Quarter of branded baby foods in UK still have too much sugar, analysis finds
A year after the UK government introduced voluntary guidelines aimed at cutting sugar and salt in baby food, a new analysis has found that almost a quarter of popular branded infant products still contain excessive sugar, with more than half breaching at least one of the nine standards. The findings have prompted renewed calls from paediatricians and campaigners for mandatory regulation, as the industry's self-policing approach is judged to have failed to protect infants from products marketed as healthy despite high sugar and salt content.
The analysis of 224 branded infant foods and snacks from nine major brands, including Ella's Kitchen, Heinz, Organix and HiPP, found 58% breached at least one guideline and a quarter breached two or more. Some 51 products (23%) contained too much sugar, with over half of Kiddylicious's range affected, while five products derived more than 80% of their calories from sugar. Separately, 14 products breached salt limits, and 28% had labelling or marketing breaches, including 31 snacks aimed at children under 12 months. Experts, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the results show only mandatory standards can adequately protect children's health.
- Quarter of branded UK baby foods still contain too much sugar
- Over half of 224 products breached at least one government guideline
- Experts say voluntary rules have failed; call for mandatory regulation
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Public health advocates argue that voluntary guidelines have clearly proven insufficient, given that more than half of surveyed products breach them and a quarter still contain excessive sugar a year on. They contend that early exposure to sugary foods shapes lifelong taste preferences and contributes to childhood obesity and dental problems, so government should move to mandatory limits, clearer labelling, or reformulation targets with real penalties, since infants cannot exercise consumer choice and rely entirely on adults and manufacturers to protect their interests.
The case against
Those more cautious about further intervention argue that voluntary guidelines deserve more time to bed in, noting that a year is a short period for an entire industry to reformulate recipes, resource supply chains and test alternatives without compromising taste, safety or shelf life. They emphasise that parents already have access to nutritional information and dietitian advice to make informed choices, that not all sugar in these products is added versus naturally occurring, and that heavy-handed mandatory regulation risks raising costs, reducing product variety, or pushing smaller producers out of the market without proportionate benefit.
Art Business Culture Cybersecurity Food Government Markets Politics Technology UK World