4.5 Article

Changes in the UK baby food market surveyed in 2013 and 2019: the rise of baby snacks and sweet/savoury foods

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 105, 期 12, 页码 1162-1166

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-318845

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess how the baby food market in the UK has changed between 2013 and 2019. Setting United Kingdom. Design A cross-sectional survey of all infant food products available to buy in the UK online and in-store collected in 2019. Nutritional content and product descriptions were recorded and compared with an existing 2013 database. Main outcome measures Change in the proportion of products marketed to infants aged 4 months, proportion classified as sweet versus savoury, spoonable versus dry (snacks) average sugar content. Results Fewer products were described as suitable for infants aged 4 months in 2019 (201, 23%) compared with 2013 (178, 43%; p<0.001), while the proportion for children in the 6-7-month age range increased (2013: 135, 33%; 2019: 369, 43%; p=0.001). The proportion of sweet and savoury products was unchanged; sweet spoonable products showed a small but significant decrease in sugar content (6%) between 2013 and 2019, but savoury spoonable products showed a 16% increase. Sweet snacks remained very sweet (similar to 20 g/100 g median sugar at both time points). In the 2019 dataset, concentrated juice was added to 29% (n=253) of products and 18% (n=80) 'savoury' products comprised more than 50% sweet vegetables or fruit. The number and proportion of snacks increased markedly in 2019 (185, 21%) compared with 2013 (42, 10%; p=0.001) while the proportion of wet spoonable foods decreased (2013: 326, 79%; 2019: 611, 71%; p=0.001). Conclusions Fewer foods are now marketed to infants aged 4 months, but there has been no overall reduction in the sweetness of products and the increase in snack foods and the sweetness of savoury foods is a concern.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据