As a child, my parents always made me finish my food even if I was already full. Food definitely isn't wasted this way, but overeating is not good either.
What would be the advantages and disadvantages of making/forcing a child to finish their food even if they are already full?
For the sake of this question, disregard the child's food preference (i.e. he doesn't not finish his food just because he doesn't like the food)
Advantages.... None
Disadvantages... It creates unnecessary conflict with the child, and it compromises the child's natural ability to self-regulate food intake based on nutrition requirements. As long as children are offered healthy food (no junk food) they will naturally eat what they need and no more. Forcing them to finish their plate can potentially lead to eating disorders, and/or obesity later in life. It teaches the child that they should eat food because it is there, not because they need it.
This notion that it prevents food from being wasted is complete nonsense. If the child is eating more than they require, then the food is wasted anyway, as the body can't effectively use it. It either stores it as fat, or simply passes it through not properly digested.
Advantages: none gets a downvote from me. If you're not going to consider both sides - and you're free not to - simply leave that out, or if you truly believe there are no advantages, take up the various reasons people do it and explicitly argue them.
– Joe
Nov 06 '14 at 18:49
This is what my mother did with us (it wouldn't work with very young children; I can't recall what she did then):
We were never served food. It came to the table in whatever pot it was cooked in, and placed on a block of wood (to avoid burning the table). We then served ourselves out of that pot (or those pots, pans, whatever, depending on what the food was). And we were encouraged to take small helpings: take a large helping, and half the food is cold before you eat it; take a small helping, and when you go back for seconds the food in the pot is still warm.
To sum up:
You help yourself to a small amount. You then eat it. You are then free to come back for seconds. And thirds. Fourths too, sometimes. But you always clear your plate.
Benefit: Any leftovers are still in the pot, not scraped off a plate, so everyone's happy when they turn up again at the next meal. No food is wasted.
Other benefit: You learn to judge how hungry you are, and to serve yourself an appropriate portion size.
Worked for us.
It's quite easy to find information on this study. The gist of it is that if you force to your child to eat everything on their plate, they are more likely to become obese as an adult. That's messed up, so... please don't do this to your child.
"New findings have shown that pushing children to eat everything on their plate has a direct link to obesity. The University of Minnesota has published a study that shows this forced eating can be linked to unhealthy eating habits when the child gets to adulthood. Interestingly, while these kids may be at a normal weight at the time, this changes later in life." - http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/04/forcing-kids-to-clean-their-plate-may-cause-obesity-study-suggests/#18YHSxWgA2Pqu83z.99
The reason "for", generally, is grounded in a largely depression-era concern that you may not have enough nutrition/calories in the future. Literally, you need to eat it or you might starve. That was a concern in the 30s, and people raised then often took that to heart and kept it in the 50s and 60s when they were having kids.
That said, there is an additional issue worth addressing. Kids often prefer not to eat dinner, because:
All of those things are important, and need to be addressed as separate issues (which we have many questions about). "You must finish your whole meal" isn't likely the right answer, though; see the other answers for some links to studies specifically covering why not.
We have two well-built children (neither fat nor slender, and height-wise in the 80-90th percentile for their age). We mostly don't worry about how much they eat, unless there is a dessert; in that case we enforce minimums, but fairly low minimums - on the principle (which we tell them) that if they're not hungry at all, they shouldn't have the dessert either.
It's not optimal, but we don't want them skipping all of the nutritious food. It almost never needs to be done, though, because we a) give them food that tastes good, and b) have worked to teach them why they eat dinner. We also require them to be at the dinner table for the duration of the meal, regardless of how much they eat, which sometimes can be a struggle, but works out okay for us.
You will have disputes with your children. That's inevitable, so you should avoid creating them when unnecessary.
I often ask myself "Is this a fight worth winning?" If the answer is no, I don't make it an issue. I think "cleaning your plate" is such a case.
We had significant battles with both of our children (still ongoing with our 2 year old) over eating more, and we've had to force the issue on occasion. A couple points to keep in mind:
So, the "pro" to making your child eat more is that sometimes you know more than your child what is actually good for their body, but you shouldn't necessarily assume that unless you've been given advice by your doctor.
The "con" is pretty much everything else. There's no reason to force a child to eat if they've gotten enough nutrition and they are full.
