Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T17:26:52.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment of foods for infants and toddlers in Australia against the World Health Organization’s Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model for food products for infants and young children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2024

Alexandra Chung*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Sophia Torkel
Affiliation:
Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Judith Myers
Affiliation:
Health and Social Care Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, Australia
Helen Skouteris
Affiliation:
Health and Social Care Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Global public health agencies have recommended stronger regulation of food marketing to protect children’s diets. This study assessed commercial foods for infants and toddlers available in Australian supermarkets for compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe’s Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model: supporting appropriate promotion of food products for infants and young children 6–36 months in the WHO European Region (NPPM).

Design:

Dietitians assessed a sample of commercial foods for infants and toddlers against the composition, labelling and promotion requirements of the NPPM.

Setting:

Australia.

Participants:

Commercial foods for infants and toddlers (n 45) available in two major Australian supermarkets, purposely sampled across product categories and brands.

Results:

Fewer than one quarter (23 %) of the assessed products met all nutrient content requirements of the NPPM. No products met all of the labelling or promotional requirements. All products included at least one promotional marketing claim that was not permitted under the NPPM.

Conclusions:

The NPPM is useful to assess and monitor the nutritional composition and prevalence of marketing claims on commercial foods for infants and toddlers. Findings of noncompliance with the NPPM recommendations indicate an urgent need for stronger government regulation of the composition, labelling and marketing of commercial foods for infants and toddlers in Australia.

Type
Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Unhealthy diets are a leading risk factor for the global burden of disease(Reference Afshin, Sur and Fay1). Early life is a critical time for the development of healthy dietary behaviours(Reference Schwartz, Scholtens and Lalanne2) with adequate nutrition foundational for child development and the prevention of overweight and obesity(Reference Monasta, Batty and Cattaneo3,Reference Black, Walker and Fernald4) . Dietary patterns developed in infancy persist through the preschool years and into childhood(Reference Lioret, Betoko and Forhan5,Reference Luque, Escribano and Closa-Monasterolo6) . Further, unhealthy diets in the first year of life contribute to socio-economic inequalities in excess weight among children(Reference Chung, Peeters and Gearon7). There is therefore a window of opportunity in early childhood to promote healthy diets, reducing the risk of obesity and socio-economic inequalities in obesity.

Young children’s diets are increasingly reliant on commercial infant and toddler foods. This includes ready-made or processed foods for babies and toddlers up to 36 months of age that are sold in supermarkets, pharmacies and other stores. These foods commonly include purees and snack foods packaged in pouches, jars or boxes(8). A review of infant and toddler diets across seven countries found between 40 and 60 % of infants aged 6–12 months consume commercial infant and toddler foods, with these foods making a significant contribution to total energy and sugar intake(Reference Tedstone, Nicholas and MacKinlay9). In Australia, one in two children aged up to 5 years consume commercial infant and toddler foods one or more days per week(Reference Gascoyne, Godwin and Chen10). At the same time, commercial infant and toddler foods represent a growing segment of the grocery market, with increasing numbers of new products launched onto the market during the period 2003–2020(Reference McCann, Russell and Woods11). In 2023, commercial baby food sales in Australia (including prepared baby food, cereals and snacks) generated USD$253·25 million in revenue(12).

Commercial foods for infants and toddlers are often high in free sugars, including monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, as well as sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit and vegetable juices, concentrates, purees, pastes and powders(13,Reference Swan, Powell and Knowles14) . Fruit sugars are a particular problem in infant and toddler foods, which commonly contain sugars from fruit purees or fruit juice concentrate(Reference Scully, Schmidtke and Conquest15,Reference Simmonds, Brownbill and Zee16) . Yet these products are heavily promoted to children and their parents using a variety of marketing techniques, including visual appeals and health-related claims(Reference McCann, Russell and Woods11,Reference Simmonds, Brownbill and Zee16,Reference Chung, Myers and Skouteris17)

Food marketing impacts parents’ decision-making(Reference Chung, Hatzikiriakidis and Martino18) and children’s dietary behaviours, including food choices, preferences and purchase requests(Reference Boyland, McGale and Maden19). Marketing is pervasive on food and beverage product packaging with the use of colourful images and logos, popular children’s characters and health and nutrition claims(Reference Smith, Kelly and Yeatman20). On-pack marketing is a key component of cross-media marketing campaigns(Reference Hawkes21) and a leading source of children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing(Reference Signal, Stanley and Smith22). Parents are also targeted by front-of-pack marketing with health and nutrition claims commonly displayed on products for infants, toddlers and children(Reference Chung, Myers and Skouteris17,Reference Garcia, Menon and Parrett23,Reference Koo, Chang and Chen24) .

