Let's do it again!

174 posts / 0 new
Last post
mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781
Let's do it again!

I was just at the grocery store and witnessed a mother grab two bananas out of the produce section and give them to her kids.

Is this acceptable or is it stealing? Or is it one of those things where it's so minor that it's not worth making a big deal out of? Have you ever done this? Would it be different if she had given each of them a grape (;))?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

At Target you pay by banana, not by weight. It is stealing to eat things that are based on their weight before you pay for them.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Yep, if eating it affects the weight then that's a no no. If not, then I see nothing wrong.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

You take/consume something you didn't pay for? Stealing. If I had a screaming kid losing their mind with hunger and hadn't brought along a snack I'd grab something and go pay for it first before I'd open it up and feed it to them. But I'd never take my kids hungry to the grocery store in the first place. Just bad all around, for us at least.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

If sold by weight, not okay....Though I have sampled a grape to make sure they are crunchy. I hate non-crunchy grapes.

And I have opened a bag of goldfish crackers and offered them to my kid before we paid for them. The store happily charges me for it when I pay and everything is fine.

I know, someone will say...but what if? You forgot your wallet or have to leave the store immediately and then you've "stolen" the goldfish. I've never had that happen...and I shop at the same grocery store every week and know all of the checkers and baggers by name. I'm sure it wouldn't be the end of the world even if that did happen. They know I'll be back in in just a few days....

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I never understand how this one is even a debate, honestly. Taking and eating anything that is priced by weight before paying for it is wrong. Is it the most wrong and evil thing that anyone could ever do? No. That does not make it right, however.

Choosing to eat things that are priced by item before paying for it is not something that we do (simply a habit) but I don't think that it is necessarily "wrong".

After paying for your items, choosing to not return your cart is wrong. :Whistle:

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3186

A grape, for testing? No problem. Two bananas? Problem. Pay for them.

In general, the kids know that they don't open anything until it's paid for. If they were dying of thirst and I forgot to pack drinks, I might grab a bottle of water and give it to them and then pay for it. Being thirsty sucks.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

I soooo wanted to say something to her, but I was not in a confrontational kind of mood. For the record, the bananas were sold by weight. She was annoying all around, very loud in a "look at me, I'm a mom!!" kind of way. I couldn't stop staring though.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

You take/consume something you didn't pay for? Stealing. If I had a screaming kid losing their mind with hunger and hadn't brought along a snack I'd grab something and go pay for it first before I'd open it up and feed it to them. But I'd never take my kids hungry to the grocery store in the first place. Just bad all around, for us at least.

I agree.

Though it's not something I really super care about. If I saw someone else do it, I'd shrug my shoulders and forget about it in about a half a second.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

I agree.

Though it's not something I really super care about. If I saw someone else do it, I'd shrug my shoulders and forget about it in about a half a second.

Yeah. If I saw somebody sampling a couple grapes I wouldn't give it a thought, but it's not something I'd personally do. When I've got the kids with me I'm more focused on getting out in decent time with no meltdowns or whining. Heck, it could be happening all around me and I'm too oblivious.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

You take/consume something you didn't pay for? Stealing. If I had a screaming kid losing their mind with hunger and hadn't brought along a snack I'd grab something and go pay for it first before I'd open it up and feed it to them. But I'd never take my kids hungry to the grocery store in the first place. Just bad all around, for us at least.

Totally agree. It may be stealing something small, but it is stealing none the less.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

If it is sold by weight it is stealing, if it is by item it can be paid for and is thus not stealing as long as you do pay for it.

It isn't something I like to do but I have opened boxes of crackers or a pack of juice boxes in a pinch. But this has only happened under extreme circumstances (say a walmart trip that took two hours due to overcrowding and not enough cashiers, the toddlers had eaten all their snacks and were hungry, tired and beginning to melt). In most cases we do wait to eat the food until after we have bought it.

lil96's picture
Joined: 03/27/06
Posts: 573

I think it is wrong for stuff that is done by weight. If the kids were really that desperately hungry she could have done something else, like goldfish (just using that because someone else mentioned goldfish).
I think even a grape is wrong, not picking on the person who likes crunchy grapes, just asking in general, but I like sweet crunchy apples, can I try my apples before buying to make sure it is sweet? I just want to sample a bite each of the apples to see which is best. Lol

We have a lot of fruit stands, not in the grocery store, free standing on the street and they will sometimes let people try. I think if it is ok with them and they have seen it and given the sample it is ok. But to sample on your own isn't. (Also sidenote it is a little gross to sample in the grocery store because you never know what touched it last, or if it has been really washed.)

ange84's picture
Joined: 12/28/09
Posts: 6564

We have a supermarket near mu Mum that at the entrance has a display of fruit and you pay 50c for a piece and the money goes to charity, which I think is great for those times when you want to do something like the OP. This same supermarket chain is also bringing in a try before you buy system where they will offer some fruit out for customers to try. The situation in the OP though is definatly stealing.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

If you have to pay by weight, then it's stealing - because you can't buy it after you've eaten it. I have opened boxes of crackers for my daughter, it's the same price before/after.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

You take/consume something you didn't pay for? Stealing. If I had a screaming kid losing their mind with hunger and hadn't brought along a snack I'd grab something and go pay for it first before I'd open it up and feed it to them. But I'd never take my kids hungry to the grocery store in the first place. Just bad all around, for us at least.

