ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2024
A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Icelandic baby food market surveyed in 2016, 2019 and 2021.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercial Baby Foods: Nutrition, Marketing and Motivations for Use-A Narrative Review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Review
- Use of baby food products during the complementary feeding period: What factors drive parents' choice of products?Maternal & child nutrition · 2024Article
- A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Icelandic baby food market surveyed in 2016, 2019 and 2021.Maternal & child nutrition · 2024Article
- Nutrition in a lifecourse perspective: From molecular aspects to public health approaches.Maternal & child nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated that countries need to know their local commercial baby food (CBF) market. Data from other countries suggest rapid changes in CBF options, highlighting the need for repeated analysis. In that context, this repeated cross-sectional study analysed the options and nutrient quality of different CBF types available in Iceland in years 2016, 2019 and 2021. Data was gathered on formulas, porridge flours, foods in jars and pouches, finger-foods, other CBF. They were classified into 26 subgroups based on ingredients and taste (sweet/savoury). Minimum consumer age as suggested by the manufacturers and nutritional content were registered. In each data-collection, 250-275 products were available. Over a third of products (37%-44%) were in pouches. Availability of products intended for 4-11-month-old infants decreased, driven largely by a 65% decrease in availability of food in jars (sweet/savoury) between 2016 and 2021. Availability of products intended from 12+ months or without age-labels increased, driven largely by quadrupling of finger-foods (predominantly sweet) between 2016 and 2021. The overall percentage of products classified as sweet increased from 65% (2016) to 73% (2019) and 77% (2021). Some finger-foods had high sugar content (up to 72 g/100 g), partly from fruit concentrate or sugar/syrup. Like other countries, the Icelandic CBF market has moved towards less availability of food intended in the first year and more availability of sweet finger-foods for an expanded consumer age. As sugar is added to some CBF, stronger regulations on promotion of foods for young consumers and updated recommendations for parents/caregivers may be needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.