There are global efforts to reduce the harmful effects of food marketing on children’s diets(25,26) . Underpinned by a child rights approach, governments are being urged to implement regulations to protect children from the harmful effects of food marketing(27). The WHO Regional Office for Europe has recently released the Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model: supporting the appropriate promotion of food products for infants and young children 6–36 months in the WHO European Region (NPPM)(28). Developed in partnership with the University of Leeds, this model provides guidance on the composition and promotion of foods for infants and young children aged 6–36 months. In this model, the WHO recommends stronger regulation of the composition, labelling and promotion of foods for infants and toddlers to protect young children’s diets from the harms of commercial interests. The NPPM is accompanied by an online tool with a template that can be completed and uploaded to provide an assessment of commercially available products against the NPPM recommendations for product composition, labelling and promotion.

In Australia, compositional and labelling requirements of foods are regulated by The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Foods for infants are addressed under Standard 2·9·2, which outlines compositional requirements such as limits on sugar and sodium, and minimum iron content in cereal-based foods, as well as labelling requirements, including age recommendations and vitamin and mineral content claims. Standard 1·2·7 outlines requirements for health claims that state or imply that a food has or may have a certain health effect, and nutrition content claims that refer to the presence or absence of macro or micronutrients (e.g. no added sugar, high in fibre, source of protein). However, Standard 1·2·7 does not apply to foods for infants. Furthermore, many of the claims commonly made on infant and toddler foods are not regulated under the Food Standards Code. This includes claims that make appeals to health and promote the product as ideal for young child feeding such as ‘natural’, ‘organic’, ‘no nasties’, ‘no preservatives’ and ‘for tiny hands’(Reference McCann, Russell and Campbell29). There is a distinct gap in the current regulation of commerical foods for infants and toddlers that allows manufacturers to influence children’s diets through the promotion of these products.

This study aimed to assess the nutritional composition, labelling, and promotion of commercial foods for infants and toddlers available in Australia’s major supermarkets against the requirements of the NPPM.

Methods

Data source

Data were collected from the websites of Australia’s two major supermarkets on December 14, 2021 using automated data extraction carried out by a private company for non-commercial purposes on behalf of members of the research team. Data included product images, product name, volume, pack size, price and nutritional composition for approximately 30 000 food and drink items. Using the supermarkets’ own classifications of baby and toddler food and after removing products with missing images or product information data, a dataset of 230 infant and toddler food products was created. For this study, nutrient content data were recorded directly from the data extraction output; details of package type, labelling and promotion were manually recorded from product images. Where possible, details from the data extraction output were used to populate the fields in the NPPM template. Missing data were identified in one of two ways: (1) online searches of supermarket websites (conducted between June 7 and July 2, 2023); (2) visits to physical supermarkets to locate products with package images captured on mobile phone for analysis. Supermarkets located in Chadstone and Clayton, Victoria, were visited by one author between June 28 and June 29, 2023.

Study sample

In accordance with the protocol for a rapid evaluation outlined in the NPPM Product Evaluation Guide(30), up to five products were selected from a range of brands across the fourteen NPPM subcategories. To do this, all products in our dataset were classified into NPPM product subcategories and then sorted by brand within each subcategory. Five products were then randomly selected from each subcategory ensuring at least one product was selected from each brand represented in the subcategory. Classification of food products to the relevant subcategories was performed by qualified dietitians with one author completing the initial allocation and a second author verifying the allocation of all products. In three subcategories, there were fewer than five products available in the data source, and in two categories (Ingredients and Drinks), no products were identified in the data source. The final analytical sample contained forty-five food items (Table 1) comprising products in assorted packaging, including pouches, jars, bowls, single-serve packets and sachets and boxes and packets containing multiple serves (Table 2).

