Call for urgent action to protect infants from unhealthy food
Health campaigners have called on the Government to take urgent action to protect infants and young children following a study that found top brands are selling sugar-heavy, nutritionally poor baby food.
A coalition of 40 leading health and child organisations have written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care following the findings of the Leeds University research, featured in the BBC Panorama investigation The Truth About Baby Food Pouches which looked at 632 food products marketed towards babies and toddlers under three.
It found that 41% of main meals marketed for children had sugar levels that were too high and that 21% of ready-to-eat fruit products, cereals and meals were too watery and not providing adequate nutrition.
It also discovered that many early weaning foods were being sold as being suitable for babies aged four months, which goes against NHS and World Health Organisation guidance.
The study also found that a quarter of the products analysed were so high in sugar they would require a sugar warning label on the front of the pack, in accordance with WHO guidelines.
According to NHS guidelines, babies aged one should have no more than ten grams of sugar per day, and no more than 14 grams per day for children aged two and three.
The sugar recommendation is applicable to naturally occurring free sugars and added sugars.
The coalition warned of a 'worsening health crisis', with government data showing more children shifting from a healthy weight to overweight or obesity between Reception and Year 6 than the reverse, especially in the most deprived areas.
The Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) said it had serious concerns that without urgent action, today's children could grow up facing worse health outcomes than their parents.
It is calling for stronger regulation of the commercial baby food sector, including mandatory limits for sugar in baby and toddler foods, stronger restrictions for 'unnecessary' follow-on formula milk products, and clearer, 'more responsible' marketing and labelling.
The coalition said that despite recent progress – such as restrictions on junk food advertising on TV before 9pm and online at any time, the forthcoming multibuy promotion ban, and the proposed extension of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy to sugary milk drinks – the measures did not go far enough.
OHA director Katharine Jenner said: 'The evidence is clear: children's health is being compromised from the very start of life.
'Given industry has failed to act voluntarily, it's now time for government intervention to protect the next generation and grant every child a healthier start.
'From the moment they're born, babies are bombarded with sugary, highly processed foods.
'It's fuelling a health crisis that starts in infancy and is almost impossible to undo later in life. Ignoring the issue is no longer an option.'
Which? head of food policy Sue Davies said: 'It's unacceptable that so many foods and snacks aimed at babies have such poor nutritional quality and high sugar levels.
'To make matters worse, these items are often misleadingly marketed as being healthy, making it difficult for parents to make informed choices about the best products to buy for their children.
'The Government urgently needs to update the out-of-date laws for commercial baby foods to ensure there are tighter controls on their composition, including limits on their sugar and salt content, make labelling clear and upfront, and clamp down on any misleading marketing claims that suggest products are healthier than they really are.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
NHS gets an extra £29billion a year but waiting list targets may STILL be missed, health chiefs say
The NHS is unlikely to hit waiting time targets despite getting an extra £29billion a year in the Spending Review, health chiefs said last night. Economists described the real-terms rise as 'substantial', with the health service budget now equal to the entire annual income of Portugal. But patients were yesterday told to brace for cuts to services, with much of the extra cash set to be swallowed up by inflation-busting pay rises and higher drugs costs. Rachel Reeves told the Commons she is making a 'record cash investment' in the NHS, worth an extra 3 per cent a year in real terms. The Chancellor insisted this would lead to 'more appointments, more doctors and more scanners' as Labour seeks to deliver on its manifesto promise to get the NHS 'back on its feet'. But the settlement received a lukewarm response from NHS bosses, who said they would need even more money if the Government is to achieve its aim of treating 92 per cent of patients within 18 weeks of a GP referral by the end of this Parliament. Matthew Taylor, of the NHS Confederation, which represents health organisations, said: 'Difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29billion won't be enough to cover increasing costs of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it. 'On its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sir Jim Mackey, chief executive of NHS England, told the NHS ConfedExpo conference in Manchester that the health service has done 'really well relative to other parts of the public service'. But he added: 'We all know it's never enough because of the scale of advancement, all the ambition, the day-to-day cost pressures... but I think everyone's starting to accept and understand we've got what the country can afford to give us. 'We really need to get better value for that money – it is broadly the equivalent of the GDP of Portugal, so it's a huge amount.' Government documents accompanying the Spending Review show that, on average, from 2023/24 to 2028/29, the NHS in England will receive 3 per cent real-terms growth in day-to-day spending, equivalent to a £29billion increase in annual budgets. The figures suggest Department of Health and Social Care spending will rise 2.8 per cent – less than the average 3.6 per cent seen in recent years. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the NHS was the 'biggest winner' in the Spending Review and described the Department of Health as a 'behemoth'. But he added: 'Even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough. Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' Sarah Woolnough, of health think-tank the King's Fund, said: 'It is hard to see how all the things she [Ms Reeves] mentions – faster ambulance times, more GP appointments and adequate mental health services and more – can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines... and staff pay deals.' However, she said the upcoming ten-year plan could lead to better, more efficient NHS services. According to spending review documents, the Government expects the NHS to deliver 2 per cent productivity growth each year, 'unlocking £17 billion savings over three years' to reinvest and improve patient care. Sally Gainsbury, at the Nuffield Trust health think-tank, said: 'Compared to settlements for other departments... the NHS deal looks generous. 'But seen in the context of all the promises made by the Government – to drive down waiting lists, shift care closer to home, rapidly improve tech – and the commitments to meet staff pay demands and rising costs of drugs, today's settlement soon melts away. 'With capital funding staying flat in real terms for the rest of the spending review period, it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the Government's ambitious productivity targets.' The Government said it will also invest up to £10 billion in NHS technology and digital transformation by 2028/29, plus £6 billion to speed up tests and treatments. Scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres are among things the additional cash – part of the overall £29 billion – will pay for, with the aim of providing up to 4 million more tests and procedures in the next five years.
