We have updated our Eating Well for New Mums resource, which was last updated in 2020. The guide summarises the importance of eating well for all new mums and answers some FAQ new breastfeeding mums might have about eating and drinking. It provides ideas for snacks and drinks that provide a range of important nutrients and complements the other resources we have produced which give practical ideas for eating well in pregnancy and for the whole family.
Most of the changes we made simply ensure the guide takes in to account the changing, challenging context in which new mums are trying to eat well and changes to services and support like the Healthy Start scheme. Edits have been made to advice around plant milks and supplements, in line with latest SACN recommendations and NICE guidelines.
If you would like to learn more or access the full guide, the updated Eating Well for New Mums resource can be downloaded for free or by donation here.
New paper: Unveiling implicit and explicit packaging design features on commercial baby foods in the UK: a content analysis
This paper by Tang Tang and colleagues at the University of Leeds and Dailan University of Technology, China, published in the journal Design for Health, investigated how the visual design of commercial baby food packaging in the UK contributes to their misleading promotion. The authors assessed 35 selected products marketed for children under 36 months of age in the UK, which they described as exemplars across product categories, including those that were least and most compliant with the WHO Europe Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model.
The researchers found that packaging design elements such as typography (see Table 4), colour, schematic elements, images and layout (see Table 1), emphasise naturalness, healthfulness and visual appeal whilst leaving out or downplaying key information, such as the sugar content.
“Packaging reinforces the potential to mislead consumers”. This is important because of the power in visually appealing packaging to inform quick, intuitive, emotionally driven decision-making based on convenience and perceived benefits, rather than analytical decision-making based on scrutiny of nutrition information. Implicit design features and explicit claims like ‘no added sugar’, ‘natural’, or ‘no artificial flavours or colours’ together contradict product composition, which is typically less healthy than portrayed.
The authors suggest that the findings could inform more ethical and responsible packaging. In relation to this suggestion, it is important to note that packaging design and features are not covered by current (outdated) UK baby food regulations orthe voluntary guidance published by Government in August 2025. The NPPM recommends sugar warning labels on high sugar products, but its other recommendations do not address packaging design, see figure 1. However, adherence to the NPPM recommendations, e.g. labelling not displaying any health and nutrition claims, would leave less information to be exploited by packaging design.
We agree that packaging could be improved to minimise misleading marketing of commercial baby and toddler foods and enable more informed decision making by parents, and this paper provides important insight as to how that may be done. There is also an interesting example set in the guidance notes to the infant formula and follow on formula regulations, which makes stipulations about typography, placement and label layouts, see here. While the paper highlights how packaging design could support improved marketing, in our view it remains vital to ensure that future innovation in this space ensures that commercial products are not positioned as superior to healthy home prepared foods, which SACN and the NHS state are preferable to support optimal infant and young child feeding.
For practical, pictorial guidance on feeding babies under 12 months and young children between the ages of 1 and 5 years, without using commercial baby and toddler foods, see our FREE eating well guides here.
New paper:Exploration of food provision challenges across English nurseries: results from a nationally representative cross-sectional study
This paper by Emily Warren and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and published in the Journal of Family and Child Health, reports on the results of an analysis of a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of food provision and practices in 302 nurseries in England between October and November 2021.
More than 90% of nurseries reported experiencing at least one challenge in providing healthy food - a stipulation of the Early Years Foundation Stage Framework. The most common challenges were the cost of healthy food, and the lack of time, facilities, and trained staff for preparation. Less than half reported challenges in information and guidance. 87% of nurseries reported unmet training needs, with indirect and direct costs being the barrier. Areas of training that respondents reported would be useful included parent engagement and children’s food and nutrition requirements. Nurseries that provide food have been financially impacted by the introduction of the new 30-hour free childcare policy applicable from 9 months of age and have increase their fees either for childcare or meals. It is important to note that 24% of the nurseries required all children to bring packed lunches and 42% allowed packed lunches if this was the families preference.
These challenges to healthy food provision are concerning because most children attend childcare from a young age and in full-day care, children typically receive around 90% of their daily energy and nutrient intake from meals and snacks provided by the setting.
The study highlights that nurseries need more funding to be able to provide healthy food and that the impact on nurseries of the new 30-hour free childcare policy needs review. The authors also acknowledge that similar research needs to be undertaken in other early years settings, including childminders.
First Steps Nutrition Trust is a member of the Early Years Food Coalition led by Bremner and Co, supporting advocacy with Government to improve healthy food provision in early years settings.
Many of our eating well resources are relevant and suitable for use in early years settings, including “Eating Well: Packed lunches for 1-under 5-year-olds”. All our resources can be downloaded for free or by donation here and hard copies of some titles (including packed lunches) are also available for purchase.
New resource: Updated WHO model chapter for textbooks on Infant and Young Child Feeding published (2nd edition, 2025)
In 2009, the WHO first published a model chapter for textbooks for medical students and allied health professionals on Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF). This model chapter has now been updated by the WHO’s Department of Nutrition and Food Safety and the PDF document is availablehere. The model chapter aims to brings together essential knowledge about IYCF that health professionals should acquire as part of their basic education.
Twice a year, we carry out a review of the cost of infant milks. The purpose is to share information on prices to guide health worker conversations with families who use formula to feed their babies and are looking to cut costs. The important point is that all first infant formulas are nutritionally equivalent despite large price differentials suggesting some may be better than others (noting though that none provide the health benefits of breastfeeding). Since the cost-of-living crisis, we have also been following the trends in prices, see more below.
Our recent review reveals the following:
The prices for 9 out of the 12 infant formulas available on the market have not lowered in price, despite the Competition and Market Authority’s findings and recommendations published in February this year.
The average cost of branded infant formula is currently £12.89 for an 800g tin, only 10p lower than in May 2025. This compares to £6.99 for supermarket own-brand infant formula.
Since March 2021, the difference between the least and most expensive products has increased from £8.51 to £11.01, with a range of £6.99 to £18/tin. This despite all infant formulas being nutritionally equivalent, by law.
Only 4 of the twelve 800 g tins of infant formulas cost less than the £8.50 weekly Healthy Start allowance for a baby under one.
As usual, current pricing strategies mean that the least expensive way to buy infant formula is in powdered format. Aldi Mamia and Lidl Lupilu remain the least expensive infant formula powders in standard size formats (800g), both costing £6.99 and 11p per 100ml of made-up formula. These supermarket own-brand products are less widely available than branded formulas in stores and online.
This means that there are five products affordable with the Healthy Start allowance that provides £8.50 a week for a baby up to aged one year. However, Cow & Gate First Infant Milk from Savers is just 700g rather than 800g.
Where available, and feasible given the up-front cost, ‘big packs’ provide a cheaper way of buying branded products. For example, 2 x 600g packs of Cow & Gate First Infant Milk, SMA Pro First Infant 1 Milk per 100ml are 4p cheaper per 100ml than standard size formats of the same product, and Aptamil First Infant Milk per 100ml is 3p cheaper per 100ml than standard size formats of the same product.
Follow-on formula, advertised for children aged 6-12 months, provides no additional nutritional benefits over infant formula and is not recommended by the NHS. Many continue to believe that switching to follow-on formula after six months might save money—especially since UK regulations allow promotional offers on follow-on formula. However, there are no cost savings to be made from switching from first infant formula to follow-on formula. An examination of promotions for follow-on formula revealed that only one of the May 2025 promotions was still valid at the end of September/start of October. Promotions are not a reliable foundation for families on a budget when making feeding decisions, leaving them exposed to price increases once promotions end.
See a summary of the above information in our infographic here.
Our routine price monitoring (see Graph 1) shows that the cost of infant formula began to rise rapidly in early 2021, preceding general food price rises. Between March 2021 and April 2023, the unit price of the 12 infant formulas available at the time rose by an average of 22%.
Since May 2025, prices for 9 out of the 12 infant formulas available on the market have remained static. The price of Aptamil first infant milk has come down by 70p, from £13.50 to £12.80. The price of Bonya first infant milk by Kendamil has come down by 95p, from £8.45 to £7.50. Whereas the cost of SMA Little Steps first infant formula has increased from £7.95 to £8.49, after dropping from £9.75 to £7.95 between October 2024 and May 2025.
Graph 1 Unit cost of powdered, cows' milk-based first infant formula and the Healthy Start allowance March 2021 to October 2025.
In short, the infant formula retail offer remains dominated by expensive products, prices remain higher now than before the cost-of-living crisis and most are not affordable with the Healthy Start allowance.
See a summary of the above information as well as our policy asks in our infographic here.
New paper: Effects of Infant Formula Type on Early Childhood Growth Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study
This paper by Uzma Rani and colleagues at the University of Iowa and published in the journal Nutrients, examined the effect of specialised infant formula intakes (mostly reduced lactose or hydrolysed formula) on growth outcomes for babies in the US, compared to babies fed standard formula or breastfed, through a retrospective cohort study. The authors obtained data on breastfeeding status and infant formula use (whether standard or non-standard), from over 5000 full-term babies, at 2 months, and followed them up to assess growth at 1 and 2 years of age. Just over a third of babies were exclusively breastfed at 2 months, over 40% were fed with standard formula, and nearly a quarter were given a specialised formula. The assumption was feeding practices at 2 months may be a good indicator of ongoing feeding practices as the baby aged, although the authors acknowledge a single point of measurement for exposure was a limitation of the study.
The study found that at 1 year of age, babies who were fed non-standard formulas had higher weight-for-age, BMI, and weight-for-length z-scores than those fed standard infant formula, although after controlling for other covariates, weight-for-age and BMI z-scores remained significantly higher in the non-standard formula infants. At 2 years, only their weight for age z-score remained higher than those fed standard infant formula. At both 1 and 2 years of age, babies fed standard or non-standard infant formula had higher weight-for-age, BMI, weight-for-length, and length-for-age z-scores compared with those who were exclusively breastfed.
Specialised formulas often contain maltodextrins and/or sucrose in place of lactose which the authors highlight to have a higher glycaemic load than lactose, which could speed up weight gain. (It is important to note that maltodextrins are also implicated in contributing to tooth decay, although this was not mentioned in this study). They also state that hydrolysed formulas may alter metabolic responses due to faster absorption rates compared to intact proteins. Specialised formula is intended for use by formula fed infants for whom a standard infant formula is not suitable for medical reasons. However, the authors highlight that specialised formula is often overused, especially in instances when there is no clinical need.
The authors recommend future research that investigates the potential long-term health impacts of offering non-standard infant formula, such as obesity risk, as well as the role of marketing in product choice for infants without medical indications. They highlight the importance of this research informing formula regulations, which in the US (as in the EU and UK) require only evidence of adequate infant growth over a short period of time.
We at First Steps Nutrition Trust have been working to expose the issues surrounding the regulation and marketing of specialised infant milks in the UK for more than a decade, as well as providing independent information on these products to support their appropriate use. See this editorial published in 2024 “Specialised Infant Formulas: Overused, Overpriced and Obesogenic”. We are in the process of updating our report “Specialised milks for infants with allergies in the UK”for sharing in our December newsletter.
To support health workers conversations with families who use formula to feed their babies about which product to choose, see our website here, along with our infographics here.
It is therefore disappointing that the DHSC responded to our letter by stating that the government response will be published in “due course” with no indication of when this might be.
Follow us on social media where we will provide updates of any progress between now and our December newsletter.
New paper: The imprints of sponsorship: The case of UNITAR’s Danone-sponsored Breastfeeding Education Initiative
On 30 September 2025, Laura Raquel Piaggio, from the SANAR (Sociedad Argentina de Nutrición y Alimentos Reales / Argentine Society of Nutrition and Real Foods) Foundation, Argentina, and colleagues published this paper in the journal World Nutrition, exposing a significant conflict of interest in the presentation of a United Nations breastfeeding training programme. The online course (aimed at the general public, health professionals, and policymakers) was called the Breastfeeding Education Initiative (BFEI) and was launched in 2023 by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). It also included regional training, government collaboration and the establishment of a panel of experts from various countries and disciplines. Unfortunately, the BFEI programme was developed through a partnership between UNITAR and Danone (one of the biggest manufacturers of commercial milk formula globally), presenting a clear conflict of interest. Piaggio and colleagues documented how this commercial influence was discovered and the impact it had on the technical content developed and shared as part of the programme, including the influence on the educational programme’s content (such as the omission of sufficient information on the Code and marketing practices by CMF companies). The authors report that in June 2025, the entities supporting the initiative were no longer disclosed on the website, and in September 2025, the website shared a message indicating that the BFEI project was concluded and the course and website were no longer available. An announcementon the UNITAR website indicates that the courses and webinar series were “successfully concluded” at the end of December 2024. This case study serves as an example of why conflicts of interest with the formula industry must be avoided.
