Sugar in baby food: overview
- New University of Glasgow research found 61% of baby food pouches contained more sugar than breastmilk and were often low in protein
- Experts say many fruit-based pouches are nutritionally closer to sweet drinks than complementary foods
- Recent analyses suggest many baby food products still fail voluntary UK sugar and labelling guidelines
- Parents may be misled by claims such as ‘no added sugar’, despite products containing high levels of free sugars
- Nutrition experts and campaigners are calling for mandatory standards and stricter regulation of baby food marketing
Baby food has long had a sugar problem and it seems it’s not going away. The problem mainly lies not in added sugar, but some of the formats in which it comes.
A new study from the University of Glasgow analysed various forms of baby foods and found that within the popular format of spouted pouches, 61% contained more sugar than breastmilk and they were more likely to have lower protein content.
Only 14 (8.5%) of those studied were defined as being completely suitable for complementary (for weaning alongside breastmilk or formula) feeding.
Half the foods delivered in pouches were liquid. “Many wet commercial baby foods (CBFs) delivered in pouches have the texture and composition of sweet drinks,” said the researchers.
This is a problem because the World Health Organization (WHO) “counsels against using sugar to supply ‘empty energy’, so infant drinks other than breastmilk, infant formula or (from 6 months) water are discouraged, particularly fruit juices, which are high in free sugars,” said the researchers. “Therefore, these CBFs, which in texture and content are equivalent to fruit smoothies, should not really be given at all before 12 months and their intake limited after.”
“Our findings suggest that regulators should consider whether a change in product categorisation and labelling is needed to make clear which products are foods and which are drinks, to discourage the use of [these pouches] and to enable parents to make informed choices in line with public health recommendations,” says Dr Ada Garcia, lead author of the study.
Once fruit has been puréed, powdered, pasted, extruded or otherwise processed so that its cellular structure has been broken down, those sugars are classified as free sugars, explains Bahee Van De Bor, consultant paediatric dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association. “That is important because ‘the sugar comes from fruit’ can sound reassuring to parents,” she says, “while the way the fruit has been processed changes how we classify those sugars nutritionally.”
This follows findings from a BBC Panorama investigation in 2025, in which laboratory testing of 18 pouches made by Ella’s Kitchen, Heinz, Piccolo, Little Freddie, Aldi and Lidl found many to be low in vitamin C and iron, while some contained more sugar in one serving than a one-year-old should have in a day. It also found that fruit pouches marketed as having ‘no added sugar’ contained about four teaspoons of free sugars.
The definition of free sugars in the UK includes all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to food such as table sugar, honey, syrups and nectars; lactose and galactose added as ingredients; all sugars naturally present in fruit and vegetable juices, smoothies, purées, powders, pastes, extruded products and similar products in which the structure of the fruit or vegetable has been broken down, and all sugars in drinks (except for naturally occurring sugars in dairy-based drinks). It excludes sugars naturally present in intact fruit and vegetables (dried, stewed, canned or frozen), milk and dairy products, and cereal grains, nuts and seeds.
“A packet covered in pictures of apples or strawberries, carrying claims such as ‘no added sugar’, can easily be interpreted as equivalent to giving a child a piece of fruit. It isn’t necessarily equivalent.”
Bahee Van De Bor, consultant paediatric dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association
Guidelines are still being breached
In August 2025, the UK government issued voluntary guidelines for commercial baby food and drink, aimed at children up to 36 months, covering both nutrition and how foods are labelled and marketed, including restricting inappropriate on-pack marketing and promotional statements that make ‘implied health claims’.
It stated that businesses had 18 months from publication to implement both the salt and sugar targets and the actions on labelling and marketing.
However, a recent UK analysis of the nine biggest baby and toddler food brands in supermarkets, including 224 products such as purées, main meals, snacks, desserts and finger foods, found that sugar content was breached by products from eight of the nine brands checked.
In several products, sugar accounted for more than 80% of total energy content. And over half (58%) breached at least one of the nine voluntary UK guidelines.
“Manufacturers do still have until the end of February 2027 to implement the guidance, but I would have hoped to see considerably more progress by this point,” says Van de Bor.
The marketing and labelling can be confusing for parents who are trying to choose a healthy option for their child.
