|
Image by ededchechine via Magnific
Welcome to our July newsletter, the contents of which are as follows:
|
|
|
News
Infant milk news
Forthcoming
Happy reading!
|
|
|
New report: Infant Feeding Survey for England, 2024
|
|
|
The Infant Feeding Survey for England was published on 4 June. The report is long awaited, coming 14 years after the last one published in 2012 and based on data collected in 2010.
|
|
The survey is longitudinal with data collection from mothers sampled from NHS England’s Maternity Services Dataset when their babies were age 2-5 months (phase 1), 4-7 months (phase 2) and 8-10 months (phase 3). Drop out was quite high with responses at each phase of data collection 10,168, 5,064 and 3,542 respectively. Results are weighted to be representative of mothers giving birth in England in August and December 2023, although it is important to consider limitations in generalisability given the profile of women who may have chosen not to respond to the survey.
Because the method is different to the 2012 survey the results are also not directly comparable. Population changes including ageing of mothers also affect results. However, the general trend - which is consistent with routine surveillance trends and service delivery and public health efforts over the years since the last survey - is one of some improvement in feeding practices towards public health recommendations.
Below we pick out some of the key statistics and interesting findings and share our tentative interpretations and implications for practice. It’s a long and informative survey and we encourage practitioners to look at the detail for yourselves depending on what seems most relevant to your practice. We would like to credit Professor Amy Brown for her presentation at the APPG on Infant Feeding and Inequalities on 30 June which informs a part of this write up.
Breastfeeding
- 86% of mothers initiated breastfeeding (compared to 83% in 2010), 58% of mothers reported breastfeeding at 6 months (compared to 36% in 2010), 26% exclusively (compared with 1% in 2010).
- Of all mothers who started breastfeeding, 68% continued to breastfeed for at least 6 months (compared to 43% in 2010) and mothers who already had children tended to breastfeed for longer (including exclusively) than first-time mothers.
- These are encouraging findings (even better than surveillance data, noting the comment about representativeness above), though they mask known inequalities which are important to address in practice. For initiation and any breastfeeding, older women, those in ethnic minority groups and those living in the least deprived areas were more likely to breastfeed than younger, White women living in more deprived areas.
- Mothers who had breastfed their other children were asked how long they did so for. 19% had breastfed for 13 – 18 months, 12% had breastfed until they were between 19 and 24 months old and 8% had breastfed until they were over 2 years.
- 19% of women living in deprived areas were not aware of the health benefits of breastfeeding, compared to 8% of mothers in the least deprived areas.
- This shows the importance of ongoing breastfeeding promotion to ensure all mothers can make informed decisions about how they are feeding their babies. Action on misleading formula marketing is the other vital part of the equation (as this paper by Athanasiadou and colleagues shows. You can read a summary of this in our May 2025 newsletter).
- 72% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding by the time their baby was 4-6 months old said they would have liked to breastfeed for longer. Reasons given included not latching/rejecting the breast, perceived milk insufficiency and pain.
- More support – from hospital staff (30%), community midwives (21%), health visitors (22%) and family (18%) - was cited as something that could have helped mothers breastfeed for longer.
- At 8 to 10 months, 59% of mothers had ever breastfed in public (compared to 58% in 2010) but 31% had felt uncomfortable (compared to 43% in 2010) and 12% had been stopped or made to feel uncomfortable (compared to 11% in 2010).
- However, more mothers were aware of the legislation protecting their right to breastfeed (56%) than not (44%).
- The findings indicate that a variety of options are needed to enable mothers to feel confident and comfortable to breastfeed in public, and greater efforts are needed to uphold their right.
- As babies age, mothers are more likely to go back to work and to work longer hours; e.g. when babies were 8-10 months of age, 21% of mothers were in paid work (40% > 31 hours a week).
- Of mothers currently in paid work, the majority said that returning to paid work had not affected how they fed their baby (71% at age 4-7 months; 62% at age 8-10 months) and around a third planned to stop or reduce breastfeeding when they returned to paid work.
- Only 32% of mothers said their employer provided facilities at work for expressing and storing breast milk, or breastfeeding and 41% did not know, showing room for improvement (although this is still a marked improvement on 24% in 2010).
