Public Consultation: Improving commercial foods for infants and young children

NZFGC represents the major manufacturers and suppliers of food, beverage and grocery products in New Zealand. This sector generates over $40 billion in the New Zealand domestic retail food, beverage and grocery products market, and over $34 billion in export revenue from exports to 195 countries – representing 65% of total good and services exports. Food and beverage manufacturing is the largest manufacturing sector in New Zealand, representing 45% of total manufacturing income. Our members directly or indirectly employ more than 493,000 people – one in five of the workforce.

Yes. In addition to the two New Zealand publications referenced in the consultation paper, NZFGC references the following four studies in its submission:

Brown KJ, Beck KL, von Hurst P, et al. Adherence to infant feeding guidelines in the first foods New Zealand study. Nutrients 2023, 15: 4650. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214650

Cox A, Taylor R, Haszard JJ, et al. Baby food pouches and baby-led weaning: Associations with energy intake, eating behaviour and infant weight status. Appetite 2024, 192: 107121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107121

McLean NH, Haszard JJ, Daniels L et al. Baby food pouches, baby-led weaning and iron status in New Zealand infants: An observational study. Nutrients 2024, 16: 1494. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16101494

Shackleton N, Milne BJ, Audas R, et al. Improving rates of overweight, obesity and extreme obesity in New Zealand 4-year-old children in 2010-2016. Pediatric Obesity 2018, 13: 766-77. https://doi:10.1111/IJPO.12260

Not applicable to New Zealand.

The First foods and young foods studies in New Zealand required significant updates to compositional analysis work, published here:

Katiforis I, Fleming EA, Haszard JJ, et al. Energy, sugars, iron and vitamin B12 content of commercial infant food pouches and other commercial infant foods on the New Zealand market. Nutrients 2021, 13: 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020657

This paper is referred to in the Issues paper: Commercial Foods for Infants and Young Children (2023); however the data taken from it misrepresent the significance of the findings as discussed by the authors in the paper – specifically with respect to the low overall levels of free and added sugars found in commercial foods.

None known to date, though the texture and age appropriateness of infant and toddler foods are clearly labelled on foods available in the “baby food” area of the supermarket in New Zealand.

Individual members are supplying confidential information on reformulation activities as part of their submissions to this consultation. NZFGC refer you specifically to theRedacted text submission for reformulation and product development timeline data. NZFGC members operating in this category have, embedded into their businesses, strict internal nutrition policies that govern composition and labelling for infants and young children.

No. NZFGC maintain that, at least for New Zealand, there is no recent evidence that consumption of commercially prepared infant and toddler foods at current levels, and with current feeding practices, adversely affects adherence to the New Zealand infant and toddler feeding guidelines. In fact a range of recent publications (listed in answer to question 1) from a large cohort of New Zealand infants and young children discussed in this submission, show that commercial foods are consumed at least occasionally by the majority of infants and that they play a positive nutritional role in a balanced and varied diet as recommended in the healthy eating guidelines for New Zealand babies and toddlers aged 0-2 years. Therefore NZFGC do not agree that the objective of this work: “to improve the composition, labelling and texture of commercial foods for infants and young children to better align infant and young child diets with Australian and New Zealand infant and toddler feeding guidelines” is warranted.

NZFGC support the principle that because infants and toddlers are a very vulnerable population group, it is critical to maintain the utmost dietary quality for this age group. This extends to the overall diet – including the nutritional quality, labelling and texture range of commercial foods as a subset. Therefore NZFGC support ongoing voluntary work to ensure internal nutrition and labelling policies are appropriate and remain in line with dietary guidance and scientific evidence.

Option two offers many different opportunities to make continuous improvements where they are warranted and evidence based, including the development of evidence-based guidance and education tools for parents/caregivers and wider whānau.

No, because this section assumes that commercial foods are not currently aligned with feeding guidelines and that current labelling is confusing for consumers. In New Zealand we see no evidence of this.

NZFGC propose that the commercial foods for infants and young children landscape in New Zealand comprises relatively few brands specifically targeting under four-year-olds. Of those that are present, the vast majority products in the infant and toddler section of the supermarket are already clearly labelled with feeding instructions, nutrition information, information regarding the texture of the food and the corresponding appropriate age range.

