The baby food market has been steadily growing — and it’s not hard to understand why. With busy parents and more convenient options than ever, business is booming. However, a new study reveals a troubling reality: most of these commercial foods fail to meet basic nutritional standards.
Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health conducted a comprehensive analysis of 651 commercial baby food products in the United States. They examined the food’s nutritional content, comparing it with recommendations from World Health Organization’s (WHO). The results are concerning: 60% of these foods don’t meet the nutritional criteria, and none adhere to promotional guidelines.
Baby food is very important
Early childhood is a critical period for growth and development. Studies have shown that nutrition during this stage lays the foundation for lifelong health. The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are particularly vital, as this is when taste preferences and dietary habits are established, often persisting into adulthood.
Go into any big supermarket and you’re likely to find shelves stocked with a vast array of products designed specifically for infants and toddlers. As this can be very confusing, health organizations like the WHO have set up guidelines for infant nutrition. These include recommending exclusive breastfeeding until six months, followed by the introduction of solid foods without added sugars or high sodium content.
However, despite these recommendations, research consistently shows that many infants and toddlers are not meeting these dietary guidelines. Several studies have highlighted that ready-to-eat baby foods — high in added sugars, salt, and saturated fats — have become a significant concern. This new study backs that up.
The scientists who conducted the study collected data from the top 10 grocery chains, analyzing a total of 651 products. They evaluated each product against the WHO guidelines. Upon analysis, they found that 70% of products failed to meet protein requirements and 44% had more sugar than recommended. Around 25% of food products didn’t meet calorie requirements and another 20% exceeded recommended sodium limits. Snack-sized packages, in particular, had the lowest compliance with nutrient requirements.
Elizabeth Dunford, Research Fellow and study author, says the findings are concerning.
“Time-poor parents are increasingly choosing convenience foods, unaware that many of these products lack key nutrients needed for their child’s development and tricked into believing they are healthier than they really are.”
Misleading advertising
Beyond nutritional deficiencies, the study also highlighted the pervasive use of misleading marketing claims. Many products were marketed with terms like “organic,” “gluten-free,” or “non-GMO,” which, while true, distracted from their poor nutritional profiles. These mentions create a “health halo” effect, leading parents to believe the products are healthier than they actually are.
<!– Tag ID: zmescience_300x250_InContent_3
–>
Most products had at least one claim on the packaging that would be prohibited under the WHO guidelines. Some even had up to 11 prohibited claims. Moreover, some products used vague age labels like “sitter,” “tots,” or “crawling baby,” which could confuse parents about the appropriate age for introducing solid foods.
Simply put, many claims are meant to distract parents from the true nutritional value.
“The lack of regulation in this area leaves the door wide open for the food industry to deceive busy parents. We saw this not only in the use of misleading claims but also in the use of misleading names, where the product name did not reflect the main ingredients found on the ingredient list. For example, snack and finger foods often referred to fruit or vegetables in the product name, despite primarily being made of flour or other starches,” says co study author Daisy Coyle.
The market is growing
The study’s findings point to an urgent need for stricter regulations in the U.S. infant and toddler food market. Currently, there are no specific guidelines governing the nutritional composition or promotional practices for these foods in the United States. However, the WHO’s guidelines are useful framework that could serve as a model for U.S. policymakers. The researchers urge that the US should adopt standards for sugar, protein, sodium, and marketing claims, ensuring that baby foods are healthier and less misleading for parents.
This is all the more important because the market continues to grow.
The market for pouches, in particular, has increased 900% between 2010 and 2023. This rapid growth raises concerns because pouches not only dominate the market but also tend to have higher sugar content compared to other packaging types. The study suggests that the convenience of pouches and their perceived ease of use may be driving their popularity among parents, despite their poorer nutritional profiles.
“These pouches are very worrisome,” said Corkins, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition, to CNN. “Children have to learn to chew, so they should be eating regular fruits, not pureed, sweetened things in a pouch. Often, these blends are not natural and much sweeter than a real fruit, so the child’s being taught to only like supersweet things.”
The researchers also caution that this is something that policymakers seem to be less interested in than in the past. Given how long-lasting the consequences are, it’s high time policymakers in the US paid more attention to baby food, the researchers conclude.
“While reducing childhood obesity was a priority under the Obama administration, the issue appears to have fallen by the wayside in recent years,” added Dr. Dunford. “Our findings highlight the urgent need for better regulation and guidance in the infant and toddler foods market in the United States — the health of future generations depends on it.”
Journal Reference: Daisy H. Coyle et al, An Evaluation of the Nutritional and Promotional Profile of Commercial Foods for Infants and Toddlers in the United States, Nutrients (2024). DOI: 10.3390/nu16162782