Support during pregnancy and after birth
- Positively, 99% of mothers attended antenatal checkups and 84% discussed feeding at those checkups.
- However, only 59% of mothers received information about healthy eating while pregnant (57% specifically on alcohol) and 21% of mothers reported not being able to afford balanced meals.
- We at First Steps Nutrition Trust provide a free guide on Eating Well for a healthy pregnancy and one for teenagers too, see here. Findings on awareness of, uptake and use of the Health Start are important given these findings (see below).
- Most mothers who wanted to breastfeed got in-person help to put their baby to the breast in the days after birth, but 39% would have liked more help or information on this.
- 61% of mothers reported experiencing difficulties feeding their baby while in hospital, birth centre or unit (compared to 74% in 2010) including baby not latching on properly, discomfort or pain and not having enough breast milk. 26% did not receive support, showing room for improvement.
- 78% of mothers experienced difficulties feeding their baby at home (compared to 72% in 2010), such as baby having colic/wind/reflux, mum having breast pain or perceived milk insufficiency. 73% got help from a health professional (health visitor or midwife) but 1 in 5 sought information from a website or social media, raising concerns about whether this information was reputable.
- 47% of mothers reported feeding problems at 4-7 months old including reflux, colic/wind, breast/nipple discomfort and baby vomiting. This fell to 31% at age 8-10 months. Most mothers sought help or information, mostly from health professionals but also from websites, friends/family and social media.
- As for feeding support in the early days, there is room for greater use of NHS websites and provision of support from family hubs and greater use of the National Breastfeeding Helpline.
- At least one common infant health problem was reported by 68% of mothers at 4-7 months and 73% of mothers at 8-10 months, including colic/wind, reflux, constipation, sickness/vomiting and diarrhoea. 15% of these babies had had an overnight stay in hospital.
- Low levels of use of formula milks marketed for colic/constipation and reflux are positive given that they are not/rarely recommended (see next). However, the high levels of reported sickness/diarrhoea warrant investigation given the potential role of formula and formula preparation practices (see next).
Formula milks
- Only 1% of 4–7-month-old babies and 21% of 8-10 month olds were being given follow on formula as their main milk, with most being given infant formula in line with recommendations. 1-3% of babies were being given hungry, anti-reflux, comfort or lactose-free formulas and 8-9% prescribed specialised formula (of which 86% and 91% for allergy). These levels are indicative of over diagnosis of cows’ milk allergy.
- Using a formula preparation machine was the most common method to make up infant formula feeds (34%), which is concerning given concerns about their safety (see this research we collaborated on, which informs the NHS guidance on these devices, available here). And while 54% of mothers made up formula using boiled water left for no longer than 30 minutes, 12% left the boiled water for longer and 1% did not boil water, showing room for improvement in safer preparation practices.
Solid foods and complementary feeding
- Positively, 67% of babies had been given their first solids when they were 6 months or older and only 19% by 5 months of age (compared to 75% in 2010). This is an important explanation for the improved exclusive breastfeeding rate since 2010.
- However, 30% of mothers had given a baby food bought from a shop as their baby’s first food (with young mothers and those living in deprived areas most likely to do so) when the NHS advises minimising or avoiding these products (see here).
- At 8-10 months, 17% of babies were given shop bought baby meals every day (compared to 41% in 2010), 63% at least once a week, and the comparable figures for baby snacks was 20% and 74% respectively.
- This shows how widespread shop bought baby and toddler food use is (with some improvements since 2010), and the popularity of baby snacks despite the long-standing advice being not to give babies under 12 months any snacks at all but to give milk feeds between meals. Industry has been given until February 2027 to adhere to the voluntary baby food guidelines, which include a recommendation not to market snacks to babies. We at First Steps are working with the Commercial Baby Food Review to hold industry and Government to account on improving the baby food retail offer (see here).
- At 8-10 months old, 49% and 16% of babies had yet to be introduced to nuts and eggs, respectively.
- Timely introduction of potentially allergenic foods is important to prevent allergy, so this data indicates room for improvement in application of existing public health recommendations. This is important given the advocacy of some parts of the allergy community to see public health recommendations changed to endorse introduction of allergens before 6 months. This editorial shared in our October 2025 newsletter is an important read on the subject.
