Welcome to the July 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.
Updated NHS advice: Only use shop bought baby foods occasionally
Early in June we noticed that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) have finally updated their advice for parents (i.e. the Better Health Start for Life webpages) on what to feed babies and young children to systematically make explicit that shop-bought baby and toddler foods should be avoided or minimised, and that healthy home-prepared foods are a better choice. This comes after a specific request we made to the chief nutritionist in May this year, and the sharing of suggested wording for each relevant webpage. We first asked for public facing advice to explicitly discourage the use of commercial baby/toddler foods in 2018 (see our baby foodpuree report) and then again in 2023 (see our UPF report). These changes are overdue given the position of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) in their July 2023 guidance on feeding young children aged 1 to 5 years:
“Commercially manufactured foods and drinks marketed specifically for infants and young children are not needed to meet nutritional requirements”. (page 27)
“Home-prepared foods are generally recommended to help introduce infants and young children to a range of appropriate flavours and textures”. (page 37) (nb. this also appeared in the PHE 2019 commercial infant foods evidence review)
Key messages on shop-bought baby food pouches, jars, trays, pots and snacks include:
If you’re using them:
Don’t do so every day (even as a snack) / only use occasionally. Swap them for simple mashed or finger foods
Wait until 6 months even if the labels say use from 4 months
And if your baby is under 12 months, don’t give them snacks at all
And if you use pouches, don’t let baby suck from them as this increases risk of tooth decay
Move on from purees/blended foods asap
Avoid the biscuits, rusks, biscotti and melty snacks
Choose the ones with the least sugar / avoid the ones with fruit and sweet veg
Preparing food at home is often healthier and cheaper than shop-bought food
While the changes made are very much welcomed, we have made further suggestions for clarifying 1. The content on snacks and finger foods - to make clear that shop-bought “finger foods” are snacks, 2. The content on growing up and toddler milks - to make clear that they are not needed and may contain a lot of sugar, and 3. To make clear that the advice to choose lower sugar options includes those that are labelled ‘no added sugars’ and ‘contains naturally occurring sugars’. These suggestions draw on the findings of the paper by Rana Conway and colleagues summarised in last month’s newsletter, see here.
Lastly, our FREE, practical guide “Eating well: The First Year” is our most popular guide and provides all the information families need on preparing foods for babies at home. It uses lots of visuals to provide simple guidance on HOW to introduce solids and feed babies between the ages of 6 and 12 months and lots of ideas on WHAT too. You can download it for free or purchase a hard copy here.
New paper: Commercial Baby Foods: Nutrition, Marketing and Motivations for Use - A Narrative Review
A new research paper by our nutrition officer Jasmine and colleagues at First Steps Nutrition Trust and the University of Glasgow was published on 2 July in Maternal and Child Nutrition. It summarises research on commercial baby foods published since 2019, when Public Health England (PHE) highlighted the need for action in its evidence review on commercial baby foods.
For context, in 2019, PHE found that young children were consuming diets that included too many snacks and were too high in salt and sugar. Additionally, they highlighted that appropriate home-prepared foods are preferred to commercial baby foods, which a lot of the time do not align with government advice on infant and child feeding or promote healthy diets. Their recommendations focused on
Improving commercial baby food nutrient composition by reducing sugar, particularly in snacks
Emphasising the need to limit misleading marketing practices, especially those contradicting public health recommendations for complementary feeding, and to reduce the use of nutrition claims and ‘health halo’ statements
The authors highlight the necessity to review newer emerging studies and assess progress following PHE's recommendations. The market is dynamic, and scrutiny of the nutritional composition and marketing strategies is necessary to ensure that recommendations are in line with the current retail offer.
In this review, 31 studies from the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand were separated into three topics and reviewed. The topics looked at were (1) Nutritional Composition, Flavour Profile and Texture, (2) Marketing and Labelling, and (3) Parental Choice and Preferences. The paper found that out of all products sampled, 56% were puréed and 18% were snacks. The median sugar content per 100 g was 10.4 g in purées, 20.3g in snacks, and 14.7g in cereals. Concerningly, nearly half of all products contained added or free sugars, and 62% when looking at snacks alone. Six out of nine studies had ‘no added sugar’ claims, and eight studies reported finding claims related to health or nutrition. All studies reported that health/development/nutrition were motivations to purchase commercial baby foods, and 75% mentioned ‘baby's enjoyment’, ‘convenience/time’, and ‘safety’.
In summary:
Commercial baby foods are often nutritionally inadequate and/or high in sugar.
Snack foods and squeeze pouches are readily available, often sweet, and lack textural variety.
Marketing claims are often misleading and exploit parents/carers' fears to motivate use.
Existing guidelines are not being utilised by baby food manufacturers.
Policies, regulations, and advice on CBF must be strengthened to improve complementary feeding practices and reduce the prevalence of poor health outcomes.
These findings are concerning as commercial baby foods can contribute to poor diets, which could impact long‐term taste preferences in infants and young children. Additionally, low‐quality diets for children under two are associated with an increased risk of obesity in later life and, in turn, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some types of cancer.
High‐quality guidelines already exist, such as the WHO's Nutrient Profile and Promotion Model, but these are not being utilised.
The wider policy recommendations from this narrative review are to:
Strengthen regulations in the UK and ensure that they are mandatory.
Ensure independent monitoring and enforcement of regulations.
Clarify NHS complementary feeding advice to include explicit guidance on commercial baby foods.
As we outline in our first news article, we are pleased that the NHS has recently updated its complementary feeding advice with guidance on commercial baby foods; however, these other steps remain necessary to enable parents/carers to make informed decisions about what foods to choose when feeding their infants and young children, in line with public health recommendations. Mandatory guidelines are essential as voluntary ones historically are ineffective. Improved diets in the infants would help to reduce the prevalence of obesity and non‐communicable diseases, therefore allowing children to grow up into healthy adults.
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.
New paper: “Snack foods for babies: What is driving the increasing use of processed baby snack foods in the UK?”
A new studyby Alexandra Rhodes from UCL and colleagues explored the drivers of using (ultra) processed baby snack foods. As we know, many commercial baby food age labels do not align with public health recommendations (e.g. snacks labelled ‘7 months +’ when snacks should not be given before 12 months), products are often high in free sugars and have soft and melty textures which do not aide development. The authors state that “snacking deserves attention given its contribution to overall diet quality and the importance of the early years for establishing future dietary behaviours”.
In this mixed methods study, in 2022, over 1,000 parents and carers of children aged 6-23 months took part in a nationally representative online survey. Additionally, 22 parents/carers living in London took part in focus group discussions.
Parents/carers were asked what age they first gave processed snack foods to their babies. A worrying 29.6% introduced these when their babies were under 6 months of age, and nearly 64.3% between 6 and 11 months. This suggests that processed snack foods are often some of the first foods that babies consume. While use between meals was most common, 50.6% were offering these products as a part of meals.
A large majority, 72%, of parents and carers were unaware that snacks should not be introduced before 12 months of age, and only 13.5% were aware of the public health recommendations to introduce healthy snacks after 12 months of age.
The focus group discussions yielded findings in 8 themes:
Giving baby foods is normalised and pervasive. They are given regularly, often daily basis especially out of home. Parents believed these products to be strictly regulated, and their positioning on the baby food aisle implies they are a good and safe choice. Labelling and a texture which is safe against choking determine age of introduction.
Snacks are not just for hunger, but also for distraction, entertainment, as treats and out of habit.
Baby snacks are more convenient than healthy snacks, especially out of the home, because of long shelf lives, resealable bags and less mess.
Baby snacks are chosen on the basis of what is believed to be best for baby/toddler, in terms of nutrition (less sugar, salt and additives than other snacks), development (self feeding) and safety (not a choking risk).
Brand communications (especially on social media) support baby snack choice, giving an image of being baby experts, especially when coupled with endorsement by a health or nutrition professional.
On pack health and nutrition claims (like ‘no additives’, ‘contains fruit/vegetables’, ‘natural ingredients’ and ‘no added sugar’), colours and images, and age labels also informed parents snack choices.
