|
Image by Wirestock via Magnific
Welcome to our June newsletter, the contents of which are as follows:
|
|
News
Infant milk news
BFLG-UK news
Forthcoming
Happy reading!
|
|
|
New paper: Sweet truths: testing the effectiveness of different added sugar warning label designs on parents' appraisal of high sugar commercial infant and toddler foods
|
|
|
This recent Australian study by Mamaru Ayenew Awoke and colleagues, has explored whether front-of-pack sugar warning labels could help parents better understand the sugar content of commercial infant and toddler foods.
The study tested three different warning label designs on mock baby and toddler food products among parents of babies and toddlers, as shown below: a text-only warning, a warning with teaspoons of sugar, and a warning with a tooth decay icon.
The results showed that all three label types helped parents more accurately identify high sugar products (those containing added sugars, including free sugars, and exceeding a threshold of 5g/100g). Labels that included icons were particularly effective at increasing parents’ perception of how much sugar was in the product, and, for the warning labels with graphics (of tooth decay or a teaspoon of sugar) reduced intentions to purchase high sugar products. The figure shows which warning label design parents reported would be most impactful in discouraging purchase and feeding.
|
|
These findings are relevant to the UK, where many commercial baby and toddler foods contain free sugars from fruit purées, pastes, juices and powders. Our review of 31 studies from the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand showed that the median sugar content per 100g was 10.4g in purées, 20.3g in snacks, and 14.7g in cereals. High sugar intakes in early childhood can contribute to dental caries, excess weight gain, poor diet quality and the development of a preference for sweet foods.
Despite this, the regulated nutrition claim “no added sugar” still appears on many products high in free sugars. Outdated regulations and inconsistencies leave parents the hard task of interpreting ingredient lists themselves rather than being given clear and mandatory information on both added and free sugars to help them make informed purchasing decisions.
The research also found that, although warning labels improved identification of products high in sugar, they did not consistently change parents’ overall product preferences. The authors suggest that other factors, including convenience, perceived naturalness, taste, child preference and marketing claims, may continue to influence choices. This suggests that sugar warning labels alone would not be effective in changing purchasing decisions and feeding practices without tacking these other factors.
These findings support our call for DHSC to adopt the World Health Organization Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model, which strongly recommends implementing mandatory, highly visible sugar warning labels on commercial baby foods and snacks that exceed acceptable sugar limits, alongside controlling other aspects of labelling and marketing. The model also outlines acceptable nutrition composition standards including on sugar content.
We at First Steps Nutrition Trust are a member of the Commercial Baby Food Review, a new two-year project bringing together a range of actors with a shared commitment to strengthening commercial baby food standards in the UK. The Review is calling for stronger commercial baby food regulations in the UK to improve nutrition composition, marketing and labelling and contribute to improved diets in the early years.
Families should also be supported to follow NHS advice which makes clear that shop-bought baby and toddler foods should be avoided or minimised, and that healthy, home-prepared foods are a better choice.
Our practical Eating well guides provide families with the information they need to prepare foods for babies at home. They use lots of visuals to provide simple guidance on how to introduce solids, feed babies between the ages of 6 and 12 months and older children up to 5 years of age, offering lots of ideas on what to make. You can download them for free or purchase a hard copy here.
|
|
|
New report: Tiny Plastics, Big Problem: The Hidden Health Risks of Plastic Pouches for Baby Food
|
|
|
This investigation published on 21 May reports on the results of testing commissioned by Greenpeace International in 2025, which found plastic particles and plastic-associated chemicals in Danone (Happy Baby Organics) and Nestlé (Gerber) plastic, spouted baby food pouches.
The report stated:
- For each gram of food, there were up to 99 microplastic particles in the Danone Happy Baby Organics branded fruit puree pouches, and up to 54 particles in Nestlé Gerber branded yoghurt pouches, on average
- The tests also tentatively identified:
- A link between the type of plastic the pouches are lined with – polyethylene – and some of the microplastics found in the baby food tested;
- A chemical that may be harmful to human health in Nestlé Gerber branded food and packaging (2,4-ditert-butylphenol (2,4-DTBP), recognised as hazardous to human health and the environment, has been associated with endocrine-disrupting effects, and could also act as an obesogen);
- A host of plastic-associated chemicals in the tested packaging as well as in baby food of both brands.
|
|
While the study cannot confirm that the packaging is the source, the overlap between the findings for food and their packaging materials is cause for concern.
We touched on the health harms of contaminants from plastic packaging in our 2023 report ‘Ultra-processed Foods in the diets of infants and young children in the UK’, highlighting the link between endocrine-disrupting chemicals and metabolic diseases and obesity.
The findings of this investigation are significant because babies are vulnerable to hazardous substances; the authors remind us that “Babies are not just “small adults.” They are growing and developing at an extraordinary rate, continuing the development process which started in the womb, and their physiology is very different from that of older children or adults. This potentially makes them more vulnerable to contaminants like microplastics and chemicals in their food”.
The findings build on a lot of previous research studies about baby food pouches and other plastic products associated with baby feeding (including bottles and breastmilk storage bags) which is summarised within the report.
The report highlights that Governments are not acting in line with the precautionary principle, which should prevent the use of hazardous plastics and chemicals, based on their intrinsic hazard and not on a risk assessment which determines so-called safe levels. It urges Nestlé, Danone, and all brands selling plastic food contact products, including supermarkets and small to medium sized companies, to investigate further and prove that their products are not exposing their customers to microplastics and plastic chemicals that could risk their health.
The authors conclude: Until proven safe, single-use plastic pouches should not be assumed to be risk-free.
While neither tested product is available on the UK market, the results are likely generalisable to other products brands that are. This is a concern because pouched baby foods dominate the commercial baby food market and are widely used from a very young age, meaning babies’ and toddlers’ risks of exposure are very high.
This is yet another reason for parents to give pouched baby foods a miss, and for regulators to ban this type of packaging.
|
|
|
News: Branded baby food volumes down 14% following BBC Panorama exposé
|
|
|
In May, the Grocer reported that baby food brands sold 26.1 million fewer units through the tills in the year to 28 February 2026 and lost £33 million in sales. Ella’s Kitchen – the UK’s dominant company – was reported to be hit hardest – with greatest volume and value losses; they sold 12.7 million fewer units and lost value of £17.7 million. ‘Private labels’, commanding 29% value share of the market, were also affected but not as badly, seeing a 2.9%-unit decline and loss of £4.7million market value.
|
|
|
Image credit: First Steps Nutrition Trust
|
|
This market analysis, covering 10 months after the Panorama exposé, suggests that better informing parents of the shortcomings in the commercial baby food retail offer is leading to a reduction in commercial baby food use, hopefully in favour of healthy home prepared meals as the NHS explicitly recommends.
Read the full article here.
|
|
|
New paper: Beyond Added Sugar Reduction: A Narrative Review of Policies to Address Non-Sugar Sweeteners
|
|
Consumption of Non-Sugar Sweeteners (NSS) is associated with multiple chronic diseases. NSS exposure is increasing as food and beverage manufacturers replace added sugars with NSS. We wrote about NSS in the diets of young children in the UK in our 2019 policy briefing ‘Sweet enough already?’, highlighting the high levels of consumption of NSS soft drinks among toddlers.
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.
This narrative review from the US by James Krieger and colleagues, describes policies that may assist consumers in identifying products with NSSs and/or reduce NSS exposure. It identified 416 proposed or enacted policies and classified them into 9 groups, of which the first 6 were found globally:
Global and US
- bans and restrictions on NSS use (n = 26)
- excise taxes (n = 106)
- sales taxes (n = 67)
- food package labels and disclosures (n = 47)
- procurement and nutrition standards (n = 71)
Global only
- marketing and advertising restrictions (n = 2)
US only
- healthy retail (n = 2)
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit restrictions (n = 54) (a national US food assistance programme for low and no-income individuals)
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children nutrition standards (n = 7) (similar to our Healthy Start/Better Start Foods schemes)
- restaurant healthy default beverages (n = 34)
Table 2 in the paper lists all the policies and their details. Interesting examples include excises taxes for both sugar sweetened and NSS containing soft drinks tax in France and certain US states, and sales taxes on NSS containing foods and drinks in certain US states including drinks. In Norway, the marketing to children of foods containing sugar or NSS is prohibited.
The authors also assessed the impact and equity of the policies. Impact was determined through examining the size of its effect on individuals and the number of individuals reached in a population. Excise taxes including NSS-containing beverages were judged to have the potential to be more equitable than taxes imposed solely on SSBs, as higher- income people consume more beverages with NSS and it was pointed out that taxes generate revenues which can fund preventative health interventions.
The authors conclude that there are many options for reducing potential harms from NSS, and that public policies with the greatest potential impact are bans or restrictions on use, excise taxes, and front-of-package warnings and disclosures.
These public policies should be considered in the UK context given SACN’s recommendations.
|
|
|
New policy briefing: Infant food security and formula safety in the UK: Recommendations from the cereulide toxin formula contamination and recall event
|
|
In January, the Food Standards Agency issued a series of food alerts detailing a range of different formula milks under the Aptamil, Cow and Gate and SMA brands that were contaminated with, or potentially contaminated with, the toxin cereulide, which can cause rapid-onset gastrointestinal illness and dehydration. This can become life-threatening in young infants if not recognised and treated promptly. More information on the recalls and practical advice for health care practitioners can be found here.
Although the current risk of exposure is now considered low following product recalls, the incident has exposed wider weaknesses in infant formula safety, surveillance and emergency response. More than 60 formula milk batches were implicated in UK recalls, and 61 reports of symptoms consistent with cereulide poisoning were identified among children who had consumed affected products across the UK and Crown Dependencies. The true number of affected infants may be higher, as symptoms can overlap with common gastrointestinal illnesses and testing capacity remains limited.
The recall also highlighted the fragility of infant food security in the UK. The affected brands accounted for a large proportion of the UK commercial milk formula market, and at the peak of disruption, more than a quarter of formula products were out of stock. Families were not consistently provided with clear, consolidated guidance on suitable alternatives, safe switching between formula brands, or how to maintain safe and appropriate infant feeding practices during the recall.
|
|
In our briefing published today, with news stories in the BMJ, the Daily Mail, the Express and the Times, we call for stronger surveillance of foodborne illness in infants, improved public messaging during formula crises, a review of NHS formula preparation guidance, and stronger regulatory oversight of formula safety. We also recommend that infant formula supply, safer formula use and breastfeeding support are recognised as critical components of UK food security and emergency planning. Our final recommendation is on breastfeeding, acknowledging that better protection, promotion and support for breastfeeding is fundamental to ensure infant food security.
Our full briefing is available here.
On 22 May 2026, IBFAN, ILCA and others hosted a side event at the 79th World Health Assembly on "Contaminated Commercial Formula - the need for a global response to protect child health”. A recording from the event is available here.
|
|
|
Updated: FAQ on rapid cooling devices
|
|
We have recently updated our FAQ on Rapid cooling devices such as the Nuby Rapid Cool and Tommee Tippee PrepGo.
Rapid cooling devices are designed to cool freshly prepared powdered infant formula to a safe temperature for feeding within a few minutes.
NHS guidance advises that powdered infant formula should be made with freshly boiled tap water that has cooled to no less than 70°C. This is because powdered infant formula is not sterile, and hot water helps to kill bacteria that may be present in the powder. The made-up formula then needs to be cooled before it can be safely fed to a baby. NHS guidance advice is to cool the bottle by holding it, with the lid on, under cold running water before feeding.
While rapid cooling devices may appear to adhere to NHS guidance on safe preparation, rapid cooling reduces the amount of time that formula powder is exposed to heat. This matters because bacteria in the powder may be more likely to survive if the formula cools too quickly.
Recent studies (listed here) support these concerns, providing evidence that rapid cooling could create conditions that are not sufficient to kill some pathogens that may be present in powdered infant formula, including Salmonella spp., Cronobacter sakazakii and Candida species. These organisms can cause serious illness in infants.
Rapid cooling devices also add extra containers and handling steps to the preparation process. Each additional step may increase the risk of contamination if equipment is not cleaned and used correctly.
We at First Steps Nutrition Trust have asked the Office for Product Safety and Standards to test these products to confirm whether they are safe to use. Until these devices have been independently tested and shown to be safe, we continue to recommend following current NHS guidance. This includes preparing powdered infant formula with water at no less than 70°C, then cooling the bottle by holding it, with the lid on, under cold running water before feeding.
|
|
|
Product news: Reformulation of SMA Gold Prem 1 & 2
|
|
|
We are sharing this product news to inform healthcare professionals to whom it is relevant, of recent formulation changes in these products and to highlight that nutritional composition can vary between ready to feed and powdered versions of the same product. We acknowledge the importance of breastmilk for infants who are born premature or with health conditions requiring specialised care; please see our report ‘Specialised milks for infants who are premature, low birth weight or have faltering growth’.
The formula milks SMA Gold Prem 1 and SMA Gold Prem 2 have recently been reformulated. These are products classified as Food for Special Medical Purposes (FSMPs) and are used for infants who are premature, have low birth weight, or faltering growth, under medical supervision.
The updated formulations began circulation from Spring 2026, meaning some variation in product composition may be encountered across settings during the transition period. The products also have altered packaging. See below for some of the key information about these products:
SMA Gold Prem 1
Format: Liquid (70ml) – Hospital use
- Allergens: MILK
- Whey:casein ratio is now 70:30. It remains a partially hydrolysed protein formulation. (This product used to claim it contained 100% whey protein, partially hydrolysed for improved tolerability)
- No longer lists fish as allergen in ingredients list
- LCP sourced from:
- ARA – from Mortierella alpina oil
- DHA - oil from the microalgae Schizochytrium sp
- Iron content is now 1.81mg per 100ml and 2.24mg per 100kcal
- Updated formulation contains milk-derived oligosaccharides
- Changes to vitamin and mineral content
SMA no longer claim that it is the only low birthweight formula that meets ESPGHAN protein recommendations for feeding all infants less than 1.8kg. This product contains 2g protein per 100ml.
SMA Gold Prem 2
Format: Liquid (90ml, 200ml) – Hospital use
- Allergens: MILK
- Whey:casein ratio is now 70:30. It remains a partially hydrolysed protein formulation. (This product used to claim it contained 100% whey protein, partially hydrolysed for improved tolerability)
- No longer lists fish as allergen in ingredients list
- LCP sourced from:
- ARA – from Mortierella alpina oil
- DHA - oil from the microalgae Schizochytrium sp
- Iron content is now 1.1mg per 100ml and 1.5mg per 100kcal
- Updated formulation contains milk-derived oligosaccharides
- Changes to vitamin and mineral content
Format: Powdered (800g) – Community use on prescription
- Allergens: MILK
- Whey:casein ratio remains 100% whey protein which differs from the liquid format of this product.
- No longer lists fish as allergen in ingredients list
- LCP sourced from:
- ARA – from Mortierella alpina oil
- DHA - oil from the microalgae Schizochytrium sp.
- Iron content is now 1.2mg per 100ml and 1.6mg per 100kcal of prepared formula
- Updated formulation contains milk-derived oligosaccharides
- Changes to vitamin and mineral content – Please note that the liquid and powder versions of this product contain different levels of vitamins and minerals
The information above has been used to update our report: ‘Specialised milks for infants who are premature, low birth weight or have faltering growth’. This report is available in the section, ‘types of milk’ on our infantmilkinfo.org website.
|
|
|
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
|
|
Baby Feeding Law Group UK News
|
|
|
New: Marketing of breast-milk substitutes: national implementation of the International Code, status report 2026
|
|
The latest biennial Global Code Status Report published by the WHO, UNICEF and IBFAN is now available here and here.
|
|
This report provides the 2026 global analysis of national implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast‑milk Substitutes (BMS) and subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions, updated since 2024. It synthesizes updated legal data from 194 WHO Member States, evaluating the degree to which national measures incorporate the full set of Code provisions, including:
- Scope
- Monitoring and enforcement
- Information and education materials on IYCF
- Promotion restrictions (to the public)
- Health system safeguards
- Labelling requirements.
As of March 2026, 148 countries (representing 76% of WHO Member States and 92% of global births) have adopted at least some Code-related legal measures. The report shows steady but insufficient progress in Code implementation globally.
