Baby food under scanner as new study raises question on ‘unregulated’ health claims

Most baby foods in the UK claim “unregulated benefits”, says a new research, claiming  that such claims printed on packaging creates “healthy halo effect”, which is confusing for parents.

According to a new study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, an average of nine promotional claims can be found on the packaging of individual baby food products in the UK. 

In the absence of any legally binding regulations and guidelines for the composition and promotion of manufactured baby foods in the UK and EU, “it’s something of a free-for-all amid surging sales”, says the study.

For instance, baby-led weaning claims were found on 72 percent of snacks. However, the promotion of snacking habits as early as six to12 months is “questionable”, as snacking may lead to obesity, said the researchers. 

The role of iron in supporting normal cognitive development was the most common health claim across products.

The widespread use of unregulated promotional claims on manufactured baby foods is of concern, the researchers stated, highlighting some potential issues for the claims made. Like, ‘vegetable taste’ suggests foods are made of vegetables when in reality the ingredients might be a combination of fruit and vegetables with a predominantly sweet taste. 

“Since food preferences are formed early in life and infants have an innate preference for sweet and salty foods, promoting sweet [baby foods] containing a high amount of sugar could be detrimental. Moreover, it may contribute to high energy consumption and dental caries,” the researchers wrote. 

“Dietary goals for fruit and vegetable consumption (five portions a day) are given for children from the age of two years; thus, the suitability of promoting claims such as ‘contributes towards your 2-of-5’ or ‘contains 1-of-5’ remains questionable.”

The study further points out that endorsements such as “nutritionist approved” or “dietitian approved” were widely used, but the meaning of these endorsements in terms of nutrient quality or veracity of health claims is not fully clear and needs further scrutiny.