“I do think there is understandable confusion,” says Van de Bor. “A packet covered in pictures of apples or strawberries, carrying claims such as ‘no added sugar’, can easily be interpreted as equivalent to giving a child a piece of fruit. It isn’t necessarily equivalent. For most children, I would much rather see a piece of soft fruit offered in an age-appropriate form. It provides the intact food structure and also gives the child the experience of holding, biting, chewing and recognising real food.”
In this latest analysis from Alba Health, products such as raisins were found to have 66g of sugar per 100g (86.6% kcal from sugars). “The sugars naturally present in intact dried fruit such as raisins are not classified as free sugars under the UK definition,” says Van de Bor. “However, dried fruit is very concentrated in sugar and is sticky, which is why NHS and government guidance recommends giving it with meals rather than as a snack between meals,” says Van de Bor.
Alba Health has now written an open letter signed by scientists, nutritionists and leading academics to the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to demand a ban on health claims, such as ‘wholesome’ and ‘nutritious’ on ultra-processed foods for young children and that the guidelines are made mandatory.
A global issue
This is not just a UK problem. A 2025 study found that almost 80% of foods for infants and young children in Spain do not meet the WHO’s Nutrient Promotion Profile Model (NPPM) European region criteria for nutrient quality, with many high in sugar, low in protein and too watery (low energy). About 60% of products had excessive sugar content, with 98% of fruit and vegetable purees qualifying for a front-of-pack sugar warning.
The NPPM was published in 2022 after “growing international concern about the suitability of some commercial food products for infants and young children (FIYC) sold across Europe,” according to the WHO.
A 2024 study of US baby foods found that of 651 commercially produced infant and toddler foods available from the top 10 grocery stores, 60% failed to meet the nutritional requirements of the WHO’s NPPM, and 0% met the promotional requirements. Compliance with WHO standards for total sugar was particularly low. Almost 100% of products had at least one claim on-pack that was prohibited under the NPPM, with some products displaying up to 11 prohibited claims.
And in 2023, UNICEF released a study showing that nearly half of the products marketed to young children in Southeast Asia studied included added sugars and sweeteners; among snacks and fingers foods, this rose to 72 per cent. Nearly 90% of labels on the products studied included potentially misleading or deceptive claims about their composition.
What are the implications for babies and toddlers?
“The biggest immediate concern is dental health,” says Van de Bor. “Babies and toddlers are developing eating habits at the same time as their teeth are erupting, so frequent exposure to foods high in free sugars is something we want to minimise. For children aged one year and over, UK recommendations are that free sugars should provide no more than 5% of dietary energy. Government feeding advice also recommends reducing both the amount and frequency of sugary foods and drinks, and specifically advises against offering sugary foods, including dried fruit, between meals.”
Regular exposure to sweet foods may also lay poor foundations for future health or encourage a preference for sweeter foods.
“This is one of the reasons I think the discussion should go beyond grams of sugar,” says Van de Bor. “Infancy and toddlerhood are periods when children are learning what food tastes and feels like. Government guidance specifically encourages manufacturers to produce more savoury and vegetable-based foods, use less sweet vegetables and more of the ‘bitter’-tasting veggies, avoid masking vegetable flavours and produce fewer highly blended products. If much of a child’s commercial food is fruit-based and very sweet, we lose opportunities to expose them to bitter vegetables, savoury flavours and a broader range of tastes and textures.
“Starting solids is not simply about delivering calories and nutrients. It is also about teaching a child how to eat and progress with lumps and other complex textures. The concern is also the dietary pattern created when highly sweet foods become a frequent part of a very young child’s diet.”
Mandatory guidelines
Baby food is a fast-growing sector, with one estimate suggesting the global market was worth $53.7bn in 2024 and is likely to grow to $84.2bn by 2033. It’s not the case that all baby foods are inappropriate and some brands have made efforts towards healthier content and accurate labelling, but with too many not showing progress towards meeting voluntary guidelines and brand marketing claims confusing parents, the calls for mandatory guidelines are getting louder.
“As a former Chair of the British Dietetic Association’s Paediatric Specialist Group, I would welcome UK guidelines being made mandatory,” says Van de Bor. “Parents should be able to trust that foods marketed specifically for babies and toddlers meet appropriate nutritional standards. If progress remains this limited by the February 2027 deadline, I think mandatory standards would be justified.”