Healthy Start
- 52% of mothers of infants aged 2-5 months were aware of the Healthy Start scheme overall, but only 59% of mothers in the most deprived areas and lower awareness among specific ethnic groups. And while over half of eligible mothers had registered, a substantial proportion had not, with particularly low uptake among some ethnic minority groups.
- Eligibility was concentrated among younger and more deprived mothers, but uncertainty about eligibility (28-32% depending on the ethnic group) shows that clearer information and support is needed.
- The allowance was used to buy a range of healthy foods but use for buying infant formula was most common (59-66% of purchases). Given the high price of infant formula (see our news piece on this below) this may mean that the scheme is not working well to support women to eat well, though more investigation would be needed to understand fully.
- There is clear room for improvement on the levels of awareness and uptake of the Healthy Start scheme (including the free vitamins). See below the new briefing on the scheme by the Food Foundation/Sustain which reiterates among other asks, a long-standing call for auto-enrolment.
The Infant Feeding Survey provides useful insight in to prevailing feeding practices in England and indicates that much progress has been made since the 2010 survey. However, the data also highlights where feeding practices do still need to be improved further. The survey did not collect information on the underlying determinants of feeding practices. It is important that interpretation of the survey findings is undertaken through reference to other data sources, and resulting actions to address areas of improvement are informed by published evidence.
|
|
|
New report: The Food Foundation’s “Broken Plate”, 2026
|
|
|
Image credit: The Food Foundation
|
|
|
The Food Foundation launched their 8th annual flagship report on the UK food system in parliament on 10 June. Using 16 key markers, the report provides a snapshot of the current food environment, shows healthy food has become increasingly unaffordable and less available while less healthy food continues to steal the spotlight. This results in negative impacts on child health, life expectancy, our environment and planet. It presents a range of recommended actions to reduce avoidable pressure on the NHS and on the UK economy.
Some highlights from an early years nutrition perspective:
Affordability:
- Healthier food remains nearly twice as expensive per calorie as less healthy food, and the gap is widening.
- Households with children in the lowest income quintile would need to spend 85% of their disposable income on food to be able to follow the Eatwell Guide (up from 70% last year), compared to just 13% for the least deprived. These figures highlight the structural nature of dietary inequality and help explain the stark differences in diets and health seen across more deprived households and regions.
- Food insecurity is again on the rise, noting that levels are always much higher in households with young children than other households.
In short, healthy food is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and low-income families would need to spend an unrealistic proportion of their income to achieve a healthy diet.
The global outlook (from both a political and climate perspective) means food prices are likely to keep rising (this is relevant to infant formula too, see more on this below). This warrants action to support the most deprived households to afford healthy, sustainable diets, as well as effective nutrition safety nets like the Healthy Start scheme.
Availability:
The report uses children’s breakfast cereals as an example of both the poor availability of healthy foods, and the misleading marketing of unhealthy foods to children.
- Only 4% of children’s breakfast cereals were low in total sugar. 1 in 5 are high in sugar. 1 in 10 are high in fibre.
The point is made that increasing the availability of healthy food needs further strong government leadership and incentives to ensure healthier food is on the shelves, and on our high streets. One mechanism highlighted is the updated school food standards, and the 2025 Early Years Foundation Stage Nutrition Guidance is also relevant.
Appeal:
The report repeats last year’s analysis of baby and toddler snacks, to highlight the misleading marketing of unhealthy foods to our youngest children.
- 74% of baby and toddler snacks with a front-of-pack claim still have medium or high levels of sugar, the same proportion as one year ago,
- Of the 142 baby and toddler snack products examined, 99% featured a front-of-pack health, nutrition or marketing claim.
- There was an average of five claims per snack product, with nutrition claims most common including the regulated claim ‘no added sugar’ which commonly appears on fruit-based products with high levels of free sugars.