I'm sorry but I think this is just ridiculous. Consuming something sold by item while in the store is not stealing. The store does not think of it as stealing and the manager does not think of it as stealing. Stealing is leaving the premise without paying for the item.

This is the Florida statute for retail theft...

(d) "Retail theft" means the taking possession of or carrying away of merchandise, property, money, or negotiable documents; altering or removing a label, universal product code, or price tag; transferring merchandise from one container to another; or removing a shopping cart, with intent to deprive the merchant of possession, use, benefit, or full retail value.

The point is the intent to leave the premise with the item without paying. Opening a bag of goldfish and giving your child one and then standing in lien and paying for it is not stealing. Now is it wrong? Maybe. You could argue the possibility of not being able to pay and thus that still wouldn't be stealing but rather damaging property.

Hvaing a grape or two is also not stealing and if you ask the grocer they will say it's not. I've actually has a grocer in the produce department of a high end store encourage me to try a grape in order to taste the quality.

Eating a banana however is stealing because under the retail theft law, using a product and then disposing of the wrapper is using with intent not to pay. The minute you leave the store you have not been able to pay for that banana and thus it become stealing.

I guess I just felt the need to point this out because we have made quick trips to the store and my son has had to get a drink before paying or my Dh has had to have sugar and openned a bag of candy to have one. And I take offense to someone then calling me a thief. Not because I care but because it is completely false. You can argue the rightness of it or say I am destroying property, but theft...nope. As long as I did not leave the store without paying for it, it is not theft.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

Maybe technically it's not stealing in accordance with Florida law, but it's definitely not something I want my children thinking is okay.

Teaching patience or teaching loopholes of the law....hmmm, I know what I'd rather my kids have an example of.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

Maybe technically it's not stealing in accordance with Florida law, but it's definitely not something I want my children thinking is okay.

Teaching patience or teaching loopholes of the law....hmmm, I know what I'd rather my kids have an example of.

It's not a technicality it's a fact. And I applaud you for wanting to teach your children that it is not ok. If that is something you are against then you should absolutely not allow them to do it or model that behavior. For me, I ahve pretty smart kids. They know the difference between stealing and this. I'm pretty confident that they will still be patient law abiding folk even after being allowed to open the water bottle before I pay for it.

As for teaching patience vs teaching loopholes. Ha. Oh well, I guess I'm out of the running for Mommy of the Year.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"culturedmom" wrote:

I'm sorry but I think this is just ridiculous. Consuming something sold by item while in the store is not stealing. The store does not think of it as stealing and the manager does not think of it as stealing. Stealing is leaving the premise without paying for the item.

This is the Florida statute for retail theft...

The point is the intent to leave the premise with the item without paying. Opening a bag of goldfish and giving your child one and then standing in lien and paying for it is not stealing. Now is it wrong? Maybe. You could argue the possibility of not being able to pay and thus that still wouldn't be stealing but rather damaging property.

Hvaing a grape or two is also not stealing and if you ask the grocer they will say it's not. I've actually has a grocer in the produce department of a high end store encourage me to try a grape in order to taste the quality.

Eating a banana however is stealing because under the retail theft law, using a product and then disposing of the wrapper is using with intent not to pay. The minute you leave the store you have not been able to pay for that banana and thus it become stealing.

I guess I just felt the need to point this out because we have made quick trips to the store and my son has had to get a drink before paying or my Dh has had to have sugar and openned a bag of candy to have one. And I take offense to someone then calling me a thief. Not because I care but because it is completely false. You can argue the rightness of it or say I am destroying property, but theft...nope. As long as I did not leave the store without paying for it, it is not theft.

Um, nobody's calling you a thief, Lana. If it's perfectly legal and acceptable for you to do in Florida, great. Have at it. As I said, it is something I would not personally do. To me it's not right and it still wouldn't make it right for ME if we had a law here saying that it was legal. I'm pretty sure the OP was asking about whether we regard it as stealing or acceptable. If it was a simple case of "What's the law in your jurisdiction?" we could all just cite our federal/state laws regarding theft.

I also don't think my kids are close to being able to understand the reasons behind why taking and eating a banana and throwing away the peel is technically theft, but that opening a box of granola bars and eating one isn't.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Um, yeah when you say what someone is doing is theft...that is calling them a thief. That's pretty straight forward. And like I said, I could care less what you think about what i do (not meant in a snarky way), but it is a fact that it is not true according to law. Now whether you like it, agree with it, think it's good or not, is all subjective and everyone has the right to their opinion. But the fact that it is theft is not true.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"culturedmom" wrote:

Um, yeah when you say what someone is doing is theft...that is calling them a thief. That's pretty straight forward. And like I said, I could care less what you think about what i do (not meant in a snarky way), but it is a fact that it is not true according to law. Now whether you like it, agree with it, think it's good or not, is all subjective and everyone has the right to their opinion. But the fact that it is theft is not true.

