Welcome to the June edition of our newsletter – contents below.
Can you support us with a donation?
As you know, First Steps Nutrition Trust is a registered charity, funded by a small number of generous individuals and grants. We don’t receive government funding and only accept funds from conflict-of-interest free sources. If you are consistently finding value in this newsletter, please consider making a donation towards our work. You can do this here on our PayPal page and don’t need a PayPal account.
New report: ‘The Whole Truth’ by the Soil Association
The Soil Association published this new reporton 19 May to mark the launch of their new campaign calling on Government to ‘tell the whole truth’ about ultra-processed foods. More specifically, they call on Government to “resist the influence of the ultra-processed food industry and make minimally processed food accessible to all” as part of its new national Food Strategy (see more on this below). This call is based on the shocking findings of their investigation into UPF industry lobbying and its impact on health policy, which was covered in the Guardian. In short, the DHSC had planned to encourage retailers to shift the balance of price promotions towards “minimally processed foods” - which includes fruit, vegetables, beans, whole grains like rice and pasta, and unprocessed meat. But industry lobbyists, representing the UK's biggest UPF companies, demanded this advice was removed from the guidance issued to retailers, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that minimally processed and whole foods are crucial for a healthy diet. Thisvideo provides a summary of the investigation and its findings.
Around two thirds of the average child’s energy intake between the ages of 2 and 5 is from UPFs, so many children are not exposed to the varying tastes and textures from whole, minimally processed foods. The Soil Association calls for the food system to be ‘re-wired’ so that healthy food is prioritised. It discusses how UK public health messaging lacks guidance on UPFs, whilst a growing number of countries promote non-ultra processed foods. For example, despite NHS Professionals recommending that its employees eat “natural, unprocessed or minimally processed food that is as close to its original form as possible” this advice has not been extended to the public by the NHS. Other recommendations include strengthening the Healthy Start scheme and fiscal measures for the Soft Drinks Industry Levy to support increasing whole and minimally processed food consumption.
UPFs dominate the diets of babies and young children, with short- and long-term negative health implications, including on weight status (see our pre-recorded key note lecture outlining the evidence on this here). The Government must act now to re-balance early years’ diets towards minimally processed and whole foods. For more information, our 2023 policy report highlights our stance on UPFs and recommendations to Government, which are coherent with those of the Soil Association.
To support ‘the Whole Truth’ campaign, sign and share this petition.
New report: ‘Boosting early years nutrition to support a healthy childhood’ by the Food Foundation
The Food Foundation launched this last report in their three-part series on early years nutrition, in parliament on the 14 May. It looks at diets and health of 1- to 5-year-olds, with a focus on commercial baby and toddler foods and food provision in early years settings. It highlights challenges and barriers to providing nutritious diets at home and in settings, drawing on existing research and reports (including those from First Steps Nutrition Trust) and case studies and new research and insights. These inform policy recommendations and a call to action, summarised below.
Section 1 highlights how average early years’ diets are poor across the board (too high in sugar, saturated fat and salt, too low in fibre, iron and zinc), with significant dietary and health outcome inequalities meaning children in the poorest families have higher levels of overweight, obesity and dental decay.
Section 2 outlines some of the key factors which shape access to heathy and affordable food in the early years, being led by the views of surveyed parents. Affordability and high prices of healthy foods are a key concern, and the report highlights issues with ‘free early years meals’ as well as the Healthy Start scheme, with new analysis of the latter by Imperial College as shown.
Another concern is the ubiquity and strong appeal of less healthy foods in retail settings, including commercial baby and toddler foods and discretionary growing up and toddler milks.
The last set of concerns are issues with food in childcare settings, including packed lunches which lack necessary nutrition and include lots of packaged foods, and the barriers settings experience trying to provide nutritious meals and snacks.
Section 3 outlines four recommendations to give all children the best start in life:
1. Strengthen existing nutritional safety nets (i.e., Early Years Free Meals and Healthy Start) so that they effectively support families on a low income
2. Strengthen standards on the marketing and nutritional quality of commercial milk formula and foods
3. Support early years settings to deliver nutritious food for all young children
4. Improve the incentives in the wider food system, to help deliver better nutrition for all ages
The concluding call to action is “for the government to ensure that health and nutrition policies take a life-course approach and include attention to the specific needs of the under 5s”.