Table 1 Number of products assessed in each of the WHO Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model product groups and subcategories

Table 2 Package type according to food product group

Data analysis

The NPPM Product Evaluation Guide was applied to assess this sample of commercial foods for infants and toddlers(30). The Guide includes a Microsoft Excel template to record nutrient data and on-pack promotions for infant and toddler food items for each product. The NPPM Guide offers an online calculator to automatically assess products against the NPPM guidelines; however, the calculator was offline for maintenance at the time of this study. Therefore, calculations were manually performed using Microsoft Excel to assess each product against the NPPM criteria and determine compliance with the NPPM guidelines.

Results

The study sample consisted of forty-five items across six product groups: dry cereals and starches; dairy foods; fruit and vegetable purees; savoury meals; snacks and finger foods and confectionery. The assessment of each product against the requirements of the NPPM is discussed below and summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Proportion of products meeting content, labelling and promotional requirements of the WHO Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model

* Seventeen products were required to be assessed against thresholds for the high in sugar label to be required; eight products were below the threshold.

NPPM part A: content and labelling requirements

Of the forty assessed products subject to nutrient content requirements, less than one-quarter (23 %) met all nutrient content requirements. Of the forty products subject to energy density requirements, over half (53 %) met these requirements. The Snacks and finger foods product group was subject to an upper limit for energy density (≤50 kcal per serve), and all products in this product group met this requirement. Four product groups were subject to a minimum requirement for energy density, and each of these product groups contained products which had insufficient energy density, with products being between 0·1 % and 48 % below the minimum energy density requirement. The one product in the subcategory 3.2 Vegetable only products was subject to the requirement to have no more than 25 % added water and contained 42·8 % added water, exceeding the requirement by 71 %.

Of the forty products subject to sodium content requirements (≤50 mg/100 kcal, or ≤100 mg/100 kcal if cheese is named), all but two of the products (95 %) met the requirements for sodium content. The two products which exceeded the sodium content threshold were in subcategories Food without protein or cheese named and Dry or semi-dry snacks and finger foods. These products were 38 % and 7 % above the upper limit for sodium content, respectively.

Of the twenty-three products subject to total sugar limits (≤15 % energy from sugar), over half (57 %) met these requirements. However, among products packaged in pouches with a spout, only 25 % were within the limits for total sugar. The ten products which exceeded the sugar content threshold were between 16 % and 97 % above the maximum sugar content requirement. Of the seventeen products subject to evaluation for the need to carry a ‘high in sugar’ flag, over half (53 %) would be required to carry a ‘high in sugar’ flag. Of the forty products subject to the requirement to have no added free sugars or sweeteners, the majority (85 %) met this requirement. The products containing added free sugar were in the subcategories Dairy-based foods, desserts, and cereals and Fruit-containing product, including breakfast/ dairy. Of the thirty products subject to fruit content requirements, the majority (93 %) met these requirements. One product in the subcategory Food with cheese named but no protein contained added fruit but did not report on the amount of fruit added, while one product in the Fruit subcategory contained 99·5 % fruit compared to the requirement to contain 100 % fruit.

Of the nineteen products subject to total protein content requirements, over three-quarters (79 %) met these requirements. The four products which did not meet protein content requirements were in the subcategory Food without protein or cheese named and were between 17 % and 39 % below the minimum protein content requirement. Of the ten products subject to minimum protein weight requirements, over half (60 %) met these requirements. The four products which did not meet protein weight requirements were between 13 % and 65 % below the minimum protein weight requirement.

Of the forty products subject to total fat content limits, all but one of the products (98 %) met the requirements for total fat content. The one product which exceeded the threshold was in the category Dry or semi-dry snacks and finger foods and contained 16 % more fat than the maximum permitted fat content. No products contained industrially produced trans fats.

NPPM part B: promotional messages

All forty-five products displayed at least one nutrition, marketing or health claim, therefore none of the products in this sample met the NPPM promotional message requirements of ‘no compositional, nutritional, health or marketing claims’. Over half of the products (60 %) did not fulfil the requirements for product name clarity. Reasons for not fulfilling these requirements included listing the ingredients in an order other than descending order. One-third of products (36 %) did not meet the NPPM requirements for ingredient list clarity. Reasons for not meeting the NPPM requirements for ingredient list clarity included missing information on the amount of added water or fruit.