Lana, all I'm saying is that if I took something off a shelf and ate it without paying first I would consider myself as stealing something. I personally would feel morally not right about it. And I'm not calling you or anyone else immoral for doing it.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

But Lisa-- when you go to a restaurant, do you also insist upon paying for the food you ingest before eating? Typically, we eat....and then wait for the bill....and then pay. I consider eating the goldfish the same thing.

In thinking more about the banana lady-- we don't know the entire story. What if she put four bananas in her cart, gave two to her children, and then had the cashier weigh the two remaining bananas twice? Possible, right? And perhaps not perfect, but not a big thief in my book.

For those of you who never have to run to the store with a cranky kid at an inopportune time-- hats off to you. I make it my priority to go childless or with a well-rested, recently nourished tot-- but it doesn't always happen. And since I carry nothing in my purse that would entertain or feed a child-- sometimes we nosh on goldfish....

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

I also don't think my kids are close to being able to understand the reasons behind why taking and eating a banana and throwing away the peel is technically theft, but that opening a box of granola bars and eating one isn't.

This suprises me, as my children have no problem seeing the difference.

"boilermaker" wrote:

But Lisa-- when you go to a restaurant, do you also insist upon paying for the food you ingest before eating? Typically, we eat....and then wait for the bill....and then pay. I consider eating the goldfish the same thing.

In thinking more about the banana lady-- we don't know the entire story. What if she put four bananas in her cart, gave two to her children, and then had the cashier weigh the two remaining bananas twice? Possible, right? And perhaps not perfect, but not a big thief in my book.

For those of you who never have to run to the store with a cranky kid at an inopportune time-- hats off to you. I make it my priority to go childless or with a well-rested, recently nourished tot-- but it doesn't always happen. And since I carry nothing in my purse that would entertain or feed a child-- sometimes we nosh on goldfish....

This, especially the bolded. I feel that this one often becomes a 'Im a better, more prepared Mommy' forum. So go ahead and pat yourself on the back, we arent all perfect and I know for a fact that my grocery store would rather I open a package I plan to buy then let my child scream in the store, and SOMETIMES those are the only options.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"boilermaker" wrote:

But Lisa-- when you go to a restaurant, do you also insist upon paying for the food you ingest before eating? Typically, we eat....and then wait for the bill....and then pay. I consider eating the goldfish the same thing

No, but I don't consider a grocery store and a restaurant to be even in the same ballpark. All they have in common is food. I have never been to a restaurant that asks me to pay upfront other than a fast food restaurant, cafeteria, etc. That's the custom of a sit-down restaurant - there's more you're paying for than just the food, like the service, so why would you put money upfront for that since what you pay (if you tip) is contingent upon the service you get up till the end of your meal? If I tried to pay for my meal, my dessert, my drink, etc. as I ordered them the server would probably be annoyed.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"boilermaker" wrote:

For those of you who never have to run to the store with a cranky kid at an inopportune time-- hats off to you. I make it my priority to go childless or with a well-rested, recently nourished tot-- but it doesn't always happen. And since I carry nothing in my purse that would entertain or feed a child-- sometimes we nosh on goldfish....

I admit to not understanding this. You nosh on goldfish because you want to, because you are okay with it, because your children know that that is okay with you. My family chooses not to, NOT because we never have a tired or cranky child with us, but because it is simply something that we choose not to do. Because we don't rely on food while walking around to calm a child, we just use other methods. How is doing things differently unable to be discussed without people getting all "OMG aren't you so perfect with your perfect children blah blah blah". I really haven't seen a single person say that?

I think that it is funny because certain families choose not to do certain things other people choose to take it as a sign that that mother declares herself perfect mommy or something. I also think that it is funny that ftmom is complaining about people patting themselves on the back while implying how much more intelligent her children are than Lisa's children. This is a weird debate! Smile

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"ftmom" wrote:

This suprises me, as my children have no problem seeing the difference.

This, especially the bolded. I feel that this one often becomes a 'Im a better, more prepared Mommy' forum. So go ahead and pat yourself on the back, we arent all perfect and I know for a fact that my grocery store would rather I open a package I plan to buy then let my child scream in the store, and SOMETIMES those are the only options.

Why does it surprise you? You think my 2 y.o. should be able to grasp the concept because your kids do? It's never even come up - the difference between eating a store banana and eating whatever else while we're shopping (WHEN I'm shopping with them).

For those of you who never have to run to the store with a cranky kid at an inopportune time-- hats off to you. I make it my priority to go childless or with a well-rested, recently nourished tot-- but it doesn't always happen. And since I carry nothing in my purse that would entertain or feed a child-- sometimes we nosh on goldfish....

