Healthy halo? Unregulated claims on baby food packaging confuse parents, UK study flags

01 Mar 2022 --- Claims on baby food packaging are largely unregulated, using “healthy halo” connotations that may confuse parents and lead to negative long-term implications, a UK study has revealed.

“The baby food industry is using packaging to promote positive attributes of commercial processed baby foods in an extensive, unregulated manner. This must end,” Dr. Ada Garcia, senior lecturer in public health nutrition, University of Glasgow, tells NutritionInsight.

The UK market for manufactured baby foods is set to soar to £1 billion (US$1.35 billion) by 2024, growing by 2.5% year on year, the study highlights. On average, the packaging of individual UK baby foods contains nine promotional claims. The most common health claim was the role of iron in supporting normal cognitive development.

Call to end “inappropriate” practices
Currently, there is an absence of legally binding regulations and guidelines for the composition and promotion of manufactured baby foods in the UK and the EU, the researchers highlight.

“It’s something of a free-for-all amid surging sales,” they add. 

“The unrestricted use of messages and ‘health halo’ statements on the packaging of commercial baby foods calls for policymakers and stakeholders to update guidelines, legislation and policies to protect this vulnerable demographic so that infant feeding recommendations are not undermined.”

According to the study published in BMJ Journals, the promotional claims on the packaging are used extensively and can mislead parents.

“This evidence can be used to make a strong case for the implementation and monitoring of recommendations to end the inappropriate promotion of commercial baby foods as proposed by World Health Organization (WHO) European Region,” Garcia highlights.Marketing claims referred mainly to texture (84%) and taste (70%).

Tackling promotional claims
Manufactured baby foods from seven major UK supermarkets – Aldi, Asda, Lidl, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Morrisons plus Amazon – were studied between June and September 2020. The items were intended for infants up to the age of 12 months. 

A total of 724 products from 34 brands were recorded, of which over half were sweet, while 42% were savory and 2% were sweet-savory and neutral.

“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 highlight.

Currently, the UK is gearing up to implement legislation surrounding where foods deemed high in fat, salt or sugar can be sold, as child obesity figures reached alarming highs.

Long-term consequences
Dry foods such as finger foods and cereals have a high number of health claims, the researchers note. Nonetheless, snacking is not recommended for the age group and “the promotion of snacking habits as early as six to 12 months should be restricted because of negative implications of obesity.”

Researchers also noted that 70% of marketing claims were taste claims, while 42% were that the item contained fruit and vegetables. 

“‘Vegetable taste’ suggests foods are made of vegetables when in reality the ingredient contribution might be a combination of fruit and vegetables with a predominantly sweet taste,” they add.

Packaging for baby and toddler foods has come under increased focus and scrutiny as COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and health worries occupy consumers’ concerns around the globe.There were up to 17 promotional claims on a single product.

Organic claims unnecessary? 
The top composition claim was 100% organic, with researchers identifying 63% of the items with the claim, followed by 58% of claims citing the product contained nothing artificial. 

“The claim ‘organic,’ which was widely used in this survey, implies these commercial baby foods are more desirable and advantageous. Moreover, it suggests the influence of promotions on parental trust. Organic food is perceived better for infants because of low pesticide residues, and parents feel responsible for their infant’s health and well-being.”

However, Garcia highlights current EU Directive regulations require that all foods must be safe. “Even if the baby food is not using the organic claim, they are bound by law to have met the regulations and are safe for consumption. So parents should not worry about a commercial baby food that is not having an ‘organic’ or ‘nutritionist approved’ claim.”

Nonetheless, a number of companies have been named in a US report by the Committee on Oversight and Reform for containing dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, while some of the items carried ‘organic’ claims in their labeling. 

“The ferocious use of marketing claims on commercial baby food reported here is in agreement with a WHO report concluding the marketing of commercial baby food to be common and pervasive,” the study notes.

Last week, the WHO published a damning report on the infant formula industry, saying the marketing landscape was “deeply troubling” with “unethical marketing strategies” aimed at influencing parents’ infant feeding decisions. 

By Andria Kades