up about it.

myrnahaz

amersall wrote: »

hear hear, it wont be long before you wont be able to eat anything, all things in moderation, i am the eldest od five children(49) we all had farleys rusks etc and not one of us have high colesterol levels or are obese with heart conditions, these experts need to get a life!! my grand parents were brought up with milk brought round on a cart with a horse, not tampered with straight from the cow, there were no reduced fat this no sugar the other, they all lived to there 90s, just be sensible for gods sake. a bit of what you fancy does you good

To be fair, times have changed somewhat and our grandparents weren't subjected to the types of fast-food that our generation is. The full fat diets they ate (such as milk, butter , lard etc) would have been necessary fuel to keep them warm and to provide energy for the hard physical graft they had to do to survive (even housewives, with their lack of mod-cons). I was brought up on Farley's rusks but I walked to and from school every day and spent all my non-school hours running around outside.
I have to agree that 'everything in moderation' is a good edict - if only I could remember that myself, lol!

amersall

myrnahaz wrote: »

To be fair, times have changed somewhat and our grandparents weren't subjected to the types of fast-food that our generation is. The full fat diets they ate (such as milk, butter , lard etc) would have been necessary fuel to keep them warm and to provide energy for the hard physical graft they had to do to survive (even housewives, with their lack of mod-cons). I was brought up on Farley's rusks but I walked to and from school every day and spent all my non-school hours running around outside.
I have to agree that 'everything in moderation' is a good edict - if only I could remember that myself, lol!

yes i know i am the same lol.

money_saving_diva

anguk wrote: »

Unfortunately these companies just rely on the fact that most people don't bother to read the nutritional information on the back of the pack and just assume because it's for babies it must be healthy. Baby food is just like any other food, if you want to know what is in it read the nutritional info on the back and if you're concerned make your own.

It's the same with most so-called "healthy option" food, if it says low fat it's normally full of sugar and if it's low sugar it's normally full of fat.

I would normally agree with you - as I DO read labels - especially when buying food for my son - but if you read my first post and the story you will realise that the fats WERE NOT shown on the label!:mad: