Claims on baby food fail to stack up
Baby and toddler foods often feature misleading claims aimed at convincing parents the products are a healthy choice, new research shows.
From images of fruit to claims of being ‘sugar-free’, baby foods often feature misleading claims aimed at convincing parents the products are a healthy choice, new research shows.
The study led by the University of Auckland, reviewed packaging of more than 200 processed foods for infants and toddlers and found all featured marketing and nutrition claims, which didn’t necessarily stack up when they examined the ingredients. See Nutrition and Dietetics.
“These little packages are cluttered with messages about why you should buy them,” says 'Dr Sally Mackay, a senior lecturer in population nutrition in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences' . “There are so many messages that it’s hard for carers to know what is useful and what is not”.
The average number of claims per package was 7.5, ranging from three to 15. They were mainly ‘free from’ claims, for example, ‘free from additives’, and marketing claims, e.g., ‘for growing kids on the go’.
“This is an overwhelmingly high number of claims. They don’t only try to convince parents these products are a healthy choice, they also try to convey that they are an easy and convenient option that promotes the child’s development,” says Dr Berit Follong, a postdoctoral fellow in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland.
The researchers found that 60 percent* of packaged infant and toddler foods had images of fruit and 40 percent had pictures of vegetables, but many had very small amounts of those products in them. For example, a snack food with ‘purple carrot’ in its name contained a miniscule quantity of purple carrot juice and no actual vegetable.
The study didn't look at infant formula.
While three out of five New Zealand infant and toddler foods featured images of fruit on their packaging, most of these contained processed fruit sugars, while one in five contained less than five percent fruit.
“Our findings are important because it’s vital parents have accurate information, so they can make informed choices,” Mackay says.
Follong says product names can mislead about the nutrient content, too.
In more than half of savoury meals, the name did not reflect the descending order of their contents.
“If meat is stated as the first component of the product name, this implies the product is high in iron and protein but often it is low. For example, a product called ‘Organic Beef and Vege Ragout’ contains only ten percent beef and vegetables are the main ingredient,” Follong says.
In Australia, recent research found only about a quarter of packaged baby and toddler foods met WHO nutritional guidelines. Nonetheless, they featured claims trying to tell carers the foods were a healthy choice.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand is currently considering regulation of these claims, which the researchers support.
“We think these claims are misleading parents who want to do the best for their children,” Mackay says.
They would like to see claims banned on baby and toddler packaged foods and instead only simple, accurate nutritional information to be displayed.
Research has shown visual imagery of fruit or vegetables on children’s snack food products enhance carers’ perceptions of the healthiness of those foods.
“To avoid misleading carers, it is important that food companies’ use of this marketing technique on baby and toddler foods is restricted to instances where whole fruits and vegetables form a substantial part of the product,” the authors say.
Method of Research
Data/statistical analysis
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Cluttered with claims: Composition, nutrition, health and marketing claims on commercial infant and toddler foods in New Zealand