There is a very useful section 5 (Pg 10-12) providing comprehensive and updated information on "How Code legislation impacts breastfeeding rates". Countries substantially aligned with the Code report exclusive breastfeeding rates of 54%, countries moderately aligned with the Code report 45% EBF, countries with some provisions of the Code (which is what the UK is categorise as) report 38% EBF on average and countries with no legal measures report 24% EBF.
|
|
The data provides justification and motivation for strengthening national Code legislation, and this updated information can and should be used in advocacy efforts. The UK still scores just 40/100 on the Global Code Status Report (while most other European Union countries score even lower, at 32/100), showing much room for improvement, to contribute to an enabling environment for optimal infant and young child feeding, to ensure the best start in life.
On 21 May 2026, the Association of Lactation Consultants of Ireland (ALCI) presented a webinar to celebrate 45 years of the WHO Code, and the recording is available here.
|
|
|
New paper: Breast Milk Substitutes Marketing on Social Media: A Systematic Scoping Review
|
|
|
During May 2026, a new scoping review of breastmilk substitute marketing, focusing specifically on social media (as one strategy of digital marketing) was published and is available here. The review includes 62 primary studies published between 2003 (when social media was first introduced) and 2025, a period during which social media has undergone significant evolution.
|
|
The most prominent social media–specific marketing strategies identified included:
- user engagement features
- promotion by social media influencers and bloggers
- peer influence
- digital marketing tracking
- sponsored content
- live streaming or live interaction
The review also reports promotion strategies for BMS that are used on digital platforms, but not specific to social media (including health and nutrition claims, nonfinancial rewards, gifts, coupons and promotional items, and emotion-based messages). The 2 most popular social media platforms for BMS marketing were Facebook (69.4%) and Instagram (51.6%). The most identified BMS companies promoting their brands on social media were Nestlé (37.1%), Danone (33.9%), and Mead Johnson (29.0%). Social media rapidly surpasses traditional media for disseminating information and persuasive marketing promotions.
The authors provide several policy, practice and research implications:
- BMS marketing on social media is widespread and warrants greater attention. While many countries lack the legal framework to protect mothers and children from unethical BMS marketing (including on social media), coordinated international action and stronger national legislation is needed.
- Countries should identify responsible authorities and strengthen monitoring systems, including by using AI tools to detect and capture violations.
- Digital platform regulators might be unaware that platforms are being used for unethical BMS marketing or may not be prioritising BMS marketing and should therefore be a target for advocacy by government agencies and public health professionals.
- Civil society can improve public awareness of the harms of BMS marketing, and can be involved in monitoring, but need to work closely with government agencies and public health professionals on this.
- Public health researchers should consider engaging with public health–aligned influencers, to co-design targeted strategies to promote breastfeeding.
The authors conclude that effectively regulating social media marketing of BMS requires stronger legislation and new strategies for Code monitoring and enforcement, including scaling up AI-enabled monitoring and coordinated global action to hold digital platforms accountable.
|
|
|
Infantmilkinfo.org webinar: 24 June, 1-2pm
|
|
|
We will be delivering a webinar on Wednesday 24 June from 1:00 – 2:00pm, to introduce healthcare professionals with an interest in infant milk feeding to our website dedicated to infant milk: www.infantmilkinfo.org. The webinar will show users how to navigate the website and provide some insight on how it may be useful in their work. This webinar will update the one available on our website from last August and provide attendees the opportunity to ask questions to members of the First Steps Nutrition Trust team. You can register here.
|
|
|
The Association of Breastfeeding Mothers (ABM) Conference, Saturday 27 June, hybrid London/Online
|
|
|
First Steps Nutrition Trust will be exhibiting virtually at this year’s annual ABM conference. For tickets, the speaker line up and more information see here.
|
|
|
All Party Parliamentary Group on Infant Feeding and Inequalities: 30 June, 12.30-2pm
|
|
|
The next meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Infant Feeding and Inequalities (IFI) will take place on Tuesday 30 June, in a hybrid format (in-person at Portcullis House, and online via Microsoft teams) from 12:30 to 14:00. There will be a speaker, and an update on the work of the APPG. If you would like to be added to the APPG IFI mailing list, please send an email request to the APPG Chair, Jess Brown-Fuller, MP: jess.brownfuller.mp@parliament.uk and Jess’s parliamentary assistant, Edmund Legrave: edmund.legrave@parliament.uk
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
