Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Maternal & Child Nutrition logoLink to Maternal & Child Nutrition
. 2015 Apr 20;12(4):860–868. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12185

Seafood inclusion in commercial main meal early years' food products

Sharon A Carstairs 1,✉, Debbi Marais 2, Leone C A Craig 2, Kirsty Kiezebrink 1
PMCID: PMC6860147  PMID: 25895052

Abstract

Seafood consumption is recommended as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Under‐exposure to seafood during early years feeding, when taste and food acceptance is developed, may impact on the future development of a varied diet. This study aimed to investigate the availability and nutritional content of seafood in commercial infant meals compared to the other food types. A survey was conducted of all commercial infant main meal products available for purchase in supermarkets, high street retailers and online stores within the United Kingdom. The primary food type (seafood, poultry, meat and vegetables) within each product, nutritional composition per 100 g, and ingredient contribution were assessed. Of the original 341 main meal products seafood (n = 13; 3.8%) was underrepresented compared to poultry (103; 30.2%), meat (121; 35.5%) and vegetables (104; 30.5%). The number of the seafood meals increased three years later (n = 20; 6.3%) vegetable meals remained the largest contributor to the market (115; 36.4%) with meat (99; 31.3%) and poultry (82; 26.0%) both contributing slightly less than previously. Seafood‐based meals provided significantly higher energy (83.0 kcal), protein (4.6 g), and total fat (3.2 g) than vegetable (68 kcal, 2.7 g, 1.9 g), meat (66 kcal, 3.0 g, 2.1 g) and poultry‐based meals (66 kcal, 3.0 g, 2.1 g) and higher saturated fat (1.3 g) than poultry (0.4 g) and vegetable‐based (0.6 g) meals (all per 100 g) which may be attributed to additional dairy ingredients. Parents who predominantly use commercial products to wean their infant may face challenges in sourcing a range of seafood products to enable the introduction of this food into the diet of their infant.

Keywords: infant feeding, seafood, complementary feeding, pre‐prepared foods, baby food, early years

Introduction

The infant food industry has expanded rapidly in the last decade with an increasingly extensive range of products sold across all early years' feeding stages. In recent years, the Diet and Nutrition Survey of Infants and Young Children (Public Health England and Food Standards Agency 2014) identified that 50% of UK infants aged 4–11 months had consumed commercial infant meat‐ and fish‐based foods over a 4‐day period. During the first few months of complementary feeding (4–6 months), the survey concluded that 36% of the infants ‘always’ or ‘almost always’ ate a commercially prepared infant meal for the main meal of the day. This decreased to 5% at 12–18 months where over two‐thirds (63%) of toddlers were said to eat the same food as their parents (Department of Health 2011, Scottish Government 2011). The vast availability of commercial infant food products provides parents with a convenient alternative to home‐cooked family meals (Maguire et al. 2004; Synott et al. 2007), and despite the fact that homemade food is often seen as the ideal option, commercial foods can provide a variety of flavours to help identify and develop infants' preferences (Hoddinott et al. 2010).

Infancy and early childhood has been shown to be a key period for the development of taste and future eating habits (Birch et al. 1990; Sullivan & Birch 1994; Birch & Fisher 1998). It has been suggested that under‐exposure to foods or food groups during early childhood may impact on acceptance of these foods in later life (Birch & Fisher 1998; Birch et al. 1998), and that repeated exposure is required (Caton et al. 2014). A child's exposure to new tastes begins during the introduction to solid foods, also known as complementary feeding. This is the period in which breast milk is no longer able to solely provide an infant's nutritional needs and is recommended that it should not begin before 6 months of age (WHO 2001).

By the age of 1 year infants should be consuming a varied diet providing a balance of nutrients similar to that recommended for the general population (NHS Health Scotland 2010). This diet should progress towards achieving the guideline recommendations that people should eat at least two portions of fish per week with one portion being oily fish (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition 2004; Scottish Government 2013a).

Fish (seafood) has long been advocated as a vital component of a healthy, balanced diet by providing essential nutrients, polyunsaturated fatty acids and lower saturated fat than other animal sources. The inclusion of essential omega‐3 fatty acid, docosahexaenoic acid, in seafood has been shown to be important for brain and neural development (Innis 2007), and higher seafood consumption in adults has been associated as a marker of health consciousness (Altekruse et al. 1995) and healthy dietary patterns in individuals (Trondsen et al. 2004). By including seafood into a child's diet, we can develop preferences that aid healthy dietary patterns into later childhood and adulthood. The availability of suitable infant seafood meal options may contribute to the underexposure to seafood in this age group and could affect their current and future acceptance of this distinctive flavour. Despite previous research comparing the nutritional composition of commercial pre‐prepared products to breast milk and home‐cooked meals (Garcia et al. 2013), there is a lack of evidence for the availability and nutritional suitability of seafood‐based commercial meals. The primary objective of this research was to investigate the availability and nutritional content of seafood in pre‐prepared main meal food products aimed towards early years' feeding stages in comparison with other main meal products.

Key messages.

  • Parents who predominantly wean their infant using commercial infant meals will be challenged by a limited availability and range of seafood‐based meals.

  • Energy‐dense commercial seafood‐based meals benefit from high protein contents while containing low levels of sugars.

  • Infants who are predominantly given commercial seafood‐based infant meals may be exposed to high saturated fat levels from additional dairy ingredients.

Materials and methods

Data collection

A search of UK online infant food stores, supermarkets – Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsburys, Aldi, Lidl; and non‐food retailers Boots and Superdrug – was conducted to identify manufacturers of pre‐prepared infant and toddler main meal products between September and December 2012. Only pre‐prepared main meal (savoury) products aimed towards early years' feeding were included for analysis. Breakfast, dessert, formula milk, snacks, finger foods and products aimed towards children aged 5 years and older were excluded from this investigation. Details of each product were identified from the manufacturer's own websites and by viewing products in the store. Where no information was available, direct enquiry to the manufacturer was carried out and additional product details were provided by email. An updated search of product availability was conducted in January 2015 to investigate any changes or growth of the market.

Product names were used to categorise the primary food type within each meal i.e. vegetable, poultry (chicken and turkey), meat (beef, lamb, pork) and seafood‐based (fish and shellfish). Vegetables contributed to many of the products; however, vegetable‐based meals were categorised as meals with no other primary food type(s) present. Details of the recommended age, nutritional composition, ingredients and their contribution in the products were collected from product labels, manufacturers' websites or through personal communication with manufacturers.

A number of products had nutrient labels that stated ‘trace’, for example salt, these were designated 0.05 g per 100 g to enable analysis. According to the Food Standards Agency's Guidance notes on nutrition labelling, ‘trace’ can be used when values are below 0.1 g per 100 g and values between 0.05 and 0.15 g may be rounded to 0.05 g (Food Standards Agency 1999).

Data analysis

The proportional contribution of seafood‐based products was compared with non‐seafood‐based main meal products. Data were not normally distributed, thus the non‐parametric Mann–Whitney U‐test was conducted to examine and compare the nutritional content per 100 g between each food type. P‐values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 software (IBM Corp 2013).

Results

General characteristics

Fourteen manufacturers were initially identified, but two were excluded from the study as the product ranges only included breakfast‐ and dessert‐based products or were aimed towards children 5 years and over.

Three hundred forty‐one main meal products were identified. Seafood‐based main meal products contributed 3.8% (n = 13) of the total available products compared with poultry‐ (30.2%), meat‐ (35.5%) and vegetable‐based (30.5%) products. A review conducted in January 2015 identified that seafood production in commercial infant meals increased to 6.3% (n = 20), while poultry meals contributed 26.0% (n = 82), meat 31.3% (n = 99) and vegetables meals 36.4% (n = 115).

Over two‐thirds (n = 8) of the identified manufacturers produced seafood‐based products with an average of 1.1 seafood meals per manufacturer and each manufacturer producing no more than two seafood products (Table 1). This increased to an average of 2.5 seafood meals in 2015 with an overall decrease in the market with four manufacturers no longer selling any main meal products within the United Kingdom. Over the past 3 years, all except one manufacturer increased the number of seafood meals. Boots Baby Organic and Hipp Organic introduced one and three seafