Most baby foods are sweet, smooth, and poorly aligned with health advice, review finds

By Vijay Kumar MalesuReviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Jul 9 2025

Despite their popularity and promises, commercial baby foods are often packed with sugar and lack the diversity infants need, raising concerns for parents who trust the packaging over public health advice.

Commercial Baby Foods: Nutrition, Marketing and Motivations for Use—A Narrative Review. Image Credit: Kichigin / Shutterstock

In a recent study published in the journal Maternal & Child Nutrition, a group of researchers assessed the nutritional adequacy, marketing claims, and parental motivations associated with commercial baby foods (CBFs) in high-income countries from 2019 to 2024.

Background

What if the bright pouch marketed as your baby’s “first tastes” actually packs more sugar than a doughnut? Pressed for time and swayed by advertising, parents increasingly grab purées and finger snacks that promise nutrition, safety, and smiles. CBFs can help, but they are often sweet, smooth, and sometimes low in energy density, especially for older infants, contrary to the assumption that all are energy-dense, which can steer taste preferences toward sugar and limit chewing practice.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends home-prepared, varied foods after six months, and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and Public Health England (PHE) call CBFs unnecessary. Yet, a market worth USD 53.7 billion in 2024 continues to expand; thus, clear evidence is needed to guide policy and parental choice.

About the study

In January 2025, the researchers conducted a narrative systematic review by searching PubMed and Web of Science for studies on CBFs, their nutritional composition, labeling practices, and factors influencing parental choice. Eligible studies were English language, published 2019-2024, and examined products for children aged 0-36 months in the United Kingdom (UK), Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. Studies outside these regions or focused solely on allergens, contaminants, or sustainability were excluded. Titles and abstracts (n = 3,434) were screened independently; disagreements were resolved, and 31 full-text papers met criteria.

Data on design, country, sample size, product category, nutrient composition, marketing claims, and caregiver motivations were extracted into evidence tables. Quality was assessed using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS), and 27 studies scored 100%. Findings were synthesized under three topics: nutritional composition, flavor profile and texture; marketing and labeling; and parental choice. Medians and ranges illustrated patterns in sugar content, product type, and claim prevalence. The status of ultra-processed food (UPF) and its alignment with the WHO Nutrient Profiling and Promotional Model (NPPM) were also documented. Where data were missing, authors were contacted for clarification; 10 responded, improving completeness.

Study results

Across the 31 studies, with the most extensive single study covering 3,427 unique products, CBFs were dominated by squeeze pouches and purees. The median market share was 56%, reaching 70-80% in Denmark, Norway, and Australia. Snacks, often branded as “first finger foods,” accounted for another 18% but rose to 38% in Australia and exceeded 30% in Iceland.

Nutritionally, sweetness prevailed, with pooled medians indicating 10.4 grams of total sugars per 100 grams in purees, 20.3 grams in snacks, and 14.7 grams in cereals, which is well above the National Health Service (NHS) “low-sugar” threshold of 5 grams. Nearly half of all sampled items contained added or free sugars such as fruit-juice concentrates; the rate climbed to 62% for snacks and to 90% for infant cereals in one Australian survey. Only 45% of UK products satisfied every threshold in the WHO NPPM; comparable compliance ranged from 22% to 36% in four Australian datasets. Salt, iron, and protein were inconsistently reported; however, when benchmarked, three-quarters of German cereals lacked iron fortification, and in some cases, energy density fell below the SACN guidance for growing toddlers.

Texture analysis revealed that 50-80% of products were smooth or pureed, limiting opportunities for infants to learn chewing. Bitter vegetables appeared in fewer than one in ten pouches; instead, sweet root vegetables or fruit purées dominated ingredient lists. Snack textures were equally monotonous, with extruded puffs, rice crackers, and yogurt-coated melts comprising half of the savory lines, raising concerns about satiation and dental exposure.

Marketing audits mapped an ecosystem of health halos. “No added sugar” banners adorned up to 70% of Portuguese packs, 60% of Australian and UK packs, and often masked high free-sugar levels. Health or developmental claims like “supports immunity” and “strong bones” featured on 17-91% of labels, while nearly one-third of UK products carried emotionally charged phrases like “happy tummies.” A single product might host six distinct claims. Parental surveys mirrored these tactics: caregivers were 13.7 times more likely to choose a snack displaying a “no added sugar or salt” label. Many cited trust in familiar brands, convenience during travel, and a fear of choking as purchase drivers.

Together, the evidence paints a consistent picture: commercial baby foods remain high in sugars, low in textural and flavor diversity, saturated with persuasive marketing, and are positioned as indispensable, despite public health advice that homemade alternatives are sufficient. These deficits persist across brands and retail outlets.

Conclusions

To summarize, CBFs have not kept pace with modern public-health guidance, as most products reviewed between 2019 and 2024 were sugar-dense, often texturally unchallenging or lacking in variety, and marketed with feel-good slogans that obscure their shortcomings.

Parents purchase them for convenience, safety, and perceived health, yet evidence shows limited alignment with the WHO NPPM. Mandatory standards, enforcement, and clear NHS messaging are necessary, alongside industry reformulation that reduces free sugars and broadens flavor and texture options. Empowering caregivers with transparent labeling and affordable, nutrient-rich options could lead to healthier palates and a reduced future burden of obesity.