Peer group influence in real life and on social media influenced product choice, as well as toddler’s preferences.
Price promotions influence purchase, especially as these products are expensive.
Survey data indicate that the two most common reasons parents choose products relates to a belief that they are good for their child’s health or development. This is despite existing evidence which shows these products are less healthy than they claim to be.
Image credit: First Steps Nutrition Trust
Some extracts from discussion are as follows:
“The high trust in brands coupled with a belief that the baby food market is tightly regulated may suggest parents are being misled about the composition of products. The spurious nature of the ‘health halo’ surrounding baby snack foods has been highlighted before, … parents making choices regarding baby snack foods based on misleading information”.
The use of baby snacks for reasons other than hunger is a particular concern because “using food to soothe distressed babies has been shown to predict obesogenic eating behaviours and higher BMI in later childhood”.
“The textures and flavours of these products are more akin to processed snack foods than real foods and as such the normalisation of processed baby snacks may have problematic consequences for future taste preferences and eating habits”.
“The legitimisation of baby snack foods as an appropriate element of a baby’s diet is being driven by baby food manufacturers. By promoting these ‘finger foods’ as weaning foods and offering parents advice on weaning and recipe ideas the manufacturers are presenting themselves as baby feeding experts”.
To conclude, the study confirms that UK parents believe that processed baby snacks are a normal and healthy part of their children’s diets and that they offer benefits to their growth and development. This is primarily driven by brand communications and on-pack claims. The authors highlight that it is important to raise awareness of the health risks of using snacks for reasons other than satiating hunger, that brands should align their advice with public health recommendations and that products should not be presented as ‘nutritionist approved’. They call for greater transparency in communications and marketing, and stronger regulation, to help parents make more informed and healthier choices for their babies and toddlers. “Interventions targeting both individual behaviours and broader systemic influences are needed”.
Asabove, the public facing advice on commercial baby foods on NHS Better Health Start for Life was recently updated, reiterating babies under 12 months should not be given snacks and including new advice to avoid shop-bought biscuits, rusks, biscotti and melty snacks. This is very positive, though it may be that clearer messages on shop bought ‘finger foods’ are needed, so that parents are clear that these are also snacks and to be avoided. In addition, as the study authors suggest, new advice may also be needed on not using foods like shop-bought snacks for non-nutritive reasons like distraction, soothing and calming.
See our news piece above on our own baby foods paper, for more information on our policy asks and information about an e-action to call on your MP to support stronger regulations.
For FREE practical advice on feeding in the first year of life (avoiding snacks), and on healthy snacks for young children from the age of one, see our eating well guides:
New paper: “Maternal and child nutrition: nutrition and weight management in pregnancy, and nutrition in children up to 5 years - summary of new NICE guidance”
This articlepublished in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 26 June 2025, summarises select recommendations from the new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on maternal and child nutrition: nutrition and weight management in pregnancy, and nutrition in children up to 5 years, published in January this year. This guideline replaces the old NICE guideline on maternal and child nutrition (PH11) and the recommendations on weight management during pregnancy from the NICE guideline on weight management before, during, and after pregnancy (PH27).
The guideline is based on existing UK government advice (i.e. it was not within scope of the guideline development to amend pre-existing government advice), and it aims to improve the uptake of this advice in practice. It is aimed at all healthcare workers (including midwives, health visitors, general practitioners, and paediatricians) who work with pregnant women and parents/carers of babies and young children, and is also relevant to others such as commissioners and those working in early years education and care.
The BMJ article covers the recommendations on: folic acid supplementation in pregnancy; vitamin supplementation in pregnancy and while breastfeeding; micronutrient supplementation in infancy and childhood; healthy eating and weight management in pregnancy; infant feeding; complementary feeding, and healthy eating from 1 to 5 years. Each section outlines the core recommendations, gives information on the source and strength of the evidence behind them and is illustrated by useful infographics (which we unfortunately can’t share here due to copyright).
Emphasised throughout is the need to use non-commercial information sources, making our Eating Well guides and infant feeding resources (including our www.infantmilkinfo.org website for health workers) relevant.
