"My Mother-in-Law Secretly Gave My Baby Sugar Snacks Without Our Permission... She Says I'm Being Too Sensitive" [What Do You Think?]

[Financial News] A story has emerged about a conflict after a mother-in-law fed a baby, who had just started eating solid foods, a snack containing sugar without the parents' permission.

A post titled "I'm so angry that my mother-in-law fed my child something without my permission" was recently uploaded to the online community Nate Pann.
The writer, identified as A, said, "My child had only just started eating baby food. I also consulted a specialist in infant meals and checked carefully at the pediatric clinic to find out what could and could not be given at this stage." She added, "At both places, I was told that anything containing sugar or salt should absolutely not be given until the child turns one, so I was following that strictly."
However, the mother-in-law visited A's home that day and, while A was in the bathroom, reportedly gave the child something to eat.
A said, "She told me, 'I gave the baby a little bit of this, and the baby ate it well. I guess it suited the baby's taste.' When I asked what it was, she said it was a snack she had brought from home. I checked the ingredients and found that it contained sugar." She continued, "When I told her, 'This isn't suitable for a baby at this stage because it contains sugar,' she said, 'It's fine at that level. We all grew up like this back in our day. Don't be so sensitive. The baby ate it well, didn't it?'"
She then shared that she had worked at a daycare center and said, "I have actually worked while seeing how important it is what children eat. As the parent, I should be the one deciding what my child eats. No matter who it is, even my mother-in-law should not feed the child without my permission."

A explained the situation to her husband, but he reportedly said, "Mom didn't do it with bad intentions. She meant well, so don't be too sensitive," which only made the conflict worse.
A said, "I was stunned by my husband's reaction." She added, "If it was meant well, does that make it okay to feed my child without my permission? If it was meant well, does that mean my standards can just be ignored?"
She went on to say, "There have been times when I thought my mother-in-law was being a bit excessive, but I let those go because I thought they were just differences in parenting style." However, she added, "This is directly feeding the child something, so I can't just brush it off."
She also said, "I think I need to speak to her directly, but I don't know how to say it without hurting her feelings. If I just let it go, I feel like this could happen again next time."
A said, "I'm still watching my child's condition closely. Thankfully, there doesn't seem to be any unusual reaction, but that doesn't mean I should take it for granted. Just because nothing happened this time doesn't guarantee it will be fine next time." She asked for advice.

Reactions from netizens who read the story were mixed.
Some users responded, "She didn't pour sugar all over the baby, so this is over the top," "That's exactly what baby food is for, so yes, you're being too much," "Parenting isn't something you do by the manual," and "A child won't be harmed by eating that little."
Others, however, said, "If your mother-in-law comes over often, make it clear that the baby is not at the stage for that kind of food yet," "If the baby starts snacks before baby food, they may not eat meals well, become fussy, and make things harder," "It's my child, and I want to raise them my way, so why interfere?" and "In the past, people didn't have this kind of information, so many children were given the wrong things and ended up having problems. 'This is how we raised children back then' is not necessarily the right answer."
[email protected] Kim Su-yeon Reporter