Recent, nationally representative nutritional intake and feeding method data are available from the First Foods and Young Foods studies, and these do not indicate significant nutritional concerns in this age group, with the exception of iron. McLean et al (2024) found that nearly 23% of New Zealand infants had suboptimal iron status, however there was no association between commercial pouch infant food intake and iron status when the confounding factor of infant formula feeding was removed. In fact, the only positive association between feeding method and higher iron status was for seen for ‘non-frequent pouch users’, compared with ‘non-pouch users’ and ‘frequent pouch users’ (indicating that other dietary and lifestyle confounders may be more associated with iron status than pouch use). Even daily consumption of iron-fortified cereal was not associated with differences in iron status compared with those never or less than weekly consuming iron-fortified cereal. So fortifying more infant foods with iron may not be an effective way of addressing the concerning trend for unacceptable levels of ‘low iron status’ in late infancy. The late introduction of complementary solid foods (after seven months of age) was the only strong predictor of poor iron status in the First Foods Study, so education about the importance of starting complementary feeding at around six months of age may potentially have more impact than more fortification.

Infant formula consumption plays an important role in the iron status of infants because of its mandated high iron content. As infants who were frequently fed commercially prepared pouch foods were more likely to consume infant formula than those not fed commercial pouch food, frequent pouch feeders had a significantly higher prevalence of iron sufficiency (McLean et al., 2024).

Other publications from the First Foods and Young Foods studies also indicate that parents mostly follow the feeding method instructions that are printed on every pouch label, meaning that concerns about sucking foods directly from pouches are largely unfounded. In fact, McLean et al (unpublished pre-print) indicates that only 5% of ‘frequent’ pouch food consumers ‘mostly’ or ‘always’ consumed the food directly from the nozzle at age 7-10 months. This is reportedly the first comprehensive analysis of baby food pouch use among infants globally – so the findings are especially relevant in dispelling unsubstantiated concerns about commercial pouch foods.

Cox et al, 2024 found no association between ‘frequent’ pouch food consumption (ie consumed at least five times a week over the course of a month) and BMI z-score or energy intake at 7-10 months of age. There was an association between frequent pouch food consumers and greater food responsiveness, food fussiness and selective/restrictive eating, though because of the observational nature of the study this correlation does not imply causation.

In addition, data from New Zealand B4 school checks, last updated in 2018 (which cover approx. 92% of children in the country between 4-5 years of age) indicate a downward trend in the prevalence of obesity in New Zealand 4-year-olds across all socio-economic and ethnic groups from 2010 to 2016 (Shackelton et al, 2018). The authors speculate that this trend is due to improvements in diet and increased physical activity levels across the community postnatally.

Brown et al. (2023) measured adherence to New Zealand infant feeding guidelines in the First Foods New Zealand study, generally showing a high level of adherence. The only recommendation with a low level of adherence was 13% not consuming iron rich foods, vegetables and fruit daily during the recall days. This highlights the importance of education on how to include such foods, as well as the appropriate age to start complementary feeding with solids and the inherent risks of the late introduction of complementary feeding (which is correlated with low iron status, as shown by McLean et al, 2024).

Furthermore, existing regulations already address nutrients of concern in infants and young children. Under Standard 2.9.2 - Food for Infants, appropriate labelling and composition limits have been set for sodium for certain foods (rusks, biscuits, flour, pasta) and sugar for certain drinks, and permissions are given for iron fortification of dry cereals. Under Division 4 of Standard 2.9.3 - Formulated Supplementary Foods for Young Children (aged from 1 to 3 years) mandatory requirements for composition and voluntary permissions with minimum and maximum requirements are set. Labelling requirements and restrictions are also included in the Food Standards Code. The New Zealand Fair Trading Act and the Food Act also require that labels do not misinform consumers through false, misleading, or deceptive representation.