Sixteen products were packaged in pouches, including savoury meals (n 8), fruit and vegetable purees (n 4), and dairy foods (n 4). Under NPPM requirements, these are subject to provide a suggestion to serve the product from a spoon or bowl. Less than one-fifth (19 %) of pouch products met the requirement to provide instructions not to consume the product directly from the spout, and none included an upper-age label. In addition, some products with spouts included non-permitted claims promoting the convenience of the product as an ‘on-the-go’ snack. Of all five products which required preparation, all provided preparation requirements which were classified as suitable according to the NPPM.

Analysis of compliance with NPPM requirements according to package type found that overall compliance with NPPM requirements was similar across all package types. For example, 55 % of NPPM criteria were met for pouch products, 56 % of criteria were met for products in a bowl and 60 % of criteria were met by products in jars. Detailed results are provided in, Supplementary File 1.

No products met all NPPM requirements in relation to protecting and promoting breastfeeding. The NPPM specifies that ‘all products must include a statement on the importance of continued breastfeeding for up to 2 years or beyond and the importance of not introducing complementary feeding before 6 months of age’, but no products in this study included such a statement. In addition, the labels of three of the products were incongruent with breastfeeding guidelines by including a statement that the product was suitable for infants from 4 months of age. No products provided information on upper age limits on the package.

Discussion

This study assessed a sample of forty-five commercial foods for infant and toddlers available in Australian supermarkets against the NPPM guidelines for commercial foods for infants and young children. All food products assessed in this study failed to meet the NPPM promotional requirements by including marketing features not permitted under the NPPM guidelines, and fewer than one-quarter of assessed products met all of the nutritional composition requirements of the NPPM.

Added sugar limits were exceeded in almost half the products assessed. The addition of free sugars is of particular concern due to the risks of excess weight gain, poor dental health and development of a preference for sweet foods(13,Reference Beckerman, Alike and Lovin31) . The use of fruit as an added sugar is common in infant and toddler foods, which frequently contain sugars from fruit purees or fruit juice concentrate(Reference Scully, Schmidtke and Conquest15,Reference Simmonds, Brownbill and Zee16) . The presence of sugar in infant and toddler food is a concern globally, with a study examining product data in twenty-seven European countries finding that 24·4 % of products contain free sugars and 38·5 % contain at least one sugar-contributing ingredient (e.g. fruit purees)(Reference Grammatikaki, Wollgast and Caldeira32).

The definition of ‘added sugar’ is an ongoing source of discussion, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, where there is no agreed definition(33). Further, in Australia, there is currently no requirement for manufacturers to declare the amount of added sugar in a food. There is broad support for clear added sugar labelling on food packages(Reference Riesenberg, Peeters and Backholer34), yet under the current system, sugar labelling on infant and toddler foods is misleading(Reference McCann, Russell and Campbell29,Reference Brunacci, Salmon and McCann35) .

An important feature of foods for infants and toddlers is to provide adequate nutrition for growth(36). However, only around half of the products assessed in this study met minimum energy density requirements. Australia’s Infant Feeding Guidelines recommend the introduction of nutritious solid foods around the age of 6 months alongside continued breastfeeding(36). This is echoed in UNICEF guidelines that recommend nutritious, age-appropriate foods during the complementary feeding period and avoid foods with low nutritional value or with added sugars(37). The increasing reliance on commercial foods for infants and toddlers places young children at risk of not meeting nutritional requirements for growth and development.

Products in pouches with spouts included suggestions to serve the product from a spoon or bowl but failed to provide explicit instructions not to consume via the spout. Despite the convenience of a spout, consuming purees from a spout can interfere with oral-motor development, which relies on chewing and swallowing food with increasingly complex textures(Reference Johnson and Hayes38). Pouches also reduce the opportunity to experience the look, smell and feel of foods and have been associated with fussy eating(Reference Cox, Taylor and Haszard39). Evidence also shows that products in pouches are nutritionally poor, often high in free sugars, lack iron fortification and are heavily promoted by marketing that is misleading(Reference Brunacci, Salmon and McCann35). Regular monitoring of infant and toddler diets is important to provide insights into the extent to which young children’s diets include commercially available foods including those packaged in pouches, and further our understanding of the impacts of these products on children’s diets.

No products met the NPPM requirements to promote and protect breastfeeding. The WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, followed by continued breastfeeding for up to 2 years or beyond, with appropriate complementary foods(40). Similarly, Australia’s Infant Feeding Guidelines recommend that infants are exclusively breastfed until around 6 months of age, with solid foods introduced at around 6 months but not before 4 months, with continued breastfeeding until 12 months of age and beyond, for as long as the mother and child desire(36). Products failed to meet the NPPM requirements to state the importance of breastfeeding and some products were promoted as ‘suitable for 4+ months’ in direct conflict with the intentions of optimal infant feeding advice. By failing to promote the benefits of breastfeeding and providing feeding advice that directly contradicts best practice, manufacturers are undermining the importance of breastfeeding.

All forty-five products included at least one health or nutrition claim, and all therefore failed to meet the NPPM requirement of ‘no compositional, nutritional, health or marketing claims’. Research has previously shown that nutrition and product composition claims are prolific on infant and toddler food packages. For example, assessment of on-pack claims on commercial baby foods (for infants up to 12 months) in UK supermarkets found extensive use of composition, nutrient and marketing claims across almost all products, while health claims such as those implying benefits for health or growth were observed to a much lesser extent(Reference Garcia, Menon and Parrett23). An Australian study found claims appealing to health or nutrition present on every product in a sample of 230 infant and toddler foods and additionally found up to 15 unique marketing features present on the front-of-pack(Reference Chung, Myers and Skouteris17). An audit of health and nutrition claims on infant and toddler food packaging in Australia found pervasive use of health-related appeals including statements and images that imply a product is ‘natural’, and developmental claims to promote products as ‘better-for-you’(Reference Simmonds, Brownbill and Zee16). In Taiwan, a study of infant and toddler foods found composition, health and nutrient claims frequently appeared on the front-of-pack, yet these products were no more healthy than similar products without claims(Reference Koo, Chang and Chen24). These findings suggest that infant and toddler food packages may be misleading parents by making extensive health-related appeals including claims about product composition and nutritional value.

The NPPM provides guidance on written health and nutrition claims but does not consider visual marketing cues or other marketing features that may appeal to children. Child-directed marketing is a powerful technique used by the food industry to influence children’s preferences, choices, purchase requests and consumption(Reference Boyland, McGale and Maden19). Based on the evidence of extensive child-appeal marketing on infant and toddler food products(Reference Chung, Myers and Skouteris17,Reference Jones, Shahid and Morelli41) , the NPPM will be best considered alongside other international guidance (such as the WHO Set of Recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children(25) and Policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing(26)) to ensure children’s diets are adequately protected against the harms of marketing in all its forms.

Amidst global concerns that food marketing is driving consumption of commercial infant and toddler foods and displacing intake of fresh foods(Reference Childs and Sibson42), there is a need for detailed policy guidance to ensure foods marketed and sold for infants and toddlers support optimal nutrition and child development. Policy guidance is necessary to ensure governments act to protect population diets from commercial interests which play a powerful role in shaping food systems and food environments(Reference Chung, Westerman and Martin43). As legislation is developed and implemented, policy guidance will also be required for ongoing monitoring and compliance to ensure policies have the intended effects in protecting children’s diets and to hold food companies to account(Reference Sing and Backholer44).

Limitations

These findings should be considered within the limitations of the research methods. This rapid evaluation had a small sample size of forty-five products. This provides insight into the nutritional composition and marketing of infant and toddler foods in Australia but does not represent all products in the food supply. Because there were small numbers in each product category, it is unknown whether the sample had adequate statistical power to detect differences in marketing features between groups. However, the study methods are in accordance with the protocol recommended in the NPPM product evaluation guide and as such allow for replication across larger samples and to monitor trends over time.

