Now, it's the opposite. "He's so teeny!" He's a 3-year-old who doesn't stop moving. He's not underweight. He's well within healthy height and weigh percentiles.
He may the tiniest of all his friends, but this is what he's eaten SO FAR today:
1 whole banana
2 large waffles
bowl of Cheerios
1.5 soy nut butter sandwiches
1 whole pear
He obviously eats. Due to early eczema and food allergies, we were always careful about what he ate, and when we introduced new foods. Which is likely why rice cakes are among his favorite "snacks", and he was thrilled when he outgrew his milk allergy and he was allowed to have "wegular" cheese in his sandwich!
And, although he's a pretty good eater, he likes junk like all of us. Even the BAD isn't too bad; lollipops, hot dogs, and Spaghettios -- staples for some other kids-- are the worst I can think of.
Today I came across this article. While it's always important to do your research about when to introduce foods, and the health hazards of those foods, whose responsibility is it to monitor what your kids eat?
We can't get food makers to keep chemicals, dyes, and artificial components out of foods (or we pay double for the brands that do), and have to avoid entire brands because of allergen cross-contamination, but we want food engineers to redesign hot dogs?!
I would be more than heartbroken to hear of anyone losing a child to a choking hazards, but no. If you choose to give your kids hot dogs, cut them in half to reduce the risk of having the cylinder-shaped food lodge in their throat, and teach them the importance of eating slowly and fully chewing food. Yes, they'll still be at risk, but a lower risk at least.
Like I said, I'd love to avoid every risk of harm to my children, but there may be a better place to start than hot dogs.
What do you think? Will you hold off on hot dogs until your kids are 11? What are the other foods that you avoid at all lengths? If not for choking hazard reasons, why? Allergies?
Organic attempts? Weight restrictions?