If you have a BMJ subscription, read the article here.
Access the NICE Maternal and Child Nutrition guidelines here.
New National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) data 2019-2023: Focus on 1.5-3 year olds
The NDNS provides evidence on the diet and nutrition of the UK population to help identify and address nutritional issues in the population, and monitor progress towards public health nutrition objectives. It is designed to assess the diet, nutrient intake and nutritional status of the general UK population. Participants aged 18 months and over living in private households are selected each year from all 4 UK countries and the sample is nationally representative. The results are presented for 7 standard NDNS age groups, the youngest of which is 1.5 to 3 years. This reportprovides a summary of key findings for the population as a whole, with mention of specific results by age group. In this newsletter piece, we pick out findings for the age group 1.5 to 3 years and contextualise them in the wider findings.
To start, it may be useful to note that among 1.5-10 year olds, data from 2023 indicate that 92% eat meat and fish and do not have any dietary restrictions. Only 2% are vegetarian, 2% eat mainly vegetarian or vegan diets, 1% are pescatarian and 3% reported a religious restriction. 0% were vegan. And for the same age group and year, 77% are highly food secure, 11% marginally food secure and 11% low/very low food security.
Selected foods and drinks
Fruit and vegetables
While most participants did not meet the UK government recommendation to eat at least 5 X 80g portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables each day, consumption by young children is reasonable. Mean daily intakes are 227±107g, which is 5.7±2.7 based on 40g portions, or 4.5±2.7 based on 50g portions (noting there is no agreed portion size for children). This comprises more fruit than veg (and so more sugar) but only a small proportion is dried or processed.
Red and processed meat
The UK government recommends that people who eat more than 90g of red or processed meat a day should cut down to 70g. In 2019 to 2023, average consumption of red and processed meat was below 70g per day in all age and sex groups. Young children aged 1.5-3 years consumed a mean daily intake of 27±17g red and processed meat, 18±17g white meat, and a total of 47±28g. In our portion size guide, we recommend around 40g for meat for 1-to-under 5 year olds, and red and processed meat should be consumed sparingly. With that in mind these amounts could be viewed to be on the the high side from the perspective that they suggest a large portion size of meat being consumed daily, when more plant-source foods could be an option.
Drinks
The highest average consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks was by children aged 11 to 18 years (124mls (131g)/day). Average consumption by younger children (4 to 10 years) was under half this amount (54mls (60g)/day). However, the youngest children aged 1.5-3 years still consumed 40±149g/day. Considering only consumers (the other figures are population averages), this average is much higher at 181±83g/day.
Figures for soft drinks with no added sugar are even higher, at 169±271g/day for 1.5-3 year olds, or among the 54% consumers 313±198g/day. This is higher than teenagers (11-18 year olds: 153±235g/day, 53% consumers 287±202g/day). A proportion of these drinks will contain non-sugar sweeteners, which are meant to be avoided by young children.
Levels of fruit juices and smoothie consumption are also concerning given their high free sugar contents, at 43±86g/day for 1.5-3 year olds, or among the 37% consumers 117±83g/day.
These figures are concerning because young children should be drinking water or milk. Sugary drinks drive excess energy intake, weight gain and dental decay, and sweetened drinks can cause dental erosion if they contain acids, and encourage sweet preference.
Other
Other interesting findings from the report with respect to 1-5-3 year olds include that 3% still consume a formula milk (unnecessarily), 14% consume commercial baby and toddler foods and 9% consume plant-based milk alternatives. Free sugar levels in toddler and growing up milks and commercial baby foods are a concern and avoidable. Plant-based milk alternatives are not nutritionally equivalent to cows’ milk and need to be chosen with care for young children.
Energy and nutrient intakes
The Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) for energy is the amount of calories that will meet the needs of about half the general population. The EAR varies by age and sex. Average energy intakes were below the EAR (likely due to underreporting), with the exception of 1.5 to 3 year olds.