The recommendations above should be considered in the context of the summary of all of the policy recommendations made across the three reports in this series, which are available here, with a powerful foreword by the Food Foundation's Food Ambassador, mother and grandmother, Kathleen Kerridge.
The Food Foundation has incorporated First Steps Nutrition Trust reports and analyses into this work and our Director, Vicky, advised on all three reports. We strongly endorse the Food Foundation’s recommendations, which have been influenced by our own.
Late last year DEFRA announced its intention to create a National Food Strategy, and to do so with cross government input and in consultation with key stakeholders. This blog by Glen Tarman, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Sustain, provides a great summary of the process so far, concerns and next steps: Where are we now with the development of the UK Food Strategy, and what comes next? | Sustain.
We at First Steps Nutrition Trust have been engaging with the process and attended a stakeholder workshop in London in May. We share the concerns outlined by Greg and have been working hard to call for the National Food Strategy to take a life cycle approach and ensure focused attention to the early years, especially babies, but also pregnant women and young children. We have done a lot of work in the space in the past, and are urging DEFRA officials to take this into account. Read more in our briefings below.
This new report by Rebecca Tobi and colleagues at the Food Foundation, explores questions around how much meat we should be eating and what type, to avert the dual public health and environmental crisis that will arise from our current meat consumption habits in the UK.
The report reveals that the UK eats twice as much meat as the global average, a third of the meat children consume is from processed meats, such as sausages and chicken goujons, and nearly 10 percent is from meat on pizzas. The figures on processed meats are concerning, as there is strong evidence that links processed meat overconsumption and increased risk of developing chronic diseases, including bowel cancer. However, globally, evidence suggests that animal-based foods can support normal growth in children in low and middle-income countries, and meat can form part of a healthy and balanced diet.
The Food Foundation recommends that the Government should implement limits or remove processed meats from settings such as schools, where processed meat is regularly served. Wider recommendations for policy makers include support for increased fruit, vegetable, beans and pulse consumption via an improved horticultural sector, and introduction of mandatory reporting for large food businesses on animal vs plant protein sales.
These findings reflect those in a report published by Eating Better in 2023, called ‘It’s time to act on processed meat’, highlighting the health and environmental concerns related to eating processed meat. Our accompanying blog post explored concerns for processed meats in the diets of babies and young children. Processed meat does not offer the same health benefits as minimally processed meat, which can be an important source of iron, protein, zinc and vitamin C. High salt content in processed meat is of particular concern due to increased risk of high blood pressure later in life.
We support the Food Foundation and Eating Better’s calls for a reduction in processed meat consumption in the UK, particularly in the diets of babies and young children.
For inspiration and practical guidance on how to provide babies and young children diets based on minimally processed foods, see our 'Eating Well' resources. For plant-based recipes suitable for vegans and all infants and young children, see ‘Eating Well: Vegan Infants and Under 5s’.
New paper: Packed Lunch Provision and Consumption in Early Years Settings in Sheffield: A Cross-Sectional Study
This paper by Jo Pearce and Claire Wall from Sheffield Hallam University examined packed lunches of 3–4-year-olds in early years settings. The observational research looked at nutrient composition, food type, cost and level of processing for 185 packed lunches eaten by 67 children over 5 days in 8 separate early years settings in Sheffield.
The analysis found that although more than 75% of packed lunches contained fruit, just under 40% contained vegetables. What is more, 40% of lunches contained pre-packaged foods and over 65% of overall energy intake was from ultra processed foods. A concerning 65% of packed lunches in more deprived areas contained chocolate or confectionery. Many lunches offered excess energy, fat, saturated fat, free sugars and sodium. In areas with higher deprivation, lunches contained more free sugars, less fibre and vitamin C. The cost analysis found that lunches cost an average of £1.26, with no differences between area deprivation, and that healthier lunches were cheaper. Children left around 20% of the food provided by their packed lunch, i.e. it seems the provided portion sizes were larger than needed.
