Is this cruel?

[peacefulmayhem]

Toby and I made brownies after work today while dinner was cooking. Now, we grownups know (ok, maybe this is just me?) that half the *point* of making brownies is eating the batter. But batter has raw eggs in it, and you're not supposed to eat raw eggs, so I don't let Toby eat it. But I do send him off on little missions so I can lick the spoon etc. while his back is turned.

So, my questions: Is this cruel? Is Toby to have a batter-free childhood? How can I allow this to happen? It just doesn't seem right.

After dinner, we all got in jammies and had brownies & milk for dessert. That part was wonderful.

But I can't help but wonder about the batter.

Comments

[qbaz.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, the risk of salmonella is pretty darned small. I bet nearly every (adult) you know eats foods with raw eggs in them periodically, and I bet you know nobody who's had salmonella.

On the other hand, Toby's not old enough to be consciously able to decide to take that risk. So you get to make those kinds of risky decisions for him, for now. (Just like you can make the decision to drive, or ski, or drink coffee, or take on debt, or any of a thousand somewhat risky things adults can decide to do that kids usually can't.)

So from where I'm sitting? Barring some radical difference in immunological tolerances between 2-year-olds and adults, I think you're perfectly within your rights to decide for Toby that he's not going to take the (very, very slim) chance of getting salmonella, and you're simply being kind by not rubbing his face in the fact that you *are* going to take that risk.

I don't think you're being cruel. Especially since he gets to eat some of the cooked brownies later. :)