Going back to this, I do the same thing at almost all costs. If I have to go and they're hungry/cranky then they stay home because I would prefer a root canal over dealing with them like that in the grocery store. I can't shop during the week because of work, so on weekends DH is always available to either shop himself or stay home with the kids. There is no reason whatsoever for me to feed my kids food from the store. I couldn't care less what anybody else does. To each their own. But I would not do it. It wouldn't feel right to me, but I also don't think it makes me any better than anyone else because I don't partake. There. I'm done defending the reasons why I feel wrong about eating food off the store shelves before paying.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

Why does it surprise you? You think my 2 y.o. should be able to grasp the concept because your kids do? It's never even come up - the difference between eating a store banana and eating whatever else while we're shopping (WHEN I'm shopping with them).

Going back to this, I do the same thing at almost all costs. If I have to go and they're hungry/cranky then they stay home because I would prefer a root canal over dealing with them like that in the grocery store. I can't shop during the week because of work, so on weekends DH is always available to either shop himself or stay home with the kids. There is no reason whatsoever for me to feed my kids food from the store. I couldn't care less what anybody else does. To each their own. But I would not do it. It wouldn't feel right to me, but I also don't think it makes me any better than anyone else because I don't partake. There. I'm done defending the reasons why I feel wrong about eating food off the store shelves before paying.

This was actually my point, although admittedly I didn't make it very well. Not that my children are smarter than yours, but that they could understand if it was explained to them. You used the fact that they wouldnt understand the difference as a debate point, and I was trying to say that they probably could understand (as mine do) if you explained it to them. You simply choose not to, but that doesnt effect their ABILITY to understand.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

I admit to not understanding this. You nosh on goldfish because you want to, because you are okay with it, because your children know that that is okay with you. My family chooses not to, NOT because we never have a tired or cranky child with us, but because it is simply something that we choose not to do. Because we don't rely on food while walking around to calm a child, we just use other methods. How is doing things differently unable to be discussed without people getting all "OMG aren't you so perfect with your perfect children blah blah blah". I really haven't seen a single person say that?

I think that it is funny because certain families choose not to do certain things other people choose to take it as a sign that that mother declares herself perfect mommy or something. I also think that it is funny that ftmom is complaining about people patting themselves on the back while implying how much more intelligent her children are than Lisa's children. This is a weird debate! Smile

As I explained in my last post, my comment ot Lisa was not meant to imply that my children are more intelligent than hers, but that if mine can understand, I am sure hers can.

TO the bolded: I think it is comments like this that get peoples backs up. It implies that people who do eat in the store rely on food to calm their children and dont use other (better) methods.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

So this is a genuine, not snarky question, what are those other methods? What do you do if you find yourself needing to be in the grocery store with a cranky/hungry child and you have to be in the store to pick up this or that....what do you do? I could use some new suggestions.

While it is rare-- I have had this experience. Do you just pay for the snack and then offer it to your kids, or no snack at all? I honestly would think it more trouble to pay for it, walk around eating it, and then go thru the checkout again, displaying the receipt that you already paid for it?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Wow, these grocery store debates....

To the OP - I can't think of a time when I have ever opened a package of food or fruit or whatever and fed it to my kid before buying it. That's not because I am the perfectly prepared mom though - I'm totally not. You'd be hard pressed to find kleenex in my purse, let alone snacks and toys and whatnot. It's just that my store always (and I mean ALWAYS) has samples of cheese in the cheese section, and gives away a free cookie to kids in the bakery. So if we need a little snack, we're covered. Also, I'm terribly unorganized, and usually end up running to the store for just a couple of items at a time, so my kid doesn't usually have to be good at the grocery store for hours at a time - just the 15 minutes it takes me to sprint through the aisles and pick up dinner for the night and maybe tomorrow night too, if I'm really on the ball.

I don't think that opening a package of food that is not priced by weight is stealing or wrong or whatever. If you pay the same regardless - who cares? And yes, there are always the worst case scenarios like "What if you forget your wallet?" but I tend not to live by worst case scenarios. I do think that eating food that is priced by weight is technically stealing (even a grape - I'm a hard noser!) but I don't think it's like the worst thing in the world. Grapes are definitely less of a big deal than a banana or an apple. I would have a hard time swallowing seeing someone steal a whole banana (pun intended.)

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"boilermaker" wrote:

So this is a genuine, not snarky question, what are those other methods? What do you do if you find yourself needing to be in the grocery store with a cranky/hungry child and you have to be in the store to pick up this or that....what do you do? I could use some new suggestions.

While it is rare-- I have had this experience. Do you just pay for the snack and then offer it to your kids, or no snack at all? I honestly would think it more trouble to pay for it, walk around eating it, and then go thru the checkout again, displaying the receipt that you already paid for it?

You're a CO girl - I assume that you shop at King Soopers. Bakery Aisle. Free cookies!!!! Of course, if you don't feed your kids processed sugar or whatever, then I can't help you. Blum 3

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"boilermaker" wrote:

So this is a genuine, not snarky question, what are those other methods? What do you do if you find yourself needing to be in the grocery store with a cranky/hungry child and you have to be in the store to pick up this or that....what do you do? I could use some new suggestions.