In addition, the composition of foods for the general population that are also commonly consumed by young children are subject to significant reductions in sodium and sugar via the New Zealand National Heart Foundation voluntary reformulation programme without a regulatory requirement. This programme has removed 760 tonnes of sugar and 335 tonnes of salt per year from common New Zealand food products. These include reductions from 20-39% for salt and/or sugars in breads, breakfast cereals (such as puffed rice and cornflakes), processed meats (including ham), flavoured milks, yoghurts, tomato and pasta sauces and cereal bars: all foods commonly consumed by young children (1).

(1). https://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/professionals/food-industry-and-hospitality/reducing-salt-and-sugar-in-processed-foods

No, because there is no acknowledgement of the significant amounts of work that industry have contributed to date via internal nutrition and labelling policies and collaborations such as the Healthy Food Partnership and the New Zealand National Heart Foundation voluntary reformulation programme. Regarding the Australian Healthy Food Partnership, there is conflicting information provided in the consultation paper and in person with the members of the Australian Healthy Food Partnership Foods for Early Childhood Reference Group. The paper states that recommendations from this group will be released in late 2024, while the group itself has been told their work is on hold due to this consultation process, and that eventually they may just pick up any areas not covered by the joint regulatory system. What is the justification for this, when a lot of time and goodwill has been put into this group?

Comparing this category to poor Health Star Rating (HSR) uptake across the board is also not appropriate since HSR use is not permitted for special purpose foods, including infant foods and formulated supplementary foods for young children. In addition, as outlined in the consultation paper on page 2, HSR is not always suitable for foods for infants and young children because the algorithm is designed for the general populations’ nutritional needs. Therefore, NZFGC maintains that a lack of HSR uptake in all intended foods does not indicate that manufacturers won’t take part in other, more relevant voluntary programmes for the infant and toddler foods category.

Developing educational guidance for parents/caregivers and wider whānau, as part of option two (non-regulatory approaches) would help to further guide them to making improved choices for their children’s diets in line with dietary guidelines. Such guidance, to be effective and practically useful, will need to balance the need for convenience (a key reason for commercial food use as reported by McLean et al, unpublished pre-print) and meeting nutritional requirements. These two elements are not mutually exclusive, given the evidence from the First Foods and Young Food studies, demonstrating the positive nutritional contribution that commercial infant foods provide in a mixed diet (Haszard et al, 2024). This study showed that commercial infant and toddler foods were consumed by 78% of infants in the First Foods Study on at least one of the two food recall days. All commercial infant and toddler foods contributed a significant 40.3% of iron in infants, while contributing relatively modestly to energy intake, and contributing to a range of micronutrient intakes. In this study the nutritional contribution of pouch foods was compared with that of other commercially prepared infant and toddler foods, showing the different types occupied different niches of nutritional provision (eg, dry cereals provided most of the iron, while pouch packed foods provided more vitamin A). It demonstrates the importance of dietary variety for this age group, as per the dietary guidelines.

Guidance would also need to address nutrition literacy in regard to understanding nutrition information panels, ingredients lists and other information on labels. Proposing regulatory changes to aspects of food labels will not help people to understand them better without such guidance.

NZFGC supports non-regulatory approaches such as the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme in collaboration with commercial infant and young children foods manufacturers, which has to date seen significant success in voluntarily reducing sodium and sugar levels in a range of other food categories (2). In New Zealand there are relatively few major companies producing foods for this age group. It would therefore be possible to identify and address any meaningful and feasible change justified by scientific evidence, by working closely with this very limited range of companies. This category could become a focus of the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme if Ministers saw this as a priority over other food categories.

NZFGC members operating in this category already have strict internal nutrition policies that govern composition and labelling for infants and young children. NZFGC suggests the best starting point would be to review these policies to see what voluntary measures are already ensuring the nutrition quality of this category.

(2). https://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/professionals/food-industry-and-hospitality/reducing-salt-and-sugar-in-processed-foods

For input by individual food manufacturers with regards to involvement and timeframes.

In general NZFGC supports non-regulatory approaches for our members, such as participation in the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme in collaboration with commercial infant and young children foods manufacturers, which has to date seen significant success in voluntarily reducing sodium and sugar levels in a range of other food categories (3).

In New Zealand there are relatively few major companies producing foods for this age group. It would therefore be possible to identify and address any meaningful and feasible change justified by scientific evidence, by working closely with this very limited range of companies. This category could become a focus of the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme if Ministers saw this as a priority over other food categories.

