Cow and Gate bear biscuits - in the news

Dormouse

Back to OP's original question - I'm sure you'll get a refund one way or another. I would send a stern email to C&G, and also take them back to Tesco (maybe print off the article so they know you're not making it up).

Leaving the whole big debate about feeding babies aside, it is totally unacceptable to have an ingredient not listed on the label, especially on a 'baby food'. :mad::mad::mad:

floss2

This is the original article from the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6216207.ece

anguk

money_saving_diva wrote: »

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:

Sorry I should have said, I was referring to the amount of sugar & fats in baby food and parents who don't realise how much is in baby products because they haven't read the nutritional info on the pack.

I agree with you about the trans fats, it's a legal requirement that they are listed on the label so if Cow & Gate haven't listed it they should at least be fined.

vixarooni

i think this is silly. I thought buscuits were meant to be a treat? If these kinds of foods were a daily main meal then i think the complaints would be justified.

A babies metabolism is so quick anyway, the fat probably doesnt have time to melt before its pooped out the other end again.

jellyhead

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?

Rusks are high in sugar (as are most biscuits i think? I gave them to my little one as a treat).

The cheeseburger comment refers to Heinz cheese biscuits which contain more fat per 100g than a quarter pounder. So the baby would need to eat 8 packets of cheese biscuits to get the same fat as one burger.

If the cheese biscuits contain cheese then that would contribute to the fat content I suppose. I'd hate to see children told that cheese is bad - for some of the children I know a cheese sandwich is their main source of calcium.

At a birthday party around 2.5 years ago I gave my toddler a mini rusk (do they still make them? like rusks but smaller) and all the dads begged for them and ate the whole packet. Adults love rusks :rotfl:

Hell_Dans_Un_Handcart

vixarooni wrote: »

i think this is silly. I thought buscuits were meant to be a treat? If these kinds of foods were a daily main meal then i think the complaints would be justified.

A babies metabolism is so quick anyway, the fat probably doesnt have time to melt before its pooped out the other end again.

But rusks are a daily meal for many babies. Farley's actually advertise them as an ideal weaning food and lots of mums use them as a breakfast, or as a supper. They are even added to bottles (against medical advice). What's almost as bad is that they advertise them as suitable from four months - and they contain gluten, which increases the risk of allergy if given before six months. The bottom line is, they are biscuits, and with very low nutritional value at that - they shouldn't be being marketed as healthy children's food.

I am in agreement with everything in moderation, but with something so sugary, I wouldn't be giving anything like that often at all.

And the risk isn't just obesity and cholestrol, remember; more and more children are going through extensive dental work at an early age because of decay. You don't want to soak your baby's new teeth in sugar on a regular basis.

I'll never understand the whole "I did it, and I was ok" argument. Hey, I've had three DVTs and I'm just fine. Does that mean people don't die from them anymore? What about smoking; are we all going to give our kids fags because even though the packet says they kill, the smokers you know are still alive?:rotfl: The plural of anecdote is not evidence.