Saturated fats
The UK government recommends that, from the age of 2 years, no more than 10% of energy comes from saturated fats. For 2019 to 2023, average intakes exceeded the recommendation, including for 1.5 to 3 year olds, for whom saturated fats provided 13.5±3.1% of energy, compared to 12.6% for adults.
Free sugars
The UK government recommends that, from the age of 1 year, no more than 5% of energy comes from free sugars. Average intakes were 8.1±4.4% for 1.5 to 3 year olds, compared to 10% for adults. Top food sources for 1.5 to 3 year olds (showing food types which could benefit from reformulation and/or where we need consumption to be reduced / parents need to be enabled to access less sugary options) were: fruit and veg juice and smoothies (12%), breakfast cereals (9%), yoghurts, fromage frais and dairy desserts (9%), biscuits (8%), buns/cakes/pastries/fruit pies (8%) and sugars/preserves/sweet spreads (8%).
Fibre
Most people do not meet UK government fibre recommendations (at least 30g per day for adults and 15-25g per day for children depending on their age, 15g for 1.5-3 year olds). 78% of 1.5-3 year olds and 86% of 4-10 year olds did not meet the recommendation for their age group; 1.5-3 year olds consumed 12.5±3.7g fibre on average.
Nutritional status
While 10% of 4-10 year olds had low vitamin D status, there was no new data for 1.5-3 year olds and no new data for folate or iodine (which are more of a concern for other age groups anyway).
Dietary inequalities
Participants in higher income households in 2019 to 2023 were closer to meeting some dietary recommendations. However, where diets failed to meet recommendations, this was consistent across the range of incomes.
There was a slight increase in intake of fruit and vegetables with increasing income for all age and sex groups. Fibre intake also increased, on average, with increasing income across all age and sex groups.
There was little variation in energy (calorie) intakes by income for most population groups. This was largely also the case for percentage energy from free sugars. Looking at equivalised index of multiple deprivation (EIMD) for England, for all age groups, mean free sugars intake exceeded the recommendation of no more than 5% of energy across quintiles. However, in all age groups, mean intake of free sugars as a percentage of energy was highest in the most deprived EIMD quintile.
There was a downward trend in quantities of sugar-sweetened soft drinks being consumed with increasing income among 1.5-3 year olds, whereas for most age and sex groups, the percentage of consumers of buns, cakes and pastries increased with increasing household income and the largest increases were seen among 1.5-3-year-olds.
Folate status (RBC folate concentration) of women of childbearing age (16 to 49 years) tended to increase with increasing income. No association was seen for other population groups.
Food and drinks from the out of home sector
Almost three-quarters (72%) of participants reported buying food or drink out of home (e.g. cafes, pubs, takeaways) in the last 7 days, with most making purchases 1 to 2 times a week. 61% purchased for 1.5-3 year olds; 39% purchasing drinks, 32% lunch, 31% snacks, and 24% dinner, at least once, mostly from cafes/delis (15%), fast food/takeaways (15%), canteens at work or place of study (13%) and restaurants/pubs (11%). A total of 7% of eating events were out of home, though these contributed 18% to energy and 19% to free sugars. This indicates that what is available out of home for young children is not nutritionally balanced and contributes disproportionately to energy and free sugar intakes.
Summary
To summarise, this latest NDNS data show that average diets for young children aged 1.5-3 years are sub optimal with some inequalities; overall they consume too much energy, from excess free sugars (from foods and drinks that are too sweet and often discretionary) and diets containing too much saturated fat and too little fibre. Foods and drinks purchased out of home contribute disproportionately to energy and free sugar intakes. Levels of consumption of unnecessary artificially sweetened drinks are also likely to be high.
Policy actions to improve the wider food environment, such as this week’s announcement of mandatory health targets for supermarketshave the potential to support improvements in young children’s diets. However, much more needs to be done to enable families -especially those on the lowest incomes - to feed their children nutritious diets based on minimally processed foods, starting from infancy. This includes strengthening the Healthy Start scheme, strengthening and enforcing regulations on composition and marketing of commercial baby foods and marketing of formula milks, ensuring support for parents through a properly resourced health visiting service, and more. A summary of our policy asks healthy early years diets can be found here.
Last month, the Grocer published its regular market report on baby products including formula milks and baby foods. Its title ‘Have the big baby brands lost their way?’ reflects the scrutiny that the sector has been under in the media in recent months – largely due to the CMA’s Infant and Follow on Market study and the BBC’s Panorama, ‘The Truth about Baby Food Pouches’.
Image credits above and below: The Grocer
Using Kantar data from January 2024, the report looks at retail sales value of different product categories. It reports that the ‘baby milk’ (i.e., infant and follow on formulas and growing up milks) category is up 3.7%, baby foods 3.5%, but baby ‘finger foods’ (i.e., snacks) a massive 11% (read more about why this is problematic in our newsletter piece above.
When analysing brand data from March 2024, the Grocer shares that Organix and Kiddilicious have seen the value of retail sales grow 9.2% and 8.4% respectively, while Ella’s Kitchen, Heinz and Hipp have all seen a decline.
This data suggests some changes in brand loyalty that could be influenced by the types of products they are selling and their brand communications, e.g. where brands are marketing baby snacks which parents/carers still believe are healthy options for young babies (read our newsletter piece above).
We continue to call for stronger, mandatory and properly enforced regulations on commercial baby foods and for the Government to accept the Competition and Market Authority (CMA)’s 11 recommendations to improve the baby formula industry. Our position on baby foods can be found here, and on the CMA’s formula market recommendations can be found here.
New paper: “Association of low-calorie sweetened product consumption and intakes of free sugar and ultra-processed foods in UK children: a national study from 2008 to 2019”.
Seesen and colleagues published this insightful paper in the European Journal of Nutrition on 26 June.
This study examined the trends and associations between the consumption of LCS (low-and no-calorie sweetened) foods and drinks and intakes of sugar, total energy, water, and ultra-processed food (UPFs) in UK children aged 4–18 years, using nationally representative dietary survey data (from the NDNS) collected between 2008 and 2019.
The context is that efforts to reduce free sugar intakes have promoted the consumption of LCS, including in children; both directly (e.g. through advising healthier food swaps from high sugar to low sugar products with LCS) and indirectly (e.g. through the soft drinks industry levy leading to greater sales of LCS soft drinks). There is a mixed evidence base on LCS and health, which includes evidence of harm (see our May newsletter piece on the latest SACN position on non-sugar sweeteners), but at the same time little is known about how LCS consumption is associated with children’s diet quality more broadly.
In this study, children (median age 10 years old in 2008-09) were assigned a group based on their LCS consumption as analysed from 4 day diet recall data – no LCS, low, mid and high LCS consumption.
Results included:
A large proportion of children consumed LCS products in 2008–2009 – 70.4%, mean 256.5g/d - and this level of consumption did not change over time.
Children in the high LCS product consumption group had lower intakes of water and other drinks compared with non-consumers. Also, though water intakes increased over time for all children, the increase was less for high LCS consumers. These findings suggest that LCS drinks displace water.
High LCS children also had lower sugar intakes in 2008–2009 compared with non-consumers, but this difference was less after 11 years. Also, whether no, low or high LCS, all children were consuming too much free sugars, and although intakes have decreased over time (and more for no/low LCS), they are still far above the recommended maximum of 5% Total Dietary Energy Intake from free sugars recommended by SACN).
There was a greater decline in the total energy intake among children with the highest LCS product consumption compared with non-consumers.
All LCS consumption groups had similar declines in the consumption of UPF over the study period, except for the high-LCS group whose decline was less pronounced.
The authors highlight that the diminishing difference in free-sugar intake between the high LCS and no LCS groups by 2018–2019 raises the question of whether the promotion of LCS as alternatives to sugar-sweetened products is an effective public health strategy to reduce free sugar intake in children and improve overall dietary patterns. They also highlight that LCS products may be key components of an UPF dietary pattern and state “Health policies aimed at improving children’s diets [need] to sufficiently consider the evidence and debate on the health risks and benefits of LCS products”. They share a view that the substitution of sugar sweetened drinks with those containing LCS may present a missed opportunity to increase water consumption in children. Lastly, they stress the need for more comprehensive consideration of dietary patterns, beyond individual nutrients.