Timeframes would depend on how long it takes to determine the targets and the extent of change required to reach them. Usually the process followed requires small changes over time when targets differ markedly from existing composition. Importantly any incremental change needs to be reflected in labelling changes, so the costs and timeframes associated with this must be considered.

As status quo (option one) NZFGC members operating in this category already have strict internal nutrition policies that govern composition and labelling for infants and young children. NZFGC suggests the best starting point would be to review these policies to see what voluntary measures are already ensuring the nutrition quality of this category.

(3) https://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/professionals/food-industry-and-hospitality/reducing-salt-and-sugar-in-processed-foods

The process of setting feasible targets is something better achieved in a collaborative model such as the NZ Heart Foundation’s reformulation programme, where industry can discuss in detail what the lowest possible levels of sugar and salt are that enable the maintenance of all functional aspects of the food product, and therefore agree to feasible target levels.

Allowing industry to take ownership and credit for the positive contribution they make to voluntary changes is key to getting industry input. NZFGC sees this as a key success factor or the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme with industry where joint credit is given and everyone agrees to a common goal with a level playing field.

By comparison, the Australian Healthy Food Partnership has seen less progress despite a lot of work being put in by industry members and the development of a rationale document. This group could be progressing more work, if it were not put on hold while this consultation process occurs.

NZFGC propose that with relatively few companies selling foods for infants and toddlers in New Zealand, the implementation of voluntary approaches in collaboration with the New Zealand National Heart Foundation would be reasonably simple provided this category is prioritised over, or in addition to, others in the existing work programme. The programme is co-funded by the Ministry of Health, so it would depend on their priority in this area.

No. There is inadequate coverage of the practicalities of setting appropriate cut-off points for regulatory intervention in the consultation paper. Moving straight into regulatory restrictions to nutritional composition such as sugars and salt is likely to result in unintended consequences. For example infant foods consisting of ripe pureed fruit or sweet vegetables such as pumpkin or kūmara naturally contain significant levels of intrinsic sugars. Home-prepared fruit purees would contain equivalent levels. Voluntary compositional restrictions would be more likely to consider feasible levels of total sugars for different infant foods, below which standard complementary foods would not be possible to make commercially or at home. Dictating regulatory restrictions may not achieve the extent of reductions in sugar and salt levels that are technically possible when industry is able to collaborate on discussions regarding technical feasibility targets.

Placing restrictions on levels of ‘added sugars’ or ‘free sugars’ also poses issues for this age group. Because infant feeding guidelines recommend that fruits and vegetables are cooked and pureed as appropriate textures for first foods, the sugars from these are appropriately considered to be intrinsic, rather than free sugars. Katiforis et al. (2021) showed that while some categories of commercial infant foods had higher free sugars content than others, the levels were still very low at around 5% or less. The categories with higher total sugar content reflects higher levels of intrinsic sugars being present in fruits, vegetables and dairy products in comparison to meat, fish, legume and cereal products.

The interaction with P1062 and P1058 with respect to assignation of the term “added sugars” to some intrinsic sugars such as fruit juice and fruit purees also makes this a very complicated area to regulate until P1058 is completed. NZFGC notes that P1058 is now on hold for an indeterminate period due to the holistic review of the Nutrition Information Panel work being undertaken by FSANZ.

Most importantly, there is also no mention in the risks and limitations of this option, of the significant costs to industry associated with reformulating and relabeling their entire product ranges, and potentially even losing products altogether.

And finally, there is a significant risk that by altering the composition regulations for the group of foods within the current scope of this work without taking into account the significant nutritional contributions made to the diets of infants and toddlers by breast milk, follow-on formula and toddler milks, this could result in inappropriate levels of fortification, for example iron, leading to unsafe overall intakes.

NZFGC members will provide confidential information on costs in their own submissions to this consultation.

NZFGC members require a minimum of 36 months of transition time and 12 months of stock in trade to make changes to the product’s composition and labelling. Label changes require a business to audit all products/SKUs, identify and make label changes where necessary, order and update new labels (often from overseas), and consider existing labelling stock (i.e. packaging waste).