Implications

The NPPM is an important tool to guide policy reform to support optimal nutrition and development for infants and young children. The tool aims to reduce inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children including any promotion that interferes with breastfeeding, contributes to obesity and non-communicable disease, creates a dependency on commercial products, or is otherwise misleading. The NPPM model and accompanying analysis tool has wide application for monitoring the composition, labelling and promotion of commercial foods for infants and toddlers over time and compliance with international and local standards. Using a sample of commercially available infant and toddler food products in the Australian food supply, this study demonstrates the utility of the NPPM tool and provides evidence of the urgent need to improve the composition, labelling and promotion of commercial foods for infants and young children in Australia. The tool can be easily accessed and used in food systems monitoring, public health nutrition research and advocacy for regulation to improve the composition, labelling and promotion of foods for infants and young children.

Conclusion

Commercial foods for infants and toddlers are heavily marketed to parents as an ideal choice. Yet this study found that many products on the Australian market failed to meet the requirements of the NPPM. All infant and toddler food products assessed in this study included marketing claims not permitted under the NPPM guidelines, and only one in four products met all of the nutritional composition requirements of the NPPM. Whilst most products met nutritional requirements such as sodium limits, almost half exceeded total sugar limits. This demonstrates an urgent need for governments to set higher standards for the composition, labelling and promotion of foods for infants and young children. The NPPM is an important addition to the suite of resources available to public health advocates, practitioners and governments to support the design and implementation of policies that protect children’s diets and promote optimal infant and young child feeding.

Acknowledgements

None.

Financial support

A.C. is supported by a VicHealth Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. VicHealth had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Authorship

A.C. conceptualised the research question and designed the study. A.C. and S.T. analysed the data. A.C., S.T., J.M. and H.K. contributed to the interpretation of the data. A.C. and S.T. prepared the manuscript, which was critically reviewed by J.M. and H.K. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript and agree to be fully accountable for all aspects of the work.

