From Comfort to Convenience: How Processed Snacks Became Normal for UK Infants

A new study by researchers from University College London, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge, the University of Leeds and Loughborough University, has exposed the extent to which processed baby snack foods have become woven into the daily routines of British families. Published in the journal Appetite, the research combined a national survey of 1,237 parents with focus groups in southeast London to understand why products such as puffs, wafers and oaty bars have become an almost universal feature of infant diets. The results reveal that despite clear National Health Service (NHS) advice that children under 12 months do not need snacks, most babies are being given them far earlier, often for reasons that have little to do with nutrition.

Snacks Before Six Months

The survey found that 87 percent of parents gave their infants processed snack foods between meals, with nearly two-thirds introducing them between six and 11 months and almost a third starting before the six-month mark. Only around 14 percent of parents correctly identified 12 months as the recommended minimum age. In focus groups, parents described baby snacks as a normal, even essential, part of their child’s daily diet. Many admitted to always carrying packets in prams, cars or handbags, ready to hand out during nursery pick-ups, bus rides or errands. Parents acknowledged using these snacks as much for calming, entertaining and distracting children as for easing hunger. One mother described her frustration when she had left the house without a snack, while another admitted her toddler consumed several oat bars in a row during a long train journey simply to keep the peace.

Convenience Over Nutrition

The study highlighted the central role of convenience in these choices. Parents praised the snacks’ long shelf life, resealable packaging and neat textures that created less mess than fruit or yogurt. Many said they felt reassured by the fact that these products were marketed specifically for infants, believing that regulations ensured their safety and suitability. However, when informed of the high sugar content in some products, many parents said they felt deceived. Despite such revelations, the perception that baby snacks were safer than adult or older children’s snacks persisted. For parents navigating the often stressful early years of feeding, these products offered a practical solution, one that quickly became routine.

The Power of Branding

Branding and packaging emerged as powerful influences on parental decision-making. Parents consistently described wanting “the best” for their babies, which meant avoiding snacks designed for older children in favour of baby-branded products. Well-known names such as Ella’s Kitchen, Little Freddie and Babease were trusted not only for their products but also for their social media presence, weaning tips and recipe suggestions. Many parents spoke of these brands as if they were infant feeding authorities, sometimes citing the involvement of nutritionists or midwives as proof of their reliability. On-pack slogans such as “no nasties,” “100% natural” and “one of your five a day,” along with bright packaging and fruit imagery, strongly reinforced perceptions of healthfulness. Peer influence also played a role, with parents describing situations in which toddlers demanded the snacks their peers had, compelling them to buy similar products. Price was another factor, though it rarely discouraged purchase altogether; parents were generally willing to pay a premium but often switched between brands depending on offers and promotions.

Health Risks Behind the Hype

For the research team, the implications are troubling. Snacks offered in response to non-hunger cues risk teaching children to associate food with emotional regulation, a pattern that can encourage overeating later in life. With one in five children in England already overweight or obese by school entry, and dental decay the leading cause of hospitalisation for six- to ten-year-olds, the widespread use of processed baby snacks raises urgent concerns. The researchers argue that the normalisation of such products has been fuelled by marketing strategies that frame them as essential tools for weaning and development, often in contradiction with NHS advice. They conclude that tighter regulation of labelling and brand communication is needed to ensure parents are not misled by “health halo” claims. Public health campaigns, they suggest, should also raise awareness of the risks of using snacks as pacifiers, so that parents better understand the long-term impact of these early feeding habits.

A Parenting Tool With Hidden Costs

The study ultimately shows how deeply embedded baby snack foods have become in modern parenting. They are not simply a product but a tool, used to soothe, distract and ease the challenges of daily life. Yet their very appeal, convenience, strong branding and the perception of healthfulness, masks the risks they pose in shaping unhealthy eating habits from infancy. For the team at University College London and its partner institutions, the challenge is now to bridge the gap between parental beliefs and public health guidance. Without urgent action, today’s seemingly harmless puff or wafer could help entrench patterns of snacking that follow children well into later life.