South Wales Guardian
30 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Reeves announces £6 billion to provide millions of NHS tests and procedures
New scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres are among the things which the additional cash will pay for, with the aim of providing up to four million more tests and procedures over the next five years. The announcement comes after the Chancellor put NHS funding at the heart of her spending review on Wednesday, raising its budget in a move worth £29 billion a year. This comes, however, at the expense of other areas of public spending. The new £6 billion funding will help to meet the Government's target of reducing NHS waiting lists in England, the Chancellor claimed. 'Over a decade of underinvestment from the previous government put the NHS on its knees, with people across the country unable to get the care they need. We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around,' Ms Reeves said. She added: 'Part of our record investment will deliver four million tests, scans and procedures, so hard-working people can get the healthcare they and their families need. 'There is no strong economy without a strong NHS, and we'll deliver on our Plan for Change to end the hospital backlog, improve living standards and get more money in people's pockets.' The latest spending commitment will help patients get access to diagnostic scans and treatment in places such as shopping centres and high streets, speeding up their diagnoses. The Government hopes this will help to cut NHS waiting lists, meeting Labour's goal of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: 'Since taking office we have been relentless in our drive to cut waiting times for patients, delivering over 3.6 million extra elective care appointments and reducing the overall waiting list by over 200,000. 'The £6 billion investment we are announcing today will generate millions more vital diagnostic tests, scans and procedures for patients across the country.' On Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after giving the NHS a 3% annual increase in funding at the spending review. Some health leaders are, however, sceptical that the Government will meet its target, despite the funding boost provided at the spending review. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all health organisations, warned 'difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29 billion won't be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it'. He added: 'So, on its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the King's Fund charity, said: 'The Chancellor said she wants the public to have an NHS there when they need it. 'It is hard to see how all the things she mentions: faster ambulance times, more GP appointments, and adequate mental health services and more can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this additional funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines, which are currently being negotiated, and covering staff pay deals.'
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Experts pinpoint exactly how long you need to use a contraceptive pill to increase your risk of a brain tumour
Millions of women taking the mini-pill could be at increased risk of developing a brain tumour, new research suggests. Experts found that women taking the progestogen-only pill—often dubbed 'the mini-pill' continuously for more than five years were more likely to develop a meningioma. Meningiomas accounts for a third of all brain tumours diagnosed in the UK each year. While usually non-cancerous they can still cause problems they grow larger inside the brain. In the new study, French researchers analysed data from over 8,000 women, with an average age of 60, who had surgery for this form of tumour. They found women who did were more likely to have been taking the mini pill—medically called desogestrel for at least five years. However, independent experts have said women on the medication shouldn't panic, as the increased risk is relatively small. Desogestrel, in contrast to the more famous Pill, only contains one sex hormone progestogen. It is primarily taken by women with underlying health conditions that makes taking other contraceptives dangerous, or who suffer adverse side effects when doing so. The NHS says natural family planning can be up to 99 per cent effective when done correctly and around 75 per cent if not used according to instructions. By comparison, the Pill, implant, IUS and IUD are 99 per cent effective with perfect use, while condoms are 98 per cent While the increased risk of a meningioma was observed, the authors—who published their findings in the British Medical Journal —said it was relatively minor. They outlined that only one out of 67,000 women taking desogestrel will develop a meningioma requiring surgery. The scientists also found that there was no increased risk when the mini pill was used for less than five years. They also found that the increased risk disappeared a year after coming off the mini pill. Meningiomas are a tumour of the membrane that surrounds the brain, with more than 90 per cent of these are not cancerous. While not at risk of spreading elsewhere in the body like a cancerous growth they can still cause patients problems. Every year proportion of meningioma patients will need surgery to remove the tumour due to it causing increased internal pressure on the brain. Common symptoms of a meningioma include a persistent headache as well as constant nausea which is often accompanied with drowsiness. Dr Mangesh Thorat, an expert in population health at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, said women on the medication shouldn't be alarmed. 'The magnitude of increase in the risk is small, and short-term use is not associated with increased risk and that the excess risk ceases to exist once the use is stopped for more than a year,' he said. He advised women who may be concerned about their risk to contact their GP. 'Talk to your healthcare provider regarding the drug you are using. If it is associated with an increased risk of meningioma, this can be changed to a safer alternative,' he said. Experts say that a limitation of the study is that the researchers only looked at one type of progestogen pill—desogestrel and not other drugs that also include the hormone. Dr Thorat said: 'the study cannot provide information on the formulations not commonly used in France but used in other countries.' He has called on further studies to be undertaken in different countries. Figures currently suggest around 6 per cent of women aged 16 to 49 use the mini pill in the UK—roughly 3.1 million patients. Taken every day, it works by thickening cervical mucus and thinning the womb lining which helps stop sperm reaching an egg and from a fertilised egg attaching itself in the womb. In some cases, the mini pill can also stop ovulation from occurring. It is 99.7 per cent effective with perfect use but if used incorrectly—such as missing a pill or experiencing nausea and diarrhoea while on it—around one in ten women (9 per cent) may get pregnant. Known side effects of the mini pill—proven to be over 99 per cent effective at stopping pregnancy—include nausea, breast tenderness, mood swings and headaches. Others claim they pile on pounds while taking the drug because of increased fluid retention and appetite. However, the NHS says there is no evidence it leads to weight gain. The latest study comes just a month after British scientists found that women with asthma who are taking the mini pill were a third more likely to suffer an attack.