It is timely that in April, SACN published a statement on the WHO guideline on non-sugar sweeteners, and recommended that their intake be minimised (see our May newsletter). More specifically,
For younger children, SACN recommends:
not giving them drinks sweetened with sugar or non-sugar sweeteners
giving them unsweetened food (not sweetened with either sugar or non-sugar sweeteners)
For older children and adults, SACN recommends:
swapping sugars for non-sugar sweeteners may help reduce sugar intake from foods and drinks (and so reduce energy intake), at least in the short term - the long-term goal is to limit both sugar and non-sugar sweeteners intake
A key question remains HOW these changes can be enabled given the pervasiveness of non-sugar sweeteners in our food supply. Watch this space for an update of our 2019 report on sweeteners in the diets of young children in the UK, including updated policy recommendations.
On 27 June 2025, the Partnerships Team from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) launched a new Start for Life Early Years newsletter. This monthly newsletter will highlight a topic or campaign within the early years, and share the free resources available from the DHSC Campaign Resource Centre and beyond. This service aims to provide partners with campaign tips, communications messaging, statistics and case studies to support their work.
To sign up to receive these newsletters, you will need to create an account on the Campaign Resource Centre and can then elect to sign up to receive emails, and choose which topics are relevant to you.
New: Scotland’s new Breastfeeding and Infant Feeding Strategic Framework (2025-2030)
On 9 June 2025, the Children and Families Directorate of the Scottish Government published Scotland’s Breastfeeding and Infant Feeding Strategic Framework (2025-2030) including a Road Map and Delivery Plan. This comprehensive document describes the national actions on how pregnant women, mothers and new parents in Scotland will be supported on their infant feeding journeys, as well as how Scotland plans to continue to reduce breastfeeding inequalities and improve experiences, all informed by evidence of what works in Scotland. The strategic framework outlines Scotland’s commitment to improving breastfeeding and infant feeding practices from 2025 to 2030, through evidence-based actions and policies, emphasising the importance of support for diverse families. The strategic framework includes a vision and 6 strategic goals with corresponding objectives, outcomes and measures for each goal.
This is a valuable resource with up-to-date information and content on breastfeeding and infant feeding support. While this strategic framework has been specifically developed for Scotland, it contains content and resources that can be applied to other contexts as well.
There were some positive reductions in the cost of first infant formula:
Cow and Gate and Aptamil 1 prices were reduced in Tesco’s, Sainsbury’s and ASDA, in April to May 2025.
Aldi pledged to freeze the price of its Mamia First Infant Formula for the remainder of 2025 since June.
However, they show that SMA Little Steps increased in some retailers and reduced in others.
In November 2024, Ocado reduced the price of SMA Little Steps from £9.75 to £7.95, bringing the price in line with other major retailers at the time.
In May to June 2025 both ASDA and Morrison’s increased the price of Little Steps from £7.95 to £8.40 and £8.43 respectively.
All seven other major retailers sampled sell the Little Steps 800g tin for £7.99.
Image credit: The Food Foundation
Table 1: First Infant Milk Formula 800g tin prices, June 2025 Ranking cheapest (green) and most expensive (orange) retailers for each brand, and price changes since October 2024 (in brackets and coloured text)
Reflecting The Food Foundation’s findings, our latest infant formula cost trend analysisin May showed 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.
There are just four first infant formula (including Aldi and Lidl own-brand products) that are affordable under the Healthy Start scheme that provides £8.50 per week to eligible families with children under the age of one.
The Food Foundation, like us, is calling on the Government to accept all 11 of the recommendations made by the CMA, and to increase the value of the Healthy Start scheme weekly payments in line with inflation and ensure the value continues to be index-linked and expand eligibility so more families benefit from the support. This would increase infant formula accessibility as well as supporting breastfeeding. Our view is that the Government should also consider price controls, especially profit margin caps, to improve infant formula affordability, bringing infant formula prices down in the short term and sustainably.