New paper: Conflicts of Interest in Infant and Young Child Feeding: A Review of Australian Health Professional Associations' Guidance to Members on the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes
On 31 October 2025, Naomi Hull and colleagues in Australia publishedthis paper in the journal Maternal and Child Nutrition, describing a systematic methodology to assess the extent to which the codes and standards of health professional associations (HPAs) require compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions (“the Code”). The Infant Feeding Conflict of Interest Assessment Tool was developed using content from most recent global guidance on the Code and on preventing conflicts of interest in infant and young child feeding. The tool assesses documents by applying a simple scoring system to 8 critical elements of the Code and WHO guidance, and a total score and percentage can be calculated to provide an evaluation of the level of compliance of each document or standard. Hull and colleagues tested this tool and scoring mechanism with 19 HPAs in Australia to present the first ever such evaluation of national HPAs in one country. The authors state that the tool now needs further testing and development in a range of other country settings, and validation against surveys of changes in HPA adherence and health workers attitudes and awareness of medical marketing of commercial milk formulas.
New resource: Unmasking Influence: Full documentary now publicly available
Unmasking Influence: How commercial actors influence policy and public health is a documentary about how commercial actors influence policy and public health, produced by Dr May van Schalkwyk and Professor Mark Petticrew of the commercial determinants research group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. The documentary shares stories and experiences of several researchers, health professionals and activists (including Prof Chris van Tulleken and Patti Rundall, OBE), using examples from different commercial determinants of health (including alcohol, tobacco, food, gambling, and others).
There have been various screenings of the documentary, but as of 3 November 2025, the full film (48 minutes) is now available to watch on the LSHTM Vimeo channel here.
Food Active 2025 Conference: 11 November 2025, online
The Food Active 2025 Conference “A Decade of Action: The Healthy Weight Declaration after 10 Years” takes place on Tuesday 11 November, from 9:30 am to 1:00 pm. 2025 marks ten years since the launch of Food Active’s Healthy Weight Declaration (HWD); established as a mechanism to support local government consider whole systems working to promote healthy weight. The conference will reflect on the declaration’s implementation, evolution, and impact on local policy and population health. Delegates will explore whole-systems approaches to promoting healthy weight, share best practice, and discuss how the HWD supports partnership working. The conference will also address the growing concerns associated with the commercial determinants of health and how the declaration helps local leaders respond to commercial influences and their impact on public health.
The conference will bring together colleagues, including, national partners, local authority officers, system leaders, NHS partners and ICS colleagues, academics, VCFSE organisations and more.
Launch of the Lancet Series on Ultra-processed Foods and Human Health: 19 November 2025 in-person (Royal College of Physicians, London) and online
Photo credit: Peter Bond on Upsplash
On Wednesday 19 November 2025, from 6:30pm, the landmark three-paper Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and Human Health will be launched at an event at the Royal College of Physicians in London, as well as online. Speakers include authors of the 3 papers and responses from experts, including the WHO and UNICEF.
Speakers will discuss the scientific, policy, and political dimensions of the global UPF challenge, and there will be a Call to Action and Launch of the Ultra-processed Food Action Network.
We (Vicky, Katie and Tami) will be at the event in person so please come and say hello if you are there too. While the in-person even has now reached capacity, you can register to add your name to a waiting list to attend in person here. Register to attend online here.
Food, Pregnancy and Me webinar: 1 December 2025, online
This webinar will take place between 10 and 11.30am on Monday 1December 2025 and will give an overview of the School for Public Health Research (NIHR) project “Food, pregnancy and me”. The project aimed to identify the prevalence of food insecurity in pregnancy in two maternity services in England (Gateshead and Coventry), look at how food insecurity was associated with pregnancy outcomes in these settings, explore pregnant and postnatal experiences and support needs, and co-develop policy recommendations to prevent or mitigate food insecurity in pregnancy. Register to attend online here.
We’re sad to say goodbye to our Nutrition Officer Jasmine who joined us this time last year to provide maternity cover for Rachel. She has done so much in her time at First Steps Nutrition Trust, including taking our social media communications to a new level and being instrumental in supporting our work on commercial baby foods. In exciting news, she is now off to have a baby too! We hope to share happy news about her baby’s safe arrival in due course.