While it is rare-- I have had this experience. Do you just pay for the snack and then offer it to your kids, or no snack at all? I honestly would think it more trouble to pay for it, walk around eating it, and then go thru the checkout again, displaying the receipt that you already paid for it?

I was curious to the same. There are a few instances where my daughter was just hungry, no amount of talking or diverting her attention would work, especially with her knowing that the goldfish were inches away from her in the cart!

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

As I explained in my last post, my comment ot Lisa was not meant to imply that my children are more intelligent than hers, but that if mine can understand, I am sure hers can.

TO the bolded: I think it is comments like this that get peoples backs up. It implies that people who do eat in the store rely on food to calm their children and dont use other (better) methods.

If people choose to get their backs up because different families have different rules than them they must have awfully difficult lives! They must live in a perma state of back up! You are the only one using the concept of "BETTER" methods. I only said other methods. Since we don't use food, we use other methods, isn't that just common sense? And I'm not implying anything ~ several people have stated that they happily choose to rely on food to calm their children, haven't they? If that is what their family likes to do, awesome! Just because we don't does not mean that I think that I know what other families ought to do with their children.

I'm in no way implying that I use "better" methods, but I certainly do use "different" methods.....because we don't eat while walking around stores. My kids eat very well ~ they eat breakfast, lunch and dinner at pretty much the same time every day. Because we don't really do much snacking, they seem to have learned how to eat enough to be full for at least 4 hours or whatever it is until the next meal. I also admit to not wanting to teach my children to see snack food as a reward or as something that they can do (eat) to keep busy or distracted. We take a more mindful approach. That is just us, and I could care less if other people find it wonderful and effective to feed a child food to prevent a tantrum or meltdown or whatever. You know your kids better than I do and I am sure that your method works great for you, as I know my kids and feel certain that we have somehow managed to never have a child at risk of starvation and never had some big giant freak out in a store (EVER) due to near starvation or over tiredness or whatever. My kids are at the age (the older ones, anyway, at 3 and 4) where they know what "we will be home in a few minutes" means and luckily they accept that. It just isn't that big of a deal to them to hear "no" or "we are having lunch as soon as we get home, should we have this or have that? Because we have never started the habit of walking around eating, they don't even ask to do such a thing. Why is that so weird to some of you?

We don't eat on the fly in my home. We eat at the table, or if we are at the beach or a playground or whatever we sit down together and eat. They don't eat in the car, they don't eat while walking around our home, etc etc. We believe that eating can be a more mindful practice and believe that teaching kids to relax, to enjoy conversation and food and whatnot is a positive thing, and that (for us) using food to manage poor planning or unlucky timing to to forestall some sort of threat from the child (tantrum or whatev) is a habit that we simply don't want to allow.

If that offends people, I think it's insane. Like I stated in my original post, I DON"T see opening priced by item food as theft, I don't even see it as "wrong", like morally. I also don't see it as a helpful habit for my children.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

I just have snacks on me, all the time.:shrug: I'm not uber prepared or anything, I just grab a handful of granola bars or the individual packets of Goldfish when I think to do it (I like those b/c they stay fresh and then I don't have to listen to squabbling over who gets to hold the snack trap). Sometimes the stuff is a bit smushed or broken, but when they're hungry they never seem to mind.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

My oldest is only 3.5 so maybe I haven't been at it long enough...but I honestly never go to the grocery store when hungry. If the kids are hungry we stay home and go later, or my husband goes. He does most of the shopping anyway.

I also always carry snacks. I have to due to my own medical conditions. Also, growing up snacking while at the store was a huge no-no according to my parents. It's just something ingrained in me.

And anyway, with regards to the OP, if a grape is going to satisfy whatever hunger a child has maybe they aren't that hungry. I could understand something like a granola bar or snack crackers or a juice box, far sooner than a tiny grape that's going to do d*ck all for a genuine hunger. And if it's just to see if they're crunchy, well...I don't see how squeezing them doesn't tell you. I buy grapes often enough to tell by touch how they will feel when biting into them. Just like any other fruit or veggie. For the grape tasters...is there any other fresh produce you sample first?

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Smile Alissa-- you are right-- we do shop at King Soopers-- all.of.the.time. We have one just two blocks from our house-- so we always walk there. I never think of the free cookies-- but you are right. They always have a huge fruit tray at the front, cheeses, bakery stuff all over the store.....perhaps I will never open the goldfish again. Perhaps.

I guess we just aren't that strict about when we eat food. We eat most meals at the table together as a family, but there are certainly times when we are less rigid and eat on the go. We used to always be at the table, but as the kids have gotten older we are more laid back. Sometimes that is bc we are on our way to a softball game or coming back from a hike....

