Nutrition experts urge tighter baby food rules after marketing scandal

Following a BBC Panorama investigation and a University of Leeds report revealing the poor nutritional quality of UK baby food pouches, we examine the needs of growing infants and the calls for strict marketing regulations with a pediatric dietitian and the Leeds researchers.

Last week, Nutrition Insight spoke to companies criticized in the probe and whose products were reported to contain high sugar, low iron, or lost vitamin C in the manufacturing process. Ella’s Kitchen, Heinz, Lidl, Little Freddie, and Piccolo told us their products are meant to complement a weaning diet, not be a sole source of nutrition. Some pointed out that the singled-out products did not make the nutrition claims for which they were criticized. Aldi did not respond to our questions.

In addition, many pouches were marketed for babies aged four months and older, before health guidelines suggested infants should start solid foods. 

How pouches may mislead parents

Bahee van de Bor, registered pediatric dietitian and gut health expert, tells us how marketing has influenced parents’ understanding of a healthy weaning diet.

“Marketing practices have created a misleading picture of what weaning should look like. Firstly, labeling pouches as suitable from four months directly contradicts WHO and UK guidelines, which recommend starting solids from six months.”

“While a small number of babies may be developmentally ready at five months, it’s simply not appropriate to suggest that pouches are suitable from four.”

She continues that another major factor is the imagery used on the pouch packaging, which often displays a full and balanced meal with vegetables, grains, and proteins, giving the impression that it is nutritionally complete.

“But in reality, many of these pouches are mostly fluid-based and very low in iron, zinc, water-soluble vitamins, and fiber. These are all crucial for building a strong gut microbiome and supporting an infant’s normal growth and development.”

Bahee van de Bor, registered pediatric dietitian and gut health expert.“This can lead parents to unintentionally rely on pouches as daily staples, rather than occasional tools, which ultimately doesn’t meet babies’ nutritional needs.”

Importance of bitter flavors and vegetables

Van de Bor cautions about the long-term risks of normalizing high-sugar, low-nutrient processed foods in the earliest stages of life.

“Babies are born with a natural preference for sweet tastes — this helps them accept breast milk, which is naturally sweet. But that means it’s even more important to introduce them to bitter-tasting vegetables early on. Exposure builds familiarity and acceptance.”

“If we rely too heavily on fruit-based purées or sweeter vegetables like carrots and sweet potatoes, babies may never develop a taste for more complex, savory foods, especially vegetables,” she continues.

Furthermore, Van de Bor underlines the impact of such foods on babies’ guts since they are born with a sterile gut. During weaning, the microbiome develops and flourishes.

“Without enough fiber from vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, we risk limiting the diversity of the gut microbiota. That has long-term implications for immune health and overall development.”

Shocked parents

Diane Threapleton, senior research fellow, and Ali Morpeth, registered public health nutritionist and visiting research fellow at the University of Leeds School of Food Science and Nutrition, tell us about marketing practices that parents found most surprising in their research.

Diane Threapleton, senior research fellow at the University of Leeds.“Parents were generally shocked about being able to claim ‘no added sugar’ on packs when products were high in sugar — they felt this was particularly misleading. Having the ‘4+ month’ label on packs was confusing to parents, given the National Health Service and WHO recommendations for food introduction around six months of age,” says Threapleton.

“One of the mums we spoke to said: ‘If you see that (claim on pack) and you didn’t know the government’s advice and just think, okay, well, four months, they’re telling you that it’s fine.’”

Morpeth explains that parents trusted baby food brands and manufacturers’ products as good choices. “One parent told us, ‘baby food manufacturers should focus on health,’ and another told us, ‘That’s pretty bad [having no laws on sugar regulation]. I didn’t know that.’”

Stricter marketing and composition regulation

The Leeds research highlights significant gaps between current regulations and public health needs. The researchers underline urgent actions for the UK government. 

“As detailed in the policy recommendation of our reports, we believe regulatory reform is urgently needed to level the playing field across industry, enabling manufacturers to apply the same appropriate and responsible nutritional and marketing standards to their products,” says Morpeth. 

“Current regulation was introduced over 20 years ago and does not reflect the current product landscape. There are no limits on added sugar or total sugar levels in any baby foods, and product marketing messaging is prolific, obscuring poor nutritional profiles and contributing to the ‘health halo,’ whereby products appear more virtuous than they are.”

According to Van de Bor, having clear, updated, and enforceable guidelines for the nutritional composition of baby food, measured per 100 g, would be ideal. “That includes total energy, iron, zinc, vitamin C, vitamin A, fiber, and limits on free sugars.”

“When recipes are properly balanced with just a few key ingredients, most other nutrients tend to fall into place. But we need manufacturers guided by science, not just shelf appeal.”

“We also need regulations around texture progression,” states Van de Bor. “Right now, too many baby food products remain thin and puréed, even for babies aged seven to nine months. This doesn’t support oral motor development or the transition to family foods. Babies need varied textures to develop safe chewing and long-term confidence with food.” 

She adds that moving from purées is needed to support children’s chewing and speech development.

Ali Morpeth, registered public health nutritionist and visiting research fellow at the University of Leeds.Additionally, Threapleton posits three action points. First, she calls for regulating the food marketplace for children under three and suggests that the government set robust requirements for compositional and marketing standards for commercial infant foods.

The government should also “adopt a standardized nutrient profile model for under three to enable regulation based on appropriate baby food nutritional and promotional standards.” Lastly, it should “integrate infant foods into a comprehensive UK government food strategy.”

Regulating commercial interest 

The experts suggest how manufacturers and retailers could balance commercial interests with the need to prioritize young children’s nutrition. They also explain why there has been so little public pressure to hold brands accountable for promoting products to babies under six months, despite clear health guidelines.

“We’ve seen a boom in the baby foods sector over recent decades, potentially fueled by the lack of mandatory standards. It’s advantageous for companies to extend the recommended age range for their products. Hence, 4+ month labels and recommending products such as snacks and pouches for older children,” notes Morpeth. 

“Voluntary guidelines are notoriously ineffective for change in the food sector, and so regulation is essential to ensure the health of our children is prioritized.”

In agreement, Van de Bor urges that products marked for babies under four months should be discontinued. “It directly undermines public health messaging and confuses parents who are simply trying to do their best.”

She notes that the baby food industry is “ highly profitable” while operating with “very little” regulation: “We need stronger regulation, not just recommendations.”

“Until the BBC Panorama investigation revealed the lab analysis results, many healthcare professionals weren’t fully aware of how nutritionally inadequate some of these products really are. That level of transparency has been missing. Without clear data, it’s been difficult for professionals and parents to push back.”

Morpeth stresses that manufacturers should emphasize health benefits. “As researchers in nutrition, we have a duty to share our findings openly and honestly and to help parents make informed choices for their children.”

“We believe manufacturers and the government have a duty to put children’s health and nutrition first. Parents agree, as summed up by the mom we spoke to in our focus group, who said, ‘Baby food makers shouldn’t just think of profit — they should focus on health,’” she concludes.