Warning baby food pouches 'more sugary than Coke' risk giving infants a sweet tooth for life
Baby food pouches are more sugary than Coke and risk giving infants a sweet tooth for life, experts warn.
Shock research has found some contain more sugar in a single pouch than a one-year-old should have in a day. The British Dental Association (BDA) and BBC Panorama commissioned laboratory testing of 18 pouches made by six leading brands Ella's Kitchen, Heinz, Piccolo, Little Freddie, Aldi and Lidl and found over a quarter of the fruit-based pouches contained more sugar by volume than Coca Cola. A number of the savoury pouches often used as meal replacements were also low in iron.
Eddie Crouch, chair of the BDA, said: 'Parents of infants are still being marketed products sugarier than Coke. It shouldn't take dentists naming and shaming the worst offenders to bring about needed change. Voluntary action has failed. We need Government to step up and force industry to do the right thing.'
Manufacturers responded to the BBC acknowledging the pouches should only be a complementary part of a child's varied weaning diet.
The probe found parents of infants as young as four months were marketed pouches that contain the equivalent of up to 184% of the sugar levels of the soft drink. A 330ml can of Coca-Cola in the UK contains 35 grams of sugar. This equates to 10.6 grams of sugar per 100ml.
Research shows too much can lead to tooth decay, weight gain and obesity, which increases the risk of developing chronic diseases later in life. It can also impair brain development. The NHS says an infant should have as little sugar as possible and a one-year-old should have no more than 10g of free sugars a day.
Free sugars occur when fruit is pureed, which releases sugar from inside fruit cell walls and can be absorbed much more quickly. Experts agree eating fresh fruit is much better. A recent BDA report indicated that 37 of 60 fruit pouches found on supermarket shelves contained more free sugar than this 10g guideline.
Separate research by Leeds University assessed 632 baby food products marketed towards babies and toddlers under three years old. It found that more than half of snack products contain added sugars while 41% of main meals were too sweet and had high sugar levels. It concluded 89% of fruit products should carry a 'high sugar' warning label according to international recommendations
Researcher Dr Diane Threapleton, of Leeds University, said: Dr Threapleton said: 'Babies and toddlers are in a period of rapid and important growth and good nutrition is needed to support their development. It is therefore critical that commercial products are nutritious options, not laden with sugar.
'Commercial baby foods are often highly pureed. When the main ingredients are fruit, this poses a particular problem because the sugar that would be contained within the food matrix, and therefore slowly digested, becomes readily available in the mouth. This means that pureed baby foods taste very sweet, strengthening preferences for sugary foods throughout life, and teeth are being exposed to high levels of sugar.'
The BDA and Panorama investigation commissioned a laboratory approved by the UK Accreditation Service to independently test the nutritional value of a fruit, yoghurt and savoury pouch from each of the six leading brands. Fruit pouches marketed as having "no added sugar" contain about four teaspoons of so-called "free sugars" which are created when fruit is blended.
Advertising claims for the pouches included phrases like 'only naturally occurring sugars", 'no added sugars", "nutritionist approved', 'organic', 'high in fibre' and 'containing 1 of your 5 a day'. Manufacturers insisted to the Mirror that parents would be aware such products would be so high in natural sugars.
Dr Alison Tedstone, who spent nine years as chief nutritionist to the UK government, told the BBC: "You think as a parent it is a healthy product, and it just isn't. I would hope that ministers, when they think about the baby food industry, recognise that we need to protect our babies. [Businesses] are not going to change unless they are forced to."
UK guidance recommends to start introducing solid foods to babies around 6 months of age, alongside breast milk or formula. The BDA said that at the time this research was undertaken market leader Ella's Kitchen and Piccolo were pushing products to 4-month olds contrary to Government guidelines, stating that 'every baby is different'. Piccolo has since dropped its four months marketing.
There are more than 250 of these products on the multi-million pound baby pouch market - they have become a staple for many households with babies and children up to the age of two or three. They are convenient and have long shelf lives. Savoury pouches in particular are used by some families as replacements for main meals. Some were found to contain less than 5% of the key nutrient, iron, that an infant needs each day.
Baby food pouches are topped off with a spout but both the NHS and the World Health Organization say it should not be used to suck directly from the pouch. It means babies can eat too fast and it can cause dental decay. The Leeds University study found pouches with spouts make up over a third of the baby foods market (38%) and around half did not include a recommendation not to let children drink via the spout.
The university's survey of 1,000 parents found that families rely on commercial baby and toddler foods, with 47% using these 'always' or 'most of the time'. Dr Threapleton said: 'We know that many parents and carers rely on these commercial baby foods, and in the UK they are so widely available as to be almost unavoidable.'
She added: 'Voluntary guidelines are often ineffective, and so regulation is needed to make sure that change happens. With around 1.7 million children between six and 36 months in the UK, 'baby food' is a massive market. Widespread availability of inappropriate products with poor nutritional quality will negatively impact child growth and development.'
Sue Davies, head of food policy at consumer group Which?, 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."
Barbara Crowther, Children's Food Campaign Manager at Sustain, which supported the parent Leeds University polling, said: 'All babies and children have a right to grow up healthy, but overwhelmingly the commercial baby and toddler food industry is misleading parents about the nutritional benefits of their products. Millions of parents regularly use these brands and want to trust them, so they're shocked and angry to learn the truth - that they're not nearly as healthy as they claim to be, and they're not even being regulated properly.'
All of the brands investigated by Panorama said their products were intended as a complementary part of a child's varied weaning diet.
Market leader Ella's Kitchen insisted 'nothing is more important to us than the safety of little ones' A spokesperson said: 'It is misleading to compare our pouches to fizzy drinks, which are nutritionally empty. Our pouches contain only naturally occurring sugars from whole fruit and veg, alongside fibre, vitamins, and minerals – benefits that fizzy drinks simply don't offer. There are no added sugars or artificial ingredients in any of our products, which are specifically designed to support healthy growth and development in young children.
'What's more, these comparisons are often based on per-100g figures – not on the actual amounts consumed. A fizzy drink is typically consumed in one go and delivers far more sugar overall, without any of the nutritional value. We are confident that parents understand that fruit can be high in natural sugars, while containing vital nutrients.'
The company insisted it had already made the decision to change its marketing from four months plus, to six months plus, before being contacted by the BBC.
A Kraft Heinz spokesperson said: 'We're proud of the role we play in families' lives and remain committed to the health and well-being of infants and young children. We provide quality products based on nutrition science that meet the nutrient requirements specific to this life stage and adhere to stringent UK / EU regulation. Our convenient, resealable pouches, made from natural ingredients with no added sugars, should be used as a complementary part of a varied weaning diet (6+ months) and are designed to be squeezed into a bowl or straight onto a spoon – as communicated on pack."
A spokesman for Aldi said: 'Our fruit and vegetable first taste pouches can be used to introduce children to new flavours and full nutritional information is shown on the packaging. Any sugar in them is naturally occurring and would be the same in a fruit puree made at home. In line with other brands and retailers, we will be moving all of our products to '6 months+' going forward.'
Lidl said it offers one of the smallest baby food ranges in the market and aligns with wider industry norms. A spokeswoman said: 'All our pouches meet UK and EU safety and nutritional regulations, and we always look to align where there is guidance available. Our products are all organic and are therefore free from artificial additives, contain no added sugar or salt, and are clearly labelled to support informed choices.'
A spokesman for the British Specialist Nutrition Association said: 'Baby pouches can play an important role in offering parents convenient options to allow their little ones to experience new textures and flavours as they grow and develop, in a safe way. Whether homemade, or shop bought, the most important thing is in providing babies with a healthy, nutritious and balanced diet.'