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I usually buy my produce at Trader Joe's where it's sold by the piece. If my kids are hungry, I usually feed them from a box of crackers or a box of grapes, something that isn't counted piece by piece. I have occasionally fed one of my kids a banana (like when Weston was at an age where banana was the best option) & I just handed over the banana peel to be rung up; the cashier picks up the garbage can for me to drop it into. Once we were at Lucky that charges by the pound, and I fed Weston a banana. When I got up to the cashier & said, "Please charge me for an extra banana," she looked at me like I was crazy. ROFL

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

And I will also add that I, personally, NEVER EVER EVER go grocery shopping if I'm hungry!!!!! I'd come home with a grocery bill DOUBLE what I'd normally spend. I'd be sampling all the in-store promos and packing my freezer with tasty little appies and fattening crap that would end up freezer burned and destined for the trash. Can't feed the family spanakopita or mini quiche for a week straight!

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"Potter75" wrote:

If people choose to get their backs up because different families have different rules than them they must have awfully difficult lives! They must live in a perma state of back up! You are the only one using the concept of "BETTER" methods. I only said other methods. Since we don't use food, we use other methods, isn't that just common sense? And I'm not implying anything ~ several people have stated that they happily choose to rely on food to calm their children, haven't they? If that is what their family likes to do, awesome! Just because we don't does not mean that I think that I know what other families ought to do with their children.

It's not about using food to calm a child, it is about feeding a hungry child. The only times that I have opened that box of crackers has been because the root of her fit was hunger. I see no problem with letting a hungry child eat whether it is mealtime or not. But we are a snacking family and it works for us.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

It's not about using food to calm a child, it is about feeding a hungry child. The only times that I have opened that box of crackers has been because the root of her fit was hunger.

Ditto this. I'd love to be able to leave my kids at home while I do my grocery shopping, or only do my grocery shopping after they've eaten, but my life doesn't quite work out that way all the time. I end up taking the kids with me about 98% of the time, and very often we cut it close to meal time one way or the other. They get hungry, and IMHO it's not right to deny them food when they are hungry and food is literally a foot away in the shopping cart. Even if I go straight home from the store, I have to unload the groceries, go find a parking spot which isn't fast or easy in this city, and then go back home & put away the cold stuff, before I can begin to even think about feeding them. Could I plan better? Maybe. But truth be told, it's been 7 years and it hasn't happened yet, so I don't see it happening any time soon. The options are the status quo or getting food delivered, and our budget can't really handle much of the latter.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

It's not about using food to calm a child, it is about feeding a hungry child. The only times that I have opened that box of crackers has been because the root of her fit was hunger. I see no problem with letting a hungry child eat whether it is mealtime or not. But we are a snacking family and it works for us.

I really don't feel like debating semantics or your personal situation, but you stated that it took 2 hours to shop AND your child had already consumed all of the snacks that you brought them. Maybe my kids are just older or because we are not a snacking family they can very easily go 30 minutes without a snack (or however long it was between your child finishing the snacks you brought and you opening food from the store) ~ since for us with no metabolic or diabetic or blood sugar issues in our children, I have full confidence in both their physical ability to go more than an hour (or whatever it was) without food, and I also believe in their mental ability to understand "we are having lunch soon" and accept it without a meltdown. Just different ideas of hungry, if you ask me. If my child had eaten a meal, then just snacked but had been confined to a cart for two hours I would assume that they were not hungry, but were likely tired, bored and frustrated. We try not to turn to food or offer food as a solution for boredom or frustration ~ as the "Emotional Eater" thread proved, many people have a hard time not doing that as adults. Again, like I have said a thousand times, I don't care how you do it as long as you are happy with it. Someone asked how we do it, so I answered. I understand that you are a snacking family, but I can't really explain any more times that we aren't and that we think differently than you do.

Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

For the snacking families, do the adults snack all the time or just the kids? If it's mainly the kids, just curious at what age you feel is appropriate to give this up? I don't think the schools around here do snack time after kindergarten. My kids have never really had an issue waiting a bit to eat. I personally have some low blood sugar issues and still am not really a big snacker. We have some fruit here and there, but maybe we just the exception because even at young ages my kids are not running around asking for food all the time or melting down because they are hungry. I expect that to hit in the teenage years. Wink

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Oh my good Lord, I can't believe this has turned into a debate on eating habits. LOL what works for one family doesn't work for another for various reasons. But I really don't think it has anything to do with the debate. I don't think because Melis doesn't ever find the need to use snacks in the grocery store means she thinks she is a better mom.

I will say Melis, the only time I felt that someone was trying to imply the "I'm a better mom then you" BS was the poster who tried to use the "Teaching patience or teaching loopholes of the law....hmmm, I know what I'd rather my kids have an example of." This kind of crap is what starts everyone into feeling as if their mothering is in question. This comment directly states that the two choices are don't allow yourchild to eat at the store=patience or allow them to eat= teachign them loopholes in the law. I actually don't blame ftmom for feeling as if she had to defend her mothering even though I don't agree. And even though I don't give a sheet what anyone thinks about how I mother my kids and one poster is not goign to make me question my parenting skills, I wouldn't be honest if I said that comments liek that don't make me feel just a little like defending myself. I think that is what causes the snowball to start rolling.