This research reflects findings from the ‘Nourishing our Futures’ conference report that found parents in Essex provided lunches often contained more processed foods than those provided in early years settings.
These findings are concerning for many reasons, including that most 3-4 year olds attend settings, that levels of overweight/obesity and dental decay are high from these young ages, and that the Department of Education has recently clarified that settings cannot charge for food and yet the sector is seriously underfunded (read more on this here).
The Department of Education has just published new guidance: Early Years Foundation Stage nutrition guidance: Guidance for group and school-based providers and childminders in England (see below). For additional practical guidance on eating well in infancy and between 1 and under 5 years of age suitable for use in early years settings, see our 'Eating Well' resources. Our ‘Packed lunches for 1-to-under-5-year olds’ resource may be particularly useful for settings to share with parents.
New guidance: Early Years Foundation Stage nutrition guidance: Guidance for group and school-based providers and childminders in England
In April, the Department for Education publishedthis new guidance, with a new requirement in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework that early years providers ‘should’ have regard to the new nutrition guidance from September 2025. It supports the pre-existing requirement: “Where children are provided with meals, snacks and drinks, these must be healthy, balanced and nutritious”. On the 30th of May, the guidance was updated to read “providers must take this guidance into account and follow it unless there is good reason not to”.
We at First Steps Nutrition Trust provided feedback on the draft version of this guidance, through our participation in the Bremner and co-led working group focused on food provision in early years settings. We are pleased to see many of our suggestions accepted.
The guidance is applicable to all early years settings providing care for 0–5-year-olds, and is split into sections on the first year, then 1-5s. It covers food allergies and intolerances, cost-effective healthy food, and planning food activities with children. Of note (with thanks to Dayna Brackley of Bremner and Co), there is welcome content:
On food texture, and the importance of offering appropriately textured food to support babies’ development
On foods/drinks to provide, limit and avoid
Which aligns with School Food Standards
Including example meals and snacks, instead of more prescriptive model menus as advised in the past
Encouraging settings to create food and nutrition policies
Covering meeting the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs, religious or cultural dietary requirements as well as allergies
Including clear and explicit advice on formula in line with latest government guidance, including that formula is not needed after 1
Signposting to Health Start and Free School Meals
Acknowledging that packed lunches are common (as recent work done in Sheffield and Essex indicates, see above), encouraging settings to support healthy choices.
The guidance cross references other government information sources.
It may be useful to note that our 'Eating Well' resources are widely used by settings and are available free to access here.
New paper: Estimating the Impact on Parents’ Infant Feeding Choices of Increasing Age Guidance and Adding Sugar Warning Labels to Commercial Infant Foods: A Mixed-Methods Study
This paper by Rana Conway and colleagues at UCL investigated the impact of increasing age guidance on commercial baby foods and adding sugar warnings, on UK parents’ product choices. As we know, many commercial baby food age labels do not align with public health recommendations (e.g. pouches labelled ‘4 months +’ and snacks labelled ‘7 months +’, when first foods should not be introduced until around 6 months and snacks should not be given before 12 months) and products are often high in free sugars. It has also been shown previously that parents believe that there are strict regulations which means they can trust products in the baby food aisle are healthy and appropriate.
In this study, over 1,000 parents and carers of children aged 6-23 months took part in an online survey. Additionally, 22 participants took part in focus group discussions.
When asked to imagine they were buying for a 5-month-old baby, similar numbers of participants selected products labelled ‘6 months+’ as they did for ‘4 months+’, but fewer chose snacks labelled ’12 months+’ compared with ‘6 months+’. Nearly 30% fewer participants chose commercial baby food desserts containing sugar warning labels than desserts without. There were no differences by income, occupation, or education.
Participants thought that the age labels on products and their wide availability meant they were recommended. Parents felt labels were misleading and wanted age guidance on labels to align with government recommendations.
Both survey and focus group participants trusted that commercial baby foods were low in sugar, and that those with younger age labels would have especially low levels. There was also a widespread belief that natural sugars were not unhealthy. Focus group interviewees strongly supported the introduction of sugar warning labels.
