x

[Sugababe82]

x

 

[My_First]

The sugar in fruit is natually occuring and therefore not 'as bad' as the refined or added sugar that is found in the rusks. If you think of it in the same way as some fats are good for the diet but others are not, such as unsaturated vs saturated, animal fat vs vegetable fat.

 

[skydragonfly]

I treat rusks as I would any other biscuit, fine for special treat/snack, not fine for everyday food.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Fine if you get no added sugar ones, (not reduced sugar, they still contain a lot of refined sugar) but why would anyone give their baby the sugary ones, I mean it's not like they serve any purpose that can't be fulfilled by other foods.

 

[special_kala]

Fine if you get no added sugar ones, (not reduced sugar, they still contain a lot of refined sugar) but why would anyone give their baby the sugary ones, I mean it's not like they serve any purpose that can't be fulfilled by other foods.

Ive never seen no added sugar ones

 

[Sugababe82]

x

 

[MissGx]

In 1 rusk contains about the same sugar than a chocolate digestive.

There are lots of other biscuits you can give, most things contain sugar but not such high levels. And as said above, naturally occuring sugars in fruit isn't so bad. Ella's Kitchen cookies are yummy

 

[lozzy21]

There is the same amount of sugar in a rusk as there is in 3 chocolate digestives. The sugar in fruit is natural sugar, its more easily processed by the body and dosent make baby's as hyper as processed sugar does. It also isent as bad on there teeth as refined sugar does.

Niamh has never had rusks and never will. I dont see a reason to give her one when they are better foods out there for her to have.

 

[Hippietea]

My mum bought Poppy some and gave her one even though I'd told her I didn't want her having them because they're empty calories. I ate one and it was as sweet as a proper biscuit, I actually felt guilty eating it myself as I'm on a diet, but I'm going to finish them off myself just to stop mum giving LO any more! (Well, it's a good excuse to eat something sweet!)

 

[aliss]

The sugar in fruit is natually occuring and therefore not 'as bad' as the refined or added sugar that is found in the rusks. If you think of it in the same way as some fats are good for the diet but others are not, such as unsaturated vs saturated, animal fat vs vegetable fat.

I don't think anyone can say it better than that, really.

Your body reacts to the different sugars in a different way. Take for example, 1 cup of milk - with 10g of 'sugar'. Having 2 cups of milk (ie 20g of sugar) is not the same as having a chocolate bar with 20g of sugar - two different sugars, one processed, one naturally occurring, differently digested by your body and creating different responses.

Moot point for me - "rusks" in North American have 1g of sugar in them. We don't have these Farley rusks.

 

[summer rain]

I was weaned on farleys rusks and similar stuff, though my mum was a bit ahead of her time and bought gluten free ones (which it seems they no longer sell) and only gave them as an occasional-ish finger food as opposed to dissolved in milk, I also used to buy them for my eldest as I didn't have a clue lol. I do think they are partly to blame for both of us having a penchant for sweets and fizzy drinks lol xx

 

[blondebabe]

I've bought some sugary ones (didnt know they did sugar free) for my LO when he gets a bit older and in my honest opinion...its your baby u can give them what ever u like!!!
sugar or no sugar! if u want ur LO to have a rusk then thats fine!!! people worry for too much now-a-days its silly! so ur LO has a sugar buzz for a little bit..so what? just so long as its a snack and not the whole packet for lunch lol
they wouldn't be down the baby isle if u wernt allowed to give them
xxxx

 

[summer rain]

erm because with young babies they get filled up so easily so why fill them up with empty calories, blood sugar spikes are not good for babies either-they affect them far more than adults leading to them being irritable, tired and feeling awful. That isn't mentioning the risk of tooth decay. As for the argument they must be ok because they are sold; baby food companies are well proven to not be very ethical, rusks are not even marketed as an occasional snack which would be bad enough, but as a main weaning food. They clearly don't care because they market rusks with gluten as suitable from 4 months. I really just don't see the point when there are healthier alternatives available anyway, I am overweight and with my kids I'd rather do my utmost to prevent that for them in the future.xx

 

[purplepower]

They sell fags in shops too, doesn't mean they are good for you.

 

[minties]

My rusks have 0.3grams per rusk and no sugar listed in the ingrediants.

 

[blondebabe]

They sell fags in shops too, doesn't mean they are good for you.

Yeah but they put a huge big warning on cigerette packets!

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

There really ought to be one on rusks too, so many people just assume they are all good because 'everyone else gives them'. They really are no different to giving any other kind of sweet biscuit, which presumably you wouldn't give as a regular / first weaning food!

I think the packaging is very naughty because it says 'for all ages' then in tiny print it says '4-36 months'. Trying to cash in on people who still think it's ok to put them in a tiny baby's bottle I reckon

 

[special_kala]

Woulf you dissolve 3 choc digestives in formula and spoon feed it to a 4month old baby? Hopefully not, Rusks arnt much different tbh

 

[minties]

Is a rusk a biscuit in the Uk then? Here it's like a dry hard stick of bread.

 

[midori1999]

They sell fags in shops too, doesn't mean they are good for you.

Yeah but they put a huge big warning on cigerette packets!

I know, it's shocking that they bother to put warnings on cigarettes, but yet market and sell products unsuitable for 4 month old babies as suitable for them, they don't even put a warning on, such as 'gluten at 4 months can harm your child's health'.

The companies that make these products don't care less about babies, they care about money and how much of it they can make. They don't care if they make your baby ill, that is why they push formula in developing countries who don't have sanitary enough conditions to use it safely, so babies die. They are so unscrupulous that the government has had to make it illegal for them to advertise first milks in the UK.

Yet people still trust them...