Texture and nutrient content of commercial baby foods supplied in spouted pouches, compared to other packaging.

Authors

Ada Lizbeth Garcia, Jasmine Brand-Williamson, Rose Osagie, Nutchanet Tayeh, Dian Luthfiana Sufyan, Pimchanok Chuntratip, Victoria Sibson, Charlotte Margaret Wright

Published in

Archives of disease in childhood. Aug 25, 2026. Epub Aug 25, 2026.

Abstract

Complementary foods should have an increasingly solid texture and be more energy and nutrient dense than breast milk. This study aimed to measure the texture and nutrient content of ready-made wet commercial baby food (CBF) in spouted pouches, compared with other packaging, to evaluate their adequacy as complementary foods.
A cross-sectional survey measured all wet CBF available in six UK supermarkets using the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative methodology, categorising them as liquids, purées or foods requiring any mastication. Nutrient content and age recommendations were transcribed from product packaging. Minimum desired energy, protein and maximal sugar content per 100 g were categorised in comparisons to breastmilk (sugar content ≤7 g/protein ≥1.2 g/energy density >70 kcal).
UK.
Texture, nutrient density.
60% of the 298 wet CBF were delivered in spouted pouches (sPouches), of which 70% were targeted at children aged ≤6 months. Half (49%) were liquid, compared with 7% for other delivery systems. Most foods delivered less energy than breast milk (67% sPouches, 62% others) but sPouches were more likely to have lower protein content than breast milk (49% vs others 91%) and 61% had more sugar (other 8%). Only 8% of sPouches (32% others) were a purée or food that was more energy and protein dense than breast milk, but not sweeter, while 29% (2% others) met none of these criteria.
Many wet CBF delivered in sPouches have the texture and composition of sweet drinks, while very few meet the desired characteristics for complementary foods.

PMID:
42642219
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 26 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.