FSANZ assessed the cost of label changes in relation to P1028 (4) Infant formula which provides good insight into elements that should be considered if a food is changed in composition, serving size or claims which trigger an update of a product’s label. As stated in the report “The 2nd CFS assumed a relabelling cost per product of A$16,000. This represented a mid-point for the data received in response to the 1st CFS.” p85.

Further, “This cost includes (but is not limited to):
• administration activities, including internal company discussions and approvals
• label redesign
• market testing.
It has been assumed that:
• all necessary label changes only need to be done once for each product line, i.e. reformulation and labelling are not done repeatedly
• the transition period is adequate to change labels and to run down stocks of packaging and labels”.

(4) Supporting document 5 Consideration of costs and benefits Proposal P1028 – Infant Formula Supporting Document 2 - Decision Regulation Impact Statement.pdf (foodstandards.gov.au)

As per the answer to Q10c: NZFGC members require a minimum of 36 months of transition time and 12 months of stock in trade to make changes to the product’s composition and labelling.

In New Zealand products for this age group are already clearly labelled regarding nutritional information, texture and appropriate age, and instructions for feeding. We therefore see no justification for necessary costs, as no changes are required.

However if changes were required, please see the answer provided for Q10c.

NZFGC note there is no space provided in this form for an answer to consultation question 10f: What implementation issues need to be considered for these options?

Our answer to 10f is: If changes were required please refer to Q10c.

Given NZFGC do not agree that the proposed objective is warranted (see answer to Q6 and evidence discussed in answer to Q8), it is not possible to say that we agree with the analysis of how well the proposed options will achieve this objective.

NZFGC support the principle that because infants and toddlers are a very vulnerable population group, it is critical to maintain the utmost dietary quality for this age group. This extends to the overall diet – including the nutritional quality, labelling and texture range of commercial foods as a subset. Therefore NZFGC support ongoing voluntary work to ensure internal nutrition and labelling policies are appropriate and remain in line with dietary guidance and scientific evidence.

Regarding the policy options presented, NZFGC supports option one (status quo). In addition, noting some of the issues highlighted in the December 2023 issues paper and the appetite for change in the sector from Food Ministers, option two (a range of non-regulatory approaches to improving the composition and labelling of commercial foods for infants and young children) could be considered where warranted. Regulatory change (option three) is not supported nor warranted from the limited analysis provided to date.

Regarding option three (regulatory approaches), NZFGC considers any regulatory changes to complementary foods as unjustified and unwarranted without also considering the significant nutritional roles that breast milk, follow-on formula and toddler milks provide for infants and toddlers. Excluding the nutritional contributions of these products makes it difficult to address the complete nutritional needs of infants and toddlers, which is one of the key justifications provided in the consultation paper for addressing the nutritional composition of commercial foods for infants and young children.

In supporting option two, NZFGC supports non-regulatory approaches such as the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme in collaboration with commercial infant and young children foods manufacturers, which has to date seen significant success in voluntarily reducing sodium and sugar levels in a range of other food categories . In New Zealand there are relatively few major companies producing foods for this age group. It would therefore be possible to identify and address any meaningful and feasible change that is justified by scientific evidence, by working closely with this very limited range of companies. NZFGC members operating in this category already have strict internal nutrition policies that govern composition and labelling for infants and young children. NZFGC suggests the best starting point would be to review these policies to see what voluntary measures are already ensuring the nutrition quality of this category.

NZFGC consider that an objective analysis of all evidence-based issues should be addressed with non-regulatory approaches. There is already sufficient regulatory controls in place in the food standards code for foods for infants and young children. General population foods that could be consumed by young children are already subject to significant voluntary reformulation work via the New Zealand National Heart Foundation reformulation programme.

NZFGC agrees with the benefits listed in the consultation document for option 2 (non-regulatory options). We believe there are already significant benefits that should not be overlooked by Option 1 (status quo), as many existing regulatory and non-regulatory controls are already in place, as discussed in this submission.

NZFGC does not wish to comment on the stated benefits of option 3 because, as shown in the recent First Foods and Young Foods surveys, New Zealand infants and toddlers largely meet dietary recommendations (as outlined in the answer to Q8), and it is questionable whether further restricting or imposing intakes of certain nutrients, or changing labelling information that is already followed by parents/caregivers by regulation, will result in any further benefits.

