ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Evaluating alignment of UK commercial baby food products with the WHO nutrient and promotion profile model.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Unhealthy Start: The Nutritional Composition, Processing, and on-Pack Claims of Commercial Foods for Infants and Toddlers in Thailand.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- [Commercially available complementary foods in Argentina and Mexico: An analysis of their nutritional composition, labeling, and promotionAlimentos complementares comercializados na Argentina e no México: análise da composição nutricional, rotulagem e promoção].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Assessment of Lipid Profiles in Commercial Infant Foods in the United States.Journal of nutrition & food sciences · 2026Article
- Commercial Baby Foods: Nutrition, Marketing and Motivations for Use-A Narrative Review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Review
- Nutritional content and promotional practices of foods for infants and young children on the spanish market: a cross-sectional product evaluation.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe first 1000 days of life are critical for long-term health outcomes, and there is increasing concern about the suitability of commercial food products for infants, toddlers, and children. This study evaluates the compliance of UK commercial baby food products with WHO Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model (NPPM) guidelines.
methodsBetween February and April 2023, data on 469 baby food products marketed for infants and children under 36 months were collected from the online platforms of four major UK supermarkets. Nutritional composition and labelling information were assessed using the NPPM criteria. Quantitative analyses were performed using IBM SPSS, presenting data as means with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsWhile 75% of products met the minimum energy content criteria, compliance with total sugar content and protein requirements was 59% and 94%, respectively. Overall, only 45% of products adhered to NPPM nutritional standards. Promotional assessments revealed that no products met the requirements for appropriate nutrient, health, or marketing claims. Furthermore, only 5% of products included adequate statements in support of breastfeeding.
conclusionThis study highlights the need for stricter nutritional and promotional standards in the UK baby food industry to foster healthier early dietary habits. Regulatory measures are essential to align commercial baby food products with WHO recommendations, reducing inappropriate claims and improving nutritional quality.
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.