- Manufacturer-branded products tended to be higher in sugars than supermarket own-brands, with a greater proportion of own-brand products in the low sugar category, and a smaller proportion in the high sugar category
The report highlights that our current food environment is characterised by pervasive promotion of unhealthy foods and confusing or misleading marketing claims, and that this places an unreasonable burden on individuals to make healthy choices. It states that the Government must keep advertising promotion policies under review, and strengthen them when needed to curb industry’s influence over the quantity of unhealthy food products that we see and are persuaded to buy and eat
The report presents a range of impact metrics, including diet analysis (highlighting that over 70% of 1.5-3-year-olds exceed free sugar intake recommendations), and these on child health and life expectancy:
|
|
|
Image credit: The Food Foundation
|
|
Among the recommended actions are two that are directly relevant to the early years:
1. Strengthen nutritional safety net schemes such as Healthy Start that support low-income children and families (see more in the new joint briefing by The Food Foundation and Sustain below).
2. Monitor the impact of the Government’s voluntary guidance on commercial baby foods and be prepared to legislate if the situation does not improve within the 18-month deadline.
|
|
|
New briefing: The Healthy Start Scheme: Unlocking its potential to support with family food bills and tackle child food insecurity
|
|
|
On 18 June 2026, the Food Foundation and Sustain published a new policy briefing examining the Healthy Start scheme and its role in supporting low-income families with young children to access a nutritious diet. The briefing highlights both the importance of the scheme as a nutritional safety net and the extent to which its impact is currently limited by low payment levels and restricted eligibility.
|
|
The recent briefing from Sustain and the Food Foundation emphasises that while the scheme is well-evidenced and cost-effective, it is currently “underpowered” and not sufficiently resourced to meet the scale of need, particularly in the context of rising food prices and increasing food insecurity among households with young children.
Key themes emerging from the briefing report are:
Rising costs are eroding the value of support
The real value of Healthy Start payments has fallen significantly over time. Although payments increased by 10% in April 2026, this was the first uplift since 2021 and has not kept pace with food inflation. If payments had been uprated in line with inflation, they would now be worth at least £5.88 per week – around 26% higher than the current rate. This shortfall equates to families missing out on around £64 per year (or £128 for families with a child under one).
This is particularly concerning given wider trends in food affordability as highlighted in the latest Broken Plate report:
- A basic weekly food basket now costs over £50, having risen by more than 30% since 2022
- Healthier foods are almost twice as expensive per calorie as less healthy options
- Families on the lowest incomes would need to spend up to 85% of disposable income to follow dietary recommendations
At its current rate, the standard Healthy Start payment covers less than one tenth of the cost of a basic weekly food basket.
Many families in need are missing out
Despite high and rising levels of food insecurity among families with children, Healthy Start is reaching only a proportion of those eligible.
- Around 15.3% of households with children are experiencing food insecurity
- Approximately 900,000 children under four are living in poverty
- Yet only around 352,000 pregnant women and young children were receiving Healthy Start support in May 2026
This gap reflects both restrictive eligibility criteria and low awareness of the scheme. Eligibility is currently limited to families receiving certain benefits and with very low earned income (a take-home pay of £408 or less per month), leaving many families in poverty excluded.
Awareness is also a barrier: only around 59% of mothers with young babies in the most deprived areas report being aware of the scheme.
The briefing also highlights additional gaps in provision, including:
- A lack of support for children aged 4–5 before school meals begin
- Exclusion of some families with no recourse to public funds
Strengthening Healthy Start could deliver substantial benefits
The briefing presents strong economic and public health arguments for expanding the scheme.
New analysis suggests that extending eligibility to all families receiving Universal Credit would:
- Generate £7.7 billion in net benefits over 10 years
- Deliver a return of £2.36 for every £1 invested
These benefits arise from reductions in food insecurity, improved nutrition, increased disposable income, and wider economic gains.
Further detail on the economic case for expansion can be found in the full cost–benefit analysis published in March by Mohtashami Borzadaran et al. (2026).
The early years are a particularly critical period. Poor nutrition in the first 1,000 days is linked to long-term impacts on physical health, neurodevelopment, and educational outcomes. The briefing notes that children in the most deprived households are significantly more likely to experience obesity and dental decay, underlining the importance of improving access to healthy foods in early life.
Implications for policy and practice
The briefing sets out several recommendations that are closely aligned with priorities in infant and maternal nutrition:
- Increase the value of payments
Payments should be uprated in line with food inflation and reviewed regularly to maintain their real value and effectiveness.
- Expand eligibility
Extending eligibility to all families receiving Universal Credit would significantly increase reach and impact.
- Improve uptake
Greater efforts are needed to raise awareness, simplify access, and consider auto-enrolment approaches.
- Close gaps in provision
Extending support beyond age four and including currently excluded groups would provide more consistent nutritional support during early childhood.
The briefing also highlights the wider need to address income adequacy, as food insecurity is driven by broader cost-of-living pressures including housing, energy and transport costs.
Relevance to First Steps Nutrition Trust’s work
This briefing reinforces several key messages central to First Steps Nutrition Trust’s work:
- The importance of sustained, adequately funded nutrition support during pregnancy and the early years
- The need to ensure both infant and maternal nutritional needs are met
- The role of trusted health services, such as health visiting and Family Hubs, in increasing awareness and supporting uptake of schemes like Healthy Start
- It is also important to highlight that Healthy Start payments are intended not only to support infant and young child nutrition, but also the diet of pregnant and breastfeeding women. This aspect of the scheme is often less visible in both policy discussions and frontline communications. Supporting the nutritional wellbeing of breastfeeding mothers is critical, both for maternal health and for sustaining breastfeeding, yet this function of Healthy Start does not always appear to be well understood or actively promoted. First Steps Nutrition Trust is keen to see greater emphasis placed on this role of the scheme, including clearer messaging for families and practitioners, and stronger integration into breastfeeding support and wider maternal and child health services.
This briefing provides a clear and timely reminder that while Healthy Start remains a vital part of the UK’s nutrition safety net, its current design limits its potential. With cost-of-living pressures and food insecurity expected to increase in the coming months, strengthening the scheme offers an important opportunity to move beyond short-term responses and improve food security, diet quality and health outcomes for mothers, young children and their families. This would be vital to address existing health inequalities in the UK and help prevent them from widening further.
Further resources
|
|
|
New paper: Rethinking fussiness in commercial food contexts
|
|
This new paper by Bennett and colleagues in Australia extends recent work on the commercial determinants of health by reframing food fussiness as a structural phenomenon shaped by commercial influences, rather than solely as an individual trait, driven by parental practices and children’s eating behaviours.
Aspects of food fussiness are a normal stage of development. Fussy/picky/selective eating in young children is quite common. Most studies estimate 10-30% of 2–6-year-olds are affected, peaking at 3 years of age and most children, but not all, grow out of it. Food fussiness has been construed as a problem of parent’s feeding practices and children’s defiant eating behaviours. However, it highlights that many social and economic factors influence parents’ ability to follow experts’ advice and a child’s receptiveness to such interventions, and that the food environment works directly against parents’ efforts to provide healthy food for their children. The study explores the intersections of commercial forces, biology, developmental neurology, and family food environments by drawing on in-depth interviews with 34 parents of children aged 1–18 years old.
The interviews reveal that food fussiness is unfolding in a food environment rife with misleading marketing messages, conflicting information, and the widespread availability of ultra-processed food (UPF). The authors report that the challenges of children’s food fussiness were entangled with the food environments that shape children’s preferences and constrain parents’ agency. And that parents see themselves as pitted against a powerful food industry that directly engineers and markets food commodities that shape children’s tastes, which in turn structures and delimits what foods children expect and desire.
Interestingly, parents saw the problems starting with commercial baby and toddler foods promoted as healthy but high in sugar and low in nutrients.
Where fussiness leads to dietary patterns high in UPF, it can have significant implications for a child’s life-long health.
The authors argue that the commercial food environment is an overlooked influence on food fussiness, and that it is actively fostering fussy eating. They recommend systems-level interventions required to address fussy eating and point to existing policy solutions: Governments making healthy food more affordable and more easily available, regulating food labelling to ensure greater transparency and reduce misleading marketing, banning marketing to children, improving school food (and food in early years settings is vital too), and applying taxes on sugar (and considering sweeteners is important too, see research on this below).
Access the full paper here.