Ethics of human subject participation

None.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002400171X

References

Afshin, A, Sur, PJ, Fay, KA et al. (2019) Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet 393, 19581972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, C, Scholtens, PA, Lalanne, A et al. (2011) Development of healthy eating habits early in life. Review of recent evidence and selected guidelines. Appetite 57, 796807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monasta, L, Batty, G, Cattaneo, A et al. (2010) Early-life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews. Obes Rev 11, 695708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, MM, Walker, SP, Fernald, LCH et al. (2017) Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. Lancet 389, 7790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lioret, S, Betoko, A, Forhan, A et al. (2015) Dietary patterns track from infancy to preschool age: cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. J Nutr 145, 775782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luque, V, Escribano, J, Closa-Monasterolo, R et al. (2018) Unhealthy dietary patterns established in infancy track to mid-childhood: the EU childhood obesity project. J Nutr 148, 752759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, A, Peeters, A, Gearon, E et al. (2018) Contribution of discretionary food and drink consumption to socio-economic inequalities in children’s weight: prospective study of Australian children. Int J Epidemiol 47, 820828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne (2022) Ready-Made Baby Foods: Do Parents know the Facts?. Victoria: The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne.Google Scholar
Tedstone, A, Nicholas, J, MacKinlay, B et al. (2019) Foods and Drinks Aimed at Infants and Young Children: Evidence and Opportunities for Action. London, UK: Public Health England.Google Scholar
Gascoyne, C, Godwin, R, Chen, M et al. (2021) Australian Parents’ Use and Perceptions of Ready-Made Infant and Toddler Food Products. East Melbourne: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria.Google Scholar
McCann, JR, Russell, CG & Woods, JL (2021) The nutritional profile and on-pack marketing of toddler-specific food products launched in Australia between 1996 and 2020. Nutrients 14, 163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statista Market Insights (2024) Baby Food Australia. Hamburg: Statista.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2015) Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Swan, GE, Powell, NA, Knowles, BL et al. (2018) A definition of free sugars for the UK. Public Health Nutr 21, 16361638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scully, M, Schmidtke, A, Conquest, L et al. (2023) Commercially available foods for young children (<36 months) in Australia: an assessment of how they compare to a proposed nutrient profile model. Health Promot J Austr 34, 750758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmonds, L, Brownbill, AL, Zee, A et al. (2021) Health-related marketing messages on product labels of commercial infant and toddler food packaging in Australia: a cross-sectional audit. BMJ Paediatr Open 5, e001241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, A, Myers, J, Skouteris, H et al. (2023) Front-of-pack marketing on infant and toddler foods: targeting children and their caregivers. Aust New Zealand J Public Health 47, 100101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, A, Hatzikiriakidis, K, Martino, F et al. (2024) Characterising parent-appeal marketing on foods for children: a scoping review. Curr Nutr Rep 13, 393398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyland, E, McGale, L, Maden, M et al. (2022) Association of food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing with children and adolescents’ eating behaviors and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 176, e221037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R, Kelly, B, Yeatman, H et al. (2019) Food marketing influences children’s attitudes, preferences and consumption: a systematic critical review. Nutrients 11, 875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, C (2010) Food packaging: the medium is the message. Public Health Nutr 13, 297299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Signal, LN, Stanley, J, Smith, M et al. (2017) Children’s everyday exposure to food marketing: an objective analysis using wearable cameras. Int J Behav Nutr Phy Act 14, 137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, AL, Menon, R & Parrett, A (2022) Extensive use of on-pack promotional claims on commercial baby foods in the UK. Arch Dis Child 107, 606611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, YC, Chang, JS & Chen, YC (2018) Food claims and nutrition facts of commercial infant foods. PLoS One 13, e0191982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2010) Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2023) Policies to Protect Children from the Harmful Impact of Food Marketing. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2018) A Child Rights-Based Approach to Food Markeing: A Guide for Policy Makers. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
WHO Regional Office for Europe (2022) Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model: Supporting Appropriate Promotion of Food Products for Infants and Young Children 6–36 Months in the WHO European Region. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
McCann, JR, Russell, CG, Campbell, KJ et al. (2021) Nutrition and packaging characteristics of toddler foods and milks in Australia. Public Health Nutr 24, 11531165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization & University of Leeds (2023) Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
Beckerman, JP, Alike, Q, Lovin, E et al. (2017) The development and public health implications of food preferences in children. Front Nutr 4, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grammatikaki, E, Wollgast, J & Caldeira, S (2021) High levels of nutrients of concern in baby foods available in Europe that contain sugar-contributing ingredients or are ultra-processed. Nutrients 13, 3105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2021) Review of Nutrition Labelling for Added Sugars. ACT: Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.Google Scholar
Riesenberg, D, Peeters, A, Backholer, K et al. (2022) Exploring the effects of added sugar labels on food purchasing behaviour in Australian parents: an online randomised controlled trial. PLOS ONE 17, e0271435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunacci, KA, Salmon, L, McCann, J et al. (2023) The big squeeze: a product content and labelling analysis of ready-to-use complementary infant food pouches in Australia. BMC Public Health 23, 656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Health and Medical Research Council (2012) Infant Feeding Guidelines: Information for Health Workers, 2012. Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
UNICEF (2020) Improving Young Children’s Diets During the Complementary Feeding Period. UNICEF Programming Guidance. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
Johnson, SL & Hayes, JE (2017) Developmental Readiness, Caregiver and child feeding behaviors, and sensory science as a framework for feeding young children. Nutr Today 52, S30S40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, AM, Taylor, RW, Haszard, JJ et al. (2024) Baby food pouches and baby-led weaning: associations with energy intake, eating behaviour and infant weight status. Appetite 192, 107121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization & UNICEF (2003) Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Jones, A, Shahid, M, Morelli, G et al. (2023) Chocolate unicorns and smiling teddy biscuits: analysis of the use of child-directed marketing on the packages of Australian foods. Public Health Nutr 26, 32913302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Childs, R & Sibson, V (2023) Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF) in the Diets of Infants and Young Children in the UK. London: First Steps Nutrition Trust.Google Scholar
Chung, A, Westerman, L, Martin, J et al. (2022) The commercial determinants of unhealthy diets. Public Health Res Pract 32, 3232221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sing, F & Backholer, K (2023) Strengthening global legislative actions to protect children from the harmful impacts of unhealthy food and non-alcoholic beverage marketing. Curr Obes Rep 12, 19.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Number of products assessed in each of the WHO Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model product groups and subcategories

Figure 1

Table 2 Package type according to food product group

Figure 2

Table 3 Proportion of products meeting content, labelling and promotional requirements of the WHO Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model

Supplementary material: File

Chung et al. supplementary material

Chung et al. supplementary material
Download Chung et al. supplementary material(File)
File 27.7 KB