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I actually openned a package of food in a store. But quite often we do get a bottle of water or juice. The more I think about it, it's usually all the time. I'm sure if I explained the reason why, most people would agree with me that it is necessary and would probably do the same thing. But the why to me is not the point of the debate and makes no difference to me. I don't have a better reason then anyone else, and just because I may have a medical reason that makes it ok with others, in my opinion, someone who doesn't isn't more wrong. Whether someone opens a package because their children are just hungry or like me, their child has a medical excuse for needing to drink in the moment.....they are both the same in my eyes. It's not stealing and it's no big deal.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Khaki" wrote:

For the snacking families, do the adults snack all the time or just the kids? If it's mainly the kids, just curious at what age you feel is appropriate to give this up? I don't think the schools around here do snack time after kindergarten. My kids have never really had an issue waiting a bit to eat. I personally have some low blood sugar issues and still am not really a big snacker. We have some fruit here and there, but maybe we just the exception because even at young ages my kids are not running around asking for food all the time or melting down because they are hungry. I expect that to hit in the teenage years. Wink

There are alot of reasons why a kid might snack. I know for me, my son snacks a lot because he has to drink alot and so he usually fills himself up with water and is not hungry. He can't help it. So for us when he says he is hungry, we kind of allow him to eat when he needs to. Also, I believe that kids when they are young know when they are hungry. My DD is 10 and taller then I am. She goes through growth spurts and I can usually tell when she is going through them because she will go through stages of eating and being hungry 24/7 to not really being hungry that much. I think it is normal for kids to eat small meals more often and they are much better intune with their body then adults are typically because over time we have trained ourselves to not listen to our bodies.

Shoot I sometimes can't even tell the difference between me being hungry and being thirsty. It's a fact that many people mistake thirst and dehydration for hunger. It's why many overweight people don't drink enough water.

I don;t think there is one right way to do it. I can see the value in snacking as well as set times to eat. One is no more right then the other.

Oh, and my kids don't meltdown if they can't have a snack. I'd kick their butt if at 7 and 10 they cranked about being hungry or for any reason.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"culturedmom" wrote:

Oh my good Lord, I can't believe this has turned into a debate on eating habits. LOL what works for one family doesn't work for another for various reasons. But I really don't think it has anything to do with the debate. I don't think because Melis doesn't ever find the need to use snacks in the grocery store means she thinks she is a better mom.

I will say Melis, the only time I felt that someone was trying to imply the "I'm a better mom then you" BS was the poster who tried to use the "Teaching patience or teaching loopholes of the law....hmmm, I know what I'd rather my kids have an example of." This kind of crap is what starts everyone into feeling as if their mothering is in question. This comment directly states that the two choices are don't allow yourchild to eat at the store=patience or allow them to eat= teachign them loopholes in the law. I actually don't blame ftmom for feeling as if she had to defend her mothering even though I don't agree. And even though I don't give a sheet what anyone thinks about how I mother my kids and one poster is not goign to make me question my parenting skills, I wouldn't be honest if I said that comments liek that don't make me feel just a little like defending myself. I think that is what causes the snowball to start rolling.

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I actually openned a package of food in a store. But quite often we do get a bottle of water or juice. The more I think about it, it's usually all the time. I'm sure if I explained the reason why, most people would agree with me that it is necessary and would probably do the same thing. But the why to me is not the point of the debate and makes no difference to me. I don't have a better reason then anyone else, and just because I may have a medical reason that makes it ok with others, in my opinion, someone who doesn't isn't more wrong. Whether someone opens a package because their children are just hungry or like me, their child has a medical excuse for needing to drink in the moment.....they are both the same in my eyes. It's not stealing and it's no big deal.

Sorry if I made people feel defensive by my remark. I still stand by it though. I'm not going to pretend I don't feel like the right thing to do would be to purchase an item before consuming it. And I also have medical needs that require food and drink in the moment, over the past 10 years I've learned to accommodate those needs.

But like I said at the beginning, if I see it happening IRL, I don't bat an eye. I honestly couldn't care less. But this is a debate board, so I'm not going to sugar coat things.

Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

"culturedmom" wrote:

There are alot of reasons why a kid might snack. I know for me, my son snacks a lot because he has to drink alot and so he usually fills himself up with water and is not hungry. He can't help it. So for us when he says he is hungry, we kind of allow him to eat when he needs to. Also, I believe that kids when they are young know when they are hungry. My DD is 10 and taller then I am. She goes through growth spurts and I can usually tell when she is going through them because she will go through stages of eating and being hungry 24/7 to not really being hungry that much. I think it is normal for kids to eat small meals more often and they are much better intune with their body then adults are typically because over time we have trained ourselves to not listen to our bodies.

Shoot I sometimes can't even tell the difference between me being hungry and being thirsty. It's a fact that many people mistake thirst and dehydration for hunger. It's why many overweight people don't drink enough water.

I don;t think there is one right way to do it. I can see the value in snacking as well as set times to eat. One is no more right then the other.

Oh, and my kids don't meltdown if they can't have a snack. I'd kick their butt if at 7 and 10 they cranked about being hungry or for any reason.