Tools and support on fussy eating for parents, health workers and early years professionals are available in the Child Feeding Guide.
|
|
|
New paper: Perceptions of Non-Sugar Sweeteners and Non-Sugar Sweetener Front-of-Package Labels Among Parents in the United States: A Qualitative Study
|
|
|
This study by Vallone and colleagues in the US was published in January. The backdrop is concern that efforts to decrease sugar in the food supply is leading to increased use and consumption of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) despite known health harms, including among young children whose intakes may be significant. The situation is much the same in the UK, and this study is because SACN recommends that young children should not be given NSS (see box); you can read more about this in last month's newsletter here.
|
|
The UK context:
In 2025, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition recommended that intake of NSS be minimised:
For younger children, SACN recommends:
-not giving them drinks sweetened with sugar or NSS
-giving them unsweetened food (not sweetened with either sugar or NSS)
For older children and adults, SACN recommends:
-swapping sugars for NSS 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 NSS intake
There are practical challenges for families trying to apply to above advice given the pervasiveness of NSS in the UK’s food supply and because food labels do not make it clear if products contain them. |
|
|
In Chile, the percentage of households that purchased NSS-containing drinks increased after the implementation of FOPLs for added sugar. Therefore, several countries globally now require a Front of Pack Label (FOPL) for NSS to discourage reformulation that simply removes sugars and replaces with NSS.
The objective of this study was to examine parents’ perceptions of sugar and NSS for their children and understand how parents perceive NSS FOPL when making selections for their children. The researchers undertook 9 focus group discussions using a semi-structured guide with 66 parents of children aged 1-12 years of age in the US, who were also shown hypothetical NSS FOPLs and asked for feedback.
|
|
|
Image credit: Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
|
|
|
The themes revealed from the discussions were: parents try to limit their child’s sugar intake and avoid providing products with artificial ingredients (but often found NSS unavoidable); parents had mixed views about the safety and healthfulness of NSS (they often wanted to know which sweeteners, perceiving some as more natural healthier than others); parents perceived an NSS FOPL favourably, but they do not like the term ‘diet sweeteners’ (perceiving it as meaning not recommended for children, when some e.g. diabetic children may need such products); and parents preferred an NSS FOPL that uses visual aids and communicates a recommendation (as shown).
|
|
|
Image credit: Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
|
|
|
The authors concluded that despite having mixed perceptions about the safety and healthfulness of NSS for children, parents perceived NSS FOPLs as helpful for making informed beverage choices for their children. The NSS FOPL has the potential to encourage selection of unsweetened products or options that may be lower in sugar but do not contain NSS. They recommended future research to examine the effects of NSS FOPLs on parents’ product selections to inform FOPL policies and increase transparency regarding the presence of NSS in products consumed by children.
|
|
|
Updated: Infant milks costs and trends reports
|
|
Costs of infant formula, follow-on formula and milks marketed as foods for special medical purposes available over the counter in the UK, May 2026
We produce a regular infant milks cost report to support healthcare professionals inform families about the price differences between comparable formula milk products, so that they can make informed decisions about which products to use.
|
|
The following key messages from our May 2026 data are particularly relevant to those providing practical support to families:
- The price gap between the cheapest and most expensive first infant formulas remains substantial. Aldi’s Mamia costs £6.99, while Aptamil Advanced costs £18.00, a difference of £11.01 per tin.
- Exclusively formula feeding a 10-week-old baby with Aldi’s Mamia costs around £30.30 per month, compared with around £83 per month using Aptamil Advanced. Parents should be reminded that, for healthy, non-breastfed or partially breastfed babies from birth to 12 months, any first infant formula is suitable, as all products must comply with the same legal nutritional composition standards.
- Aldi’s Mamia remains the cheapest infant formula, but it is less widely available than branded products. Families may therefore need support to identify alternative lower-cost infant formulas that are more readily available.
- Buying larger packs of formula remains cheaper per 100ml than buying 800g tins of the same product, saving around 1–4p per 100ml. However, families may be able to make greater savings by switching to a lower-cost product within the same brand range or to a supermarket own-brand product. For example, switching from SMA First Infant Milk 800g to SMA Little Steps First Infant Milk would save 7p per 100ml.
- Switching to follow-on formula does not usually lead to cost savings. In most cases, the cost per 100ml of follow-on formula is the same as the equivalent first infant formula within the same brand range, and in several cases, it is slightly higher. Although promotions on follow-on formula can occasionally make it cheaper, these offers are usually short-lived and are not a reliable basis for feeding decisions, particularly for families on a budget.