After an increasing number of queries about rice-based formula milks (including ‘Sprout’ vegan formula from Australia, and ‘Arize’, a new FSMP on the UK market), we have created this new infographic:
Two key points:
'Arize' is plant-based but not vegan. As it is an FSMP, it should only be used under medical supervision and is intended for infants with diagnosed cows’ milk allergy.
‘Sprout’ does NOT meet UK/European regulations for infant formula composition in a number of ways, which means we would not endorse its use.
You can find out more about both products in our FAQ ‘what rice-based formula milks are available and are they recommended?’ here.
On 24 June 2025, the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative UK 2024 reportwas launched in parliament, by a well-attended event hosted by Jess Brown-Fuller, MP. The evening was chaired by journalist Kate Quilton and included presentations by Helen Gray (from the WBTi UK Steering Group), Prof Nigel Rollins (Queens University, Belfast and previously with the WHO Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing) and Prof Amy Brown (Professor of Maternal and Child Health at Swansea University).
The event included critical discussions of the current challenges surrounding breastfeeding and infant feeding families in the UK are experiencing, together with recommendations that could help support families. The many gaps include a lack of an integrated infant feeding strategy, insufficient and wholly inadequately funded breastfeeding support together with weak regulations which currently allow rampant marketing of formula milks, and excessively high prices and profiteering by formula companies.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a news piece about the WBTi UK parliamentary launch, Formula milk: Overpriced and misleading products are risking child health, say campaigners. This BMJ piece reiterates the need for government action to protect families against the current high prices and misleading marketing of infant formula products that are exploiting parents and risking children’s health, due to weak regulations.
We eagerly await the formal government response to the CMA report.
On Tuesday 1 July 2025, Jess Brown-Fuller, MP, led an Adjournment debate on Infant feeding in the House of Commons. The link to the video of the debate is available here and the transcript is here. The speech covered many important issues over a short space of time, using a combination of evidence, reports, statistics together with local examples, personal stories and lived experience. A total of 7 different MPs (from across different political parties and including 5 men) spoke through interventions, providing constructive, relevant and timely messaging that complemented Jess’s speech. The response from Ashley Dalton, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, was quite comprehensive in acknowledging the issues, while repeating familiar messages from the Department of Health and Social Care. Minister Dalton confirmed that the NHS 10-year Plan will be launched on Thursday 3 July 2025, and we eagerly await this, and any commitments to protecting and improving the diets of babies and young children.
Webinar: Findings of the study: Maternal wellbeing, infant feeding and return to paid work. 16 July, 1pm, online
Professor Sarah Jewell and colleagues are hosting a special online event launching the findings of their “Maternal Wellbeing, Infant Feeding and Return to Paid Work” study funded by the Nuffield Foundation. This one-hour webinar will share key insights from the study, introduce their toolkits for parents and employers, and offer a space for interactive discussion about how workplaces can better support mothers returning to paid work while breastfeeding.
Each year, the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Actioncreates a theme and resources for World Breastfeeding Week (WBW), which takes place from 1-7 August. For WBW 2025, the global theme is Prioritise Breastfeeding: Create sustainable support systems. This theme focuses on environment and climate change, by highlighting our roles in supporting breastfeeding to create a sustainable environment while simultaneously reducing the climate-related impacts of formula feeding. This can include highlighting that breastfeeding is a natural, renewable food that is environmentally safe, produced and delivered without pollution, packaging or waste and is a sustainable way of feeding infants that is good for the planet and its people. We can also create awareness around the carbon and water footprints associated with consumption of commercial milk formula, as can be measured through the Green Feeding Climate Action Tool.
The WBW 2025 website contains a wealth of resources, including the following (which are available in multiple languages):
The WBW 2025 websitecontains links to various WBW social media accounts that can be followed, including Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram and a YouTube channel.
This year’s annual Unicef UK BFI conference is in person at the Telford International conference centre. From confronting corporate power, the latest research on the microbiome, and updates on the Infant Feeding Survey, the programme features a diverse range of talks by renowned professionals and researchers. Information on the programme and speakers can be found here and the early bird rate for discounted booking is open until midnight on 31st July 2025. See you there!