Only 13.5% of survey respondents were aware of the public health recommendation that snacks should only be introduced after 12 months of age, and there was widespread confusion of what constitutes a snack. Melty textures and utility for self-feeding made interviewees feel that snacks were suitable for young babies, and providing infants under 12 months with multiple daily snacks was the norm. Participants were confused by inconsistent messaging, particularly that commercial baby foods are labelled as ‘finger foods’ rather than ‘snacks’, when the NHS advises that finger foods should be given from early on in complementary feeding whereas snacks should not be given from 12 months.
Image credit: First Steps Nutrition Trust
These findings highlight how parents’ misplaced trust in the baby food industry and unchecked misleading marketing, is leading them to choose commercial baby food products which are not age appropriate and which are high in free sugars. But importantly, it also shows that there are acceptable solutions which could change behaviours for the better, across socio-economic groups:
Ensuring minimum age guidance of 6 months + on commercial baby foods and 12 months + on commercial baby snacks could shift feeding behaviours toward closer alignment with government feeding advice.
Adding front of pack sugar warning labels and removing “contains natural sugar” could support a reduction in sugar intake.
The authors highlight how sugar warning labels are recommended in the WHO Europe Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model (which we advocate is used as a basis of updated UK baby food regulations), alongside removal of claims and health halo statements such as ‘no added sugar’. They state that sugar warning labels have been shown to discourage consumption of high sugar foods in South America, and that meta analyses show that warning labels are more effective than traffic light labels in discouraging unhealthy purchasing behaviour.
Additionally, the findings highlight the need:
to find ways to effectively communicate to parents about free sugars, and to address perceptions that natural sugars are not unhealthy
for an update of NHS webpages to provide clear, consistent and systematic advice regarding home prepared vs commercial baby and toddler foods. The authors call for “clear and consistent messaging … regarding the importance of early and repeated exposure to healthy, unprocessed foods... to encourage preference for these foods”.
If you would like to see stronger, mandatory and properly enforced regulations, please consider writing to your MP. It takes less than 2 minutes to do this using Sustain’s template letter, which can be found here. The more people that write, the greater the chance of action.
Updated: Costs of infant formula, follow-on formula and milks marketed as foods for special medical purposes available over the counter in the UK, and infant formula trends analysis
The cost difference between the most and least expensive cows’ milk-based first infant formula is £11.01 per 800g. Since all infant formulas in the UK are regulated, ensuring they are safe and suitable for babies from birth through the first year, parents can make substantial savings by switching brands.
As usual, current pricing strategies mean that the least expensive way to buy infant formula is in powdered format. Aldi Mamia and Lidl Lupilu remain the least expensive infant formula powders in standard size formats (800g), both costing £6.99 and 11p per 100ml of made-up formula.
There are five products affordable with the Healthy Start allowance that provides £8.50 a week for a baby up to aged one year. However, Cow & Gate First Infant Milk from Savers is just 700g rather than 800g.
The cheapest formats of Cow & Gate First Infant Milk, SMA Pro First Infant Milk and Aptamil First Infant milk per 100ml are their ‘big packs’ (2 x 600g packs), which are 4p cheaper per 100ml than standard size formats. However this requires families to pay a greater up-front cost, and these packs are not available in all retail contexts.
Follow-on formula, advertised for children aged 6-12 months, provides no additional nutritional benefits over infant formula and is not recommended by the NHS. Many continue to believe that switching to follow-on formula after six months might save money—especially since UK regulations allow promotional offers on follow-on formula. However, our cost analysis continues to show that this not be the case and, in some cases, powdered follow-on formula may be more expensive than the same brand's infant formula when prepared. Additionally, our review of promotions found that offers on follow-on formulas in October 2024 were no longer available by May 2025. This variability highlights that promotions are not a reliable foundation for families on a budget when making feeding decisions, leaving them exposed to price increases once promotions end.
Our latest infant formula cost trend analysis shows that prices have remained high and static. Despite already being the cheapest on the market, Aldi (Mamia) and Lidl (Lupilu) brought the price of both their own-brand products down a further 10p, to £6.99 a tin, while Boots brought down the cost of SMA Little Steps from £9.75 to £7.95 to align with the price at most other retailers. While the average cost of branded infant formula is currently £13.49/tin, the range is £7.95 to £18.00. This compares to £6.99 for supermarket own-brand infant formula.
In short, the infant formula retail offer remains dominated by expensive products, and prices remain higher now than before the cost-of-living crisis. The average unit price for infant formula in March 2021 was £11.10 compared to £11.99 in May 2025, and the difference between the least and most expensive products – despite being nutritionally comparable - has increased from £8.51 to £11.01. The few lower price options may not be accessible to many families on low incomes, as there are fewer Aldi and Lidl branches than for other supermarkets and it’s not possible to shop online at Lidl.
We call on the DHSC to accept and act on all 11 recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority, and reiterate that further government action may be needed in the short term to ensure infant formula is accessible and affordable to families that need it, while protecting and supporting breastfeeding:
• To increase infant formula accessibility as well as supporting breastfeeding
➢ Improve the Healthy Start scheme.
• To improve infant formula affordability, bringing infant formula prices down in the short term and sustainably
➢ Consider price controls, especially profit margin caps.
To support parents and carers who use formula to feed their babies and are concerned about the cost of infant formula, we have updated our infant milk cost infographic as shown. Nb. We have chosen to make explicit in this latest version that infant formula does not have the same health benefits of breastfeeding in light of the findings of Athanasiadou and colleagues reported on in our May newsletter, that many women erroneously believe that breastfeeding and formula feeding provide a baby with the same health benefits.
Our infant formula cost trend analysis and policy asks are also available as an infographic as shown.
Our infant formula cost data analysis and asks of Government were reported on by the Guardian and the Sun newspapers on 29 May, and Jess Brown-Fuller MP (chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Infant Feeding) also spoke about the issue on LBC radio, calling on the Government to accept and implement all of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations. These reports were followed by news reports in the Sun and the Grocer on 2 June that Aldi will freeze the price of Mamia at £6.99 until the end of the year.
A side event was held at the WHA on 21 May, on “Monitoring Digital Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes: Open Data & Global Accountability” and was hosted by Colansa (Comunidad de Práctica Latinoamérica y Caribe Nutrición y Saludand - Community of Practice for Nutrition and Health in Latin America and the Caribbean) and co-organised by IBFAN, Save the Children, ALSANNA (La Alianza Global para la Alimentación Saludable de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes - The Global Alliance for Healthy Eating for Children and Adolescents), the World Obesity Federation (WOF), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), the International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA) and IDEC (Brazilian Institute of Consumer Protection), with the support of the Brazilian Ministry of Health, UNICEF and the Global Health Advocacy Incubator (GHAI). The full recording of the side event, including talks by representatives of the WHO, Alive & Thrive, country delegates and more, is available here.
It is now the responsibility of countries and governments to update national legislation to incorporate the provisions of all WHA resolutions relating to the Code, and to invest in effective systems for routine monitoring and enforcement of national legislation.
In the UK, national legislation currently scores just 40 out of 100 in the 2024 International Code status report of national implementation of the Code, and violations of national legislation and the Code persist. It is therefore timely, relevant and essential for the UK government to strengthen existing legislation to align with the Code and all subsequent WHA resolutions and ensure sufficient monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
An important first step would be for the government to fully implement the 11 recommendations made in the Competition and Markets Authority’s market study into infant and follow-on formula in the UK. We eagerly await the government response to the final CMA report and will continue to advocate for stronger marketing restrictions on commercial milk formula and associated products.
Webinar: Evaluation of the Healthy Start Scheme, 24 June
The Glasgow university led Maternal and Child Health Network (MatCHNet) are hosting a webinar by Christina Vogel of City St George’s University of London on their Evaluation of the Healthy Start Scheme. This will be online on Tuesday 24 June at 12.20pm. Sign up here.
We will be delivering our second webinar on Wednesday 25 June from 1:30 – 2:30pm, to introduce healthcare professionals with an interest in infant milk feeding to our website dedicated to infant milk: www.infantmilkinfo.org. The webinar will show users how to navigate the website and provide some insight on how it may be useful in their work. You can register here.