A spokesman for the Department for Health and Social Care said: 'Good nutrition is a vital component of our aim to ensure all babies and infants have the best start in life. Existing laws already set nutrition needs for baby foods, and we support enforcement against any product that does not meet these expectations. More widely, we are committed to tackling the childhood obesity crisis and improving children's health through our Plan for Change, and the upcoming junk food advertising ban demonstrates the scale of our ambitions in this area.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Inside the town addicted to Coca-Cola where residents drink 800L every YEAR and children are bottle-fed with soft drink for heartbreaking reason
In a remote mountain town where clean drinking water is considered a luxury, locals are turning to Coca-Cola - and not just for refreshment. In Mexico 's poorest and southernmost state of Chiapas, fizzy drinks are deeply ingrained in the local culture. And in the town of San Cristobal de las Casas, the obsession has spiralled out of control, with some residents guzzling up to two litres of Coca-Cola every day, or around 800 litres a year, according to the Chiapas and Southern Border Multidisciplinary Research Center. The iconic red and white logos line shop shelves, street stalls and even sacred shrines. And the town's obsession with Coca-Cola does not stop there, as some residents are even known to fill their children's baby bottles with Coke instead of milk. An hour away from San Cristobal, in the Indigenous town of San Andres, locals consider the fizzy beverage liquid gold. Shamans will use it as part of their religious ceremonies and regularly pray over bottles of Coca-Cola as they carry out rituals. Fridges stocked with bottles of Coke sit next to their sacred shrines, ready to sell to faithful locals who use them as offerings, as many believe the drink has healing powers. But religion is not the only reason for the state's dependency on Coca-Cola, and behind the ritual lies a dark reality. With a growing population, safe drinking water has become increasingly scarce in the area, with some neighbourhoods only having access to running water a few times a week. Just seven percent of households in Chiapas believe their water is safe to drink, according to a 2023 national survey, forcing many to buy bottled water or the fizzy drink, which is just as cheap. A local plant owned by Femsa, a food and drink conglomerate that owns the rights to bottle and sell Coca-Cola in Latin America, is allowed to extract more than 1.3 million litres of water a day as part of a concession with the federal government, all while local communities struggle to find safe drinking water. Critics believe the multinational is guilty of having created a web of addiction. Doctor Marcos Arana, who campaigns against the power and influence of Coca-Cola, says that 'Coca-Cola has developed a strategy precisely so that it's available anywhere. 'They convince consumers to sell soft drinks on a small scale and obviously generates many captive customers'. The crisis goes back to 1994, when Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which paved the way for cheap and accessible soft drinks. As a result, Coca-Cola has flooded the market and has become embedded in Mexico's daily life and culture. But Coca-Cola's popularity has led to a 'catastrophic' obesity crisis in Chiapas, health officials say, with several residents now suffering from Type 2 diabetes. Mexico's children consume more junk food than anywhere else in Latin America, according to UNICEF, which classifies the nation's childhood obesity epidemic as an emergency. Sugary drinks and highly processed foods account for 40 percent of the total calories that children consume in a day, the agency reports. One third of Mexican children are already considered overweight or obese, according to government statistics. A 2020 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed Mexico stands to lose the greatest amount of life expectancy - an average of at least four years - due to obesity-related problems. In coming years, the country could lose over five percent of its GDP to obesity-related problems, including lost work hours and health costs. Health authorities say about 39 percent of Mexicans are overweight and 36 percent are obese. About 10 percent of Mexicans have some form of diabetes. In Coca-Cola-addicted Chiapas, which boasts a population of more than 5,000, people die from diabetes-related illnesses, making it the second leading cause of death after heart disease in the state. Obesity levels in Chiapas are largely linked to the consumption to the high-calorie sugary drink.
Daily Mail
22-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Coca-Cola changes recipe from corn syrup to cane sugar in sweet victory for Donald Trump
Coca-Cola has confirmed it is changing the recipe for its signature fizzy drink after an intervention by Donald Trump. The drinks giant will launch a Coca-Cola in the US this autumn that will be made with real cane sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup. Food firms have scrambled to change ingredients and include healthier substitutes amid Health Secretary Robert Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again campaign. The US President has also pushed for the change, declaring that Coke made with sugar is 'just better'. In a post on his Truth Social platform last week, he said the company had agreed to make the changes. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!' Trump wrote. Coca-Cola confirmed the move yesterday as it revealed revenues rose 2.5 per cent to £9.4billion in the three months to June 27.
The Independent
22-07-2025
- The Independent
Sweetening soft drinks: What to know about sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and their alternatives
President Donald Trump teased the announcement last week, but the Coca-Cola Co. confirmed it Tuesday: a cane sugar-sweetened version of the beverage maker's trademark soda will be released in the U.S. this fall. For decades, Coke and the makers of other soft drinks have generally used high-fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners in their products manufactured in the U.S. But American consumers are increasingly looking for food and drinks with fewer and more natural ingredients, and beverage companies are responding. PepsiCo and Dr Pepper have sold versions of their flagship sodas sweetened with cane sugar since 2009. Coca-Cola has sold Mexican Coke — which uses cane sugar — in the U.S. since 2005, but it's positioned a trendy alternative and sold in glass bottles. Coke with cane sugar will likely be more widely available. Here are some frequently asked questions about the sweeteners in U.S. sodas: What's the difference between cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup? Many consumers know that consuming too many sweets can negatively affect their health, but soda drinkers sometimes debate if either cane sugar or high-fructose corn syrup is better (or worse) than the other. The short answer is that it doesn't make a difference, said Marion Nestle, one of the nation's top nutrition experts and professor emeritus at New York University. High-fructose corn syrup is made of the simple sugars glucose and fructose in liquid form. Cane sugar, also known as sucrose, is made of glucose and fructose bonded, but quickly split, Nestle explained. Both are still sugars, with about the same amount of calories. Whether a can of Coca-Cola contains one or the other, it will still be a sugary drink with about the same amount of calories and the same potential to increase well-documented health problems from obesity and diabetes to tooth decay. Why did soda companies switch from using sugar to high-fructose corn syrup? High-fructose corn syrup costs less. According to price data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the wholesale price of HFCS-55, the type of corn syrup most commonly used in beverages, averaged 49.4 cents per pound last year. The average wholesale price of refined cane sugar was 60.1 cents per pound, while the average wholesale price of refined beet sugar was 51.7 cents per pound. But high-fructose corn syrup has advantages beyond price. According to a 2008 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, high-fructose corn syrup is more stable than sugar when added to acidic beverages, and it can be pumped directly from delivery trucks into storage and mixing tanks. Why is high-fructose corn syrup less expensive that sugar? Tariffs are one reason. The U.S. has had barriers on sugar imports almost back to its founding; the first went into place in 1789, according to the Cato Institute, a think tank that advocates free markets. Since the passage of the Farm Bill in 1981, the U.S. has had a system in place that raises duties on sugar once a certain amount has been imported. The U.S. also has domestic production controls that limit supplies, keeping prices higher. But high-fructose corn syrup is also cheaper because of the federal government's billions of dollars in subsidies for corn farmers. Loans, direct payments, insurance premium subsidies and surplus crop purchases all lower farmers' costs – and the price of the corn they grow. Are sugar replacements used in diet sodas safe? While cutting back on added sugars has documented benefits, replacing them with artificial sweeteners is complicated, too. Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, introduced in 2017, uses the artificial sweetener aspartame and the natural sweetener stevia in its recipe. But research suggests that aspartame may be linked to cancer. In 2023, a committee for the World Health Organization determined that aspartame should be categorized 'as possibly carcinogenic to humans.' While that doesn't mean that diet soda causes cancer, the scientific committee concluded that there may be a possible link between aspartame and liver cancer, and that the issue should be studied further. The U.S. Food and Drug administration disagreed with the WHO panel, citing 'significant shortcomings' in the research that backed the conclusion. FDA officials noted that aspartame is one of the most studied food additives and said 'FDA scientists do not have safety concerns' when it is used under approved conditions. Stevia, a plant-based sweetener, appears to be 'a safe choice,' according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. ___