Why so defensive? I guess I missed the post where anyone was saying they cared what other people did with their kids since there is ONE RIGHT WAY to feed them (of course! Smile ). I just wondered if age made a difference along with the parent's personal snacking. My kids are young, but over the age of 18m-2yrs which was about the point where I was able to reason with them as far as waiting to get home for our meal versus having a snack. And I am not a huge snacker myself so I probably just perpetuate that in my kids without much thought. No need to go into a diatribe if you are comfortable with what works for your family, right? It's just some crackers after all! Biggrin

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

Sorry if I made people feel defensive by my remark. I still stand by it though. I'm not going to pretend I don't feel like the right thing to do would be to purchase an item before consuming it. And I also have medical needs that require food and drink in the moment, over the past 10 years I've learned to accommodate those needs.

But like I said at the beginning, if I see it happening IRL, I don't bat an eye. I honestly couldn't care less. But this is a debate board, so I'm not going to sugar coat things.

Sugar coat? I don't think realizing that life is not all or nothing, black or white, right or wrong, is sugar coating. Like I said, if you don't agree that openning packages is OK then of course you wouldn't do it. Why would you? But believing that because your children are only able to learn patience or bending the law means that's how it is for everyone else, is silly IMO. There is a difference between me thinking something is right or wrong for my family and projecting that on everyone else.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Khaki" wrote:

Why so defensive? I guess I missed the post where anyone was saying they cared what other people did with their kids since there is ONE RIGHT WAY to feed them (of course! Smile ). I just wondered if age made a difference along with the parent's personal snacking. My kids are young, but over the age of 18m-2yrs which was about the point where I was able to reason with them as far as waiting to get home for our meal versus having a snack. And I am not a huge snacker myself so I probably just perpetuate that in my kids without much thought. No need to go into a diatribe if you are comfortable with what works for your family, right? It's just some crackers after all! Biggrin

What part of my response to your question did you feel was me being defensive. You asked a question and I answered it. The only time I was defensive in this whole thread was at JorgieGirls insistance that allowing my child to have a bottle of water at teh store is theft and that it is not teaching them patience. I thought your question was valid and I answered it.

Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

"culturedmom" wrote:

What part of my response to your question did you feel was me being defensive. You asked a question and I answered it. The only time I was defensive in this whole thread was at JorgieGirls insistance that allowing my child to have a bottle of water at teh store is theft and that it is not teaching them patience. I thought your question was valid and I answered it.

Your post seemed to be a long justification of why snacking worked for your family (unless I misinterpreted)...Which I wasn't debating and I don't think others were either?

I just had two questions regarding whether adults were snacking as well and at what age you might give it up (if ever). Just interested in general. I didn't see those answers in your response per se, which is fine, but made the rest seem like you felt you needed to defend snacking in general (defensive).

"Khaki" wrote:

For the snacking families, do the adults snack all the time or just the kids? If it's mainly the kids, just curious at what age you feel is appropriate to give this up?
culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

This was your post.

For the snacking families, do the adults snack all the time or just the kids? If it's mainly the kids, just curious at what age you feel is appropriate to give this up? I don't think the schools around here do snack time after kindergarten. My kids have never really had an issue waiting a bit to eat. I personally have some low blood sugar issues and still am not really a big snacker. We have some fruit here and there, but maybe we just the exception because even at young ages my kids are not running around asking for food all the time or melting down because they are hungry. I expect that to hit in the teenage years.

So I tried to explain why my kids snack and not necessarily the adults, even though I think I should be snacking. I felt that giving a context to why we are a snacking family was important to answering your question. Sorry f it wasn;t the answer you were looking for. I guess I felt since we had a special situation in our house I needed to explain in order to answer the question. Plus i ahve been up all night just about so i tend to ramble and maybe I forgot what the question exactly was towards the end, lol.

As to the question I didn;t answer about what age they should give it up. Well, I feel if I do a good job at not making food a big deal and allowing them to eat when they are hungry and not for all the other reasons that people use food (including myself), then it won't be an issue. I ctually think snacking is good for every one at every age. I try hard to be proactiveand pack myself carrots or snacks in my purse. And actually my DD's 4th grade class (nd the rest of the school) have snack time which I think is a great thing. t did not end at K (but they require the snacks to be on the healthy side and they also supply goldfish and crackers for those kids who don't bring.

Joined: 03/16/15
Posts: 53852

We have set meal times and set snack times. I've been mothering for 8 years now, with 4 children (who always all accompany me to the grocery, often without DH) and I've never had to open a package of something to feed them in the store. Like others have said, I don't bring hungry children to the grocery and I plan our trips for around our set food times. I would consider those two bananas theft, although, like Jordan it's not high on my radar.

The difference between a restaurant and a grocery store is that in a restaurant you have a server who is watching your every move and is ready to dart into the parking lot at a moment's notice if you try to dine & dash. I was a server and did it. In the grocery you are on your own and the store pretty much has an 'honour system' that you will pay for the products you take outside that store (whether in your cart or your belly). You cannot pay for products sold by weight after you have eaten them.

Pages