ReviewMaternal & child nutrition2025
Commercial Baby Foods: Nutrition, Marketing and Motivations for Use-A Narrative Review.
Review in Maternal & child nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A qualitative exploration of Australian parental perspectives of commercial squeeze pouches for infants and children.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Trends in commercial complementary food in Romanian infants-a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
A growing body of research on commercial baby foods (CBFs) has reported nutritional composition, marketing, and labelling concerns. We aimed to review and consolidate the evidence on CBFs marketed for children 0-36 months in the UK, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to inform UK policy by highlighting key issues with the current retail offer. A systematic search conducted on PubMed and Web of Science on three topics: (1) Nutritional Composition, Flavour Profile and Texture, (2) Marketing and Labelling, and (3) Parental Choice and Preferences. Studies on CBFs were included if conducted in English in specified countries, age, and published between 2019 and 2024. Out of 3143 studies screened, 31 full papers were separated into three topics and reviewed. Topic 1: Out of all products sampled, 56% were puréed and 18% were snacks. The median sugar content per 100 g (IQR) were 10.4 g (1.0) in purées, 20.3 g (9.9) in snacks, and 14.7 g (14.4) in cereals. Nearly half of all products contained added or free sugars (n = 13 studies), and 62% when looking at snacks alone (n = 6 studies). Topic 2: Six out of 9 studies had 'no added sugar' claims, and eight studies reported finding claims related to health or nutrition. Topic 3: All studies reported that health/development/nutrition were motivations to purchase CBFs, and 75% mentioned 'baby's enjoyment', 'convenience/time', and 'safety'. Purées and snacks dominate the CBF market and are often high in sugars. Marketing claims are misleading and exploit parents' fears to motivate use.
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.