- Specialised milks, including anti-reflux, comfort and lactose-free products, remain substantially more expensive than standard products within the same brand ranges. Parents should be reminded that specialised milks should only be used on the advice of a health professional, despite being available over the counter. Formula marketed as a food for special medical purposes may lack evidence of effectiveness and, in some cases, could cause harm if used inappropriately.
- Brands with the lowest-cost starter packs are not necessarily the lowest-cost formulas over the longer term. Families should be supported to compare the longer-term cost of specific products.
- Where appropriate, families should be supported to access the Healthy Start and Best Start Foods schemes, which can help with the cost of infant formula. Based on the monthly cost of exclusively formula feeding a 10-week-old baby, only two products are currently affordable within the Healthy Start allowance, falling to just one from July. However, the allowance can still make an important contribution towards costs and can also support breastfeeding women to access nutritious food.
The full cost report is available here, and an accompanying infographic is available here.
|
|
|
The rising cost of infant formula in the UK: recommendations to Government
|
|
We have published this new briefing to show formula milk price changes between March 2021 and May 2026 and to make our recommendations to Government.
Infant formula is an essential source of nutrition for babies who are not exclusively breastfed. By six weeks of age, 53% of babies in England receive some formula milk, with 18% exclusively formula fed.
Infant formula prices were already high before the cost-of-living crisis and rose up to 45% between 2021 and 2023. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has previously identified weak competition in the formula market; excessive price rises and exceptionally high profit margins. It recommended a package of measures to improve the market, including price controls as a possible backstop if other measures do not improve outcomes for families within a reasonable timeframe. In December 2025, the Government and devolved nations accepted six of the 11 recommendations in principle.
|
|
Our latest monitoring shows that, since the CMA made their recommendations, infant formula prices remain high and rising while lower-cost infant formula products are becoming less available as certain products are being phased out. The average price of first infant formula increased to £12.45 per unit in May 2026, up from £11.96 in February 2026 and £11.99 in May 2025. In addition, Lidl Lupilu First Infant Formula appears to have been discontinued, and Kendamil Bonya First Infant Milk is due to be discontinued in July 2026. This means that two of the five lowest-cost first infant milks will no longer be available by July.
These worrying and rapid changes in the formula market are occurring to a backdrop of high food inflation, and the start of food price rises more generally. Families with young children are among the most food insecure and food insecurity is on the rise once more. Food bank use has been steadily increasing, and a recent survey of baby banks reported a 26% increase in the number of formula tins provided to users in 2025 compared to 2024. Formula use is also more common among families in the lowest socio-economic groups, meaning high prices have the greatest impact on families already under financial pressure.
Evidence continues to mount, that when formula becomes unaffordable, parental wellbeing is negatively affected and families are pushed towards unsafe coping strategies, including diluting feeds, reducing feeds, and introducing milk or solid foods too early.
Our briefing calls on Government to take urgent action to protect infant health and family wellbeing. We recommend that Government should assess the risks, design and implementation of Government-led price controls; fully implement the CMA’s recommendations on formula marketing and labelling; strengthen the Healthy Start scheme; and embed breastfeeding and infant feeding support as a core component of maternal and child health policy.
The full briefing is available here and an infographic to accompany it here.
|
|
|
For infant milk information please visit our website www.infantmilkinfo.org. If you can’t find what you’re looking for please email rachel@firststepsnutrition.org
|
|
|
The Breastfeeding Network Annual conference and AGM, online, 3 October
|
|
The Breastfeeding Network annual conference is taking place at 10:00am – 3:00pm on Saturday 3 October 2026. The event is open to all, especially volunteers, parents, families and health professionals with an interest in breastfeeding, infant feeding and related topics. To allow flexibility and attendance, the conference will be held virtually. Speakers will be announced soon.
More info here.
Early bird tickets (at a discounted rate) are available until 10 August, and tickets are available here.
|
|
|
The Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative virtual conference, 18-19th November
|
|
This annual conference brings together those involved in the care of babies, their parents and families to learn about the latest research and innovations in infant feeding and relationship building.
The 2026 conference is now open for bookings - find out more here: 2026 Virtual Conference - Baby Friendly Initiative. The early booking discount is available until 31 July.
|
|
|
|