For option 2 (non-regulatory steps) the process of setting feasible targets is something better achieved in a collaborative model such as the NZ National Heart Foundation’s reformulation programme, where industry can discuss in detail what the lowest possible levels of sugar and salt are that enable the maintenance of all functional aspects of the food product, and therefore agree to feasible target levels.

By contrast, a regulator setting an arbitrary limit/target across the category may not be able to achieve as much change as when individual products are worked on voluntarily at the research and development level within a company.

For option one the references from the consultation document below (94 & 95) relate to claims, therefore are mistaken or incorrect for the accompanying text that relates to long-term costs related to chronic disease from poor dietary patterns.

94. Netting, M., J., Gold, M., S., Palmer, D., J.,, Low allergen content of commercial baby foods. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2020.
95. Scully, M., Jinnette, R., Schmidtke, A., On-pack claims, fruit imagery and misleading product name labelling on Australian infant and toddler foods. 2023, Cancer Council Victoria.

For options 2 and 3, the statement that relates to costs of the community below is unreferenced.

“Noting that there may be costs for reformulation and labelling changes, and these costs may be passed on to consumers. This may have unintended flow-on effects such as consumers having less money available to spend on other foods suitable for their family such as fruits and vegetables. Alternatively, increased product costs may shift purchasing away from commercial foods for infants and young children.”

Upon what evidence does reformulation and label change result in less household budget to buy fruits and vegetables? This is an inherently biased and generalised statement, and NZFGC requests the statement be deleted or be appropriately referenced.

NZFGC contends that the reason consumers do not buy fruit and vegetables is more complex than the purchase of commercial foods for infant and young children.

No further comment.

Regarding the policy options presented, NZFGC supports option one (status quo).

In addition, noting some of the issues highlighted in the December 2023 issues paper and the appetite for change in the sector from Food Ministers, option two (a range of non-regulatory approaches to improving the composition and labelling of commercial foods for infants and young children) could be considered where warranted.

In supporting option two, NZFGC supports non-regulatory approaches such as the New Zealand Heart Foundation reformulation programme in collaboration with commercial infant and young children foods manufacturers, which has to date seen significant success in voluntarily reducing sodium and sugar levels in a range of other food categories. In New Zealand there are relatively few major companies producing foods for this age group. It would therefore be possible to identify and address any meaningful and feasible change that is justified by scientific evidence, by working closely with this very limited range of companies. NZFGC members operating in this category already have strict internal nutrition policies that govern composition and labelling for infants and young children. NZFGC suggests the best starting point would be to review these policies to see what voluntary measures are already ensuring the nutrition quality of this category.

Regulatory change (option three) is not supported nor warranted from the limited analysis provided to date. NZFGC considers any regulatory changes to complementary foods as unjustified and unwarranted without also considering the significant nutritional roles that breast milk, follow-on formula and toddler milks provide for infants and toddlers. Excluding the nutritional contributions of these products makes it difficult to address the complete nutritional needs of infants and toddlers, which is one of the key justifications provided in the consultation paper for addressing the nutritional composition of commercial foods for infants and young children.

Rationale for this position is provided in the answers to Qs 6-9 of the NZFGC submission.

NZFGC has no further comment.

NZFGC questions the scope of this work in two specific areas:
a) The inclusion of foods for infants aged under 12 months of age, which are already subject to strict compositional and labelling requirements in Standard 2.9.2 Food for infants.
b) The inclusion of foods that are “in any other way presented as being suitable for children under the age of 4 years”. This is a very subjective criterion. Many of our members do not have products that are specifically marketed for young children aged 1-4 years, though many of their product ranges consumed by older children or indeed even adults would also be suitable for consumption by young children. The line of delineation cannot be arbitrary and open ended like this. NZFGC maintain that commercial infant foods would better be defined as foods available in the “baby foods” section of the supermarket, as per Katiforis et al (2021). It is also recommended to align the age of young children with Standard 2.9.3 for formulated supplementary food for young children, which is “for children aged 1 to 3 years”.