Britain’s babies fed a diet of ultra-processed cereals and snacks, say researchers

Key takeaways:

• Most baby cereals and snacks on UK shelves are ultra-processed, high in sugar and marketed as healthier than they are.
• Parents, who rely heavily on these products, feel misled and unprotected by outdated regulation.
• The FDA’s push to define UPFs could reshape labeling and policy worldwide, putting baby food squarely in the spotlight.

Parents might assume the cereals, puffs and bars stacked in supermarket baby aisles are safe, nourishing choices. But a landmark University of Leeds study has revealed Britain’s youngest are being raised on foods that are overwhelmingly ultra-processed, high in sugar and marketed in ways that mislead families.

The year-long research examined 632 commercial baby foods and found 87% of baby snacks and 79% of baby cereals qualify as UPFs. Nearly one in three baby food products overall fell into the UPF category. What looks like a healthy breakfast cereal or a convenient finger food is, in reality, little more than candy in toddler-friendly packaging.

The researchers drilled into 133 ultra-processed baby snack products and discovered troubling trends. Puffed ‘melty’ snacks – marketed as safe weaning foods – offered almost no nutritional value. Biscuits and snack bars averaged 21% of calories from sugar, almost double that of a digestive biscuit. Fruit-based chewy bars were even worse, with 67% of their calories coming from sugar.

A market stacked against families

Lead researcher Dr Diane Threapleton, a pediatric nutrition expert at the University of Leeds, said the findings expose a system stacked against parents trying to do the right thing.

“We’re seeing highly processed snacks, sweets, cereals – even meals – dominating the baby aisle,” she said. “These are often marketed as healthy, organic or with ‘no added sugar’ claims, but they contain ingredients and undergo processing that bear little resemblance to the kind of food young children should be growing up on. These products are setting up babies to crave ultra-processed, overly sweet foods from the very start.”

Registered nutritionist and coauthor Ali Morpeth said families are being let down by weak oversight. “We would never accept such poor standards in baby car seats or toys – yet somehow this level of nutritional neglect is allowed in baby foods,” she said. “This goes far beyond individual choice. It’s about public health protection, social equity and our responsibility to the next generation.”

The Leeds team also surveyed more than 1,000 parents. Nearly half said they rely on commercial baby foods ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’. Yet 70% supported front-of-pack warning labels on high-sugar products once they learned how weak regulation actually is. One mother told researchers she assumed government oversight meant baby food products must be safe and healthy.

Barbara Crowther, Children’s Food campaign manager at Sustain, said parents are being actively misled. “Millions of parents regularly use these brands and want to trust them, so they’re shocked and angry to learn the truth – that they’re not nearly as healthy as they claim to be and they’re not even being regulated properly,” she said. “Let’s stop sugarcoating these pouches and products.”

Why the UPF debate matters most in baby aisles

At the heart of the Leeds study is the highly controversial issue of UPFs.

The NOVA classification system – widely used in nutrition research – defines ultra-processed foods as products made with industrial techniques and additives not found in a home kitchen. Typically built from refined starches, added sugars, cheap oils and a cocktail of flavorings and emulsifiers, they’re engineered to last longer on shelves and taste good rather than to nourish. A growing body of evidence ties high UPF consumption to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and higher mortality. For infants, the dangers are amplified: early exposure to sweetened cereals and sugary snacks can hardwire a preference for sweetness, embed snacking as the norm and hinder the transition to balanced, whole foods.

Critics, however, argue the UPF label is too blunt. Rocco Renaldi, secretary general of the International Food & Beverage Alliance (IFBA), said the NOVA system “lacks a scientifically agreed basis” and risks lumping nutrient-dense staples such as fortified breads and dairy with confectionery and chips. “Processing does not equal nutrition,” Renaldi said. “Our public health focus should be on proven levers – reducing sugar, sodium and unhealthy fats – not demonizing foods on the basis of processing alone.”

Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of Nutrition at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, said she would rather assess the ingredients list and nutrient content than whether a food is classified as ultra-processed. Christopher Gardner, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, said NOVA is the equivalent of “I’ll know it when I see it” – an imprecise framework that hampers robust science. Arne Astrup, professor and head of Nutrition at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, added that nutrition science must consider broader lifestyle factors, including sleep, screen time and exposure to environmental chemicals.

Kantha Shelke, principal at food science consultancy Corvus Blue and a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, told Bakery&Snacks that UPFs are not a monolith and that demonizing processing risks obscuring the critical role it plays in food safety and affordability. “Some UPFs are indispensable in feeding a growing global population,” Dr Shelke said. “It is overly simplistic to vilify the process rather than focus on the nutritional value of the finished food.”

Leo Campbell, cofounder of Modern Baker, likewise told this site the term UPF is “a distraction from the real challenge,” which is how to harness food technology to deliver healthier choices at scale. “We need a language and a framework that can separate necessary innovation from the kind of ultra-processing that clearly damages health,” he added.

Even skeptics of the UPF label agree that baby foods are a special case. Unlike adults, infants cannot balance out a sugary snack with healthier meals later on, and their early diets set the course for both immediate health and long-term taste development.

A moment of decision

The Leeds report came just weeks after the UK government unveiled its 10-Year Health Plan, which aspires to a ‘moonshot’ on obesity. Campaigners say the baby food aisle must be a frontline priority.

“We’ll never get off the launchpad unless we close the gap in our early years,” said Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance. “Right now, we’re feeding our babies ultra-processed foods that undermine their development and long-term health. The baby food aisle is flooded with sugary snacks that set children up for a lifetime of poor eating habits, obesity and tooth decay.”

Sue Davies, head of Food Policy at Which?, said the lack of clear rules is leaving parents adrift. “It’s unacceptable that so many foods and snacks aimed at babies have such poor nutritional quality and high sugar levels. To make matters worse, these items are often misleadingly marketed as being healthy – making it difficult for parents to make informed choices.”

The Leeds team, working with the World Health Organization, has developed a Nutrient and Promotion Profile Model that could be adopted immediately to set sugar limits, restrict misleading claims and bring baby foods in line with scientific standards. The researchers want hard limits on sugar in cereals and snacks; a ban on claims such as ‘no added sugar’ when products are still high in natural sugars; and mandatory front-of-pack warnings when thresholds are breached.

For parents, the guidance is pragmatic: choose plain porridge over fruit-flavored cereals; swap chewy bars for soft fruit or vegetable sticks; and favor savory purees instead of sugar-heavy pouches.

But the team stresses this isn’t a problem families can solve alone. “Voluntary standards are notoriously ineffective,” Morpeth said. “The government must step in to protect infant health above commercial interests.”

The stakes are international. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has opened a public consultation to create the country’s first legal definition of UPFs – a step that could set a precedent for labeling and regulation worldwide. Industry groups, however, warn a rigid framework risks sweeping up fortified and shelf-stable foods that play a vital role in low-income settings. Public health voices counter that the baby aisle is different. For infants, they argue, there’s no room for nutrient-poor products masquerading as healthy first foods.

The Leeds report is both damning and timely. It exposes cereals and snacks that masquerade as healthy while training Britain’s youngest to crave sugar and sweetness. It shows how halo marketing masks poor nutrition and how outdated regulation has failed families.

And it frames a stark choice for government: either clamp down on ultra-processed baby foods now or accept that the next generation will grow up with tastes, habits and health trajectories shaped by the processed food industry.

“All babies and children have a right to grow up healthy,” Crowther said. “Let’s put them at the forefront of efforts to create the healthiest ever generation – and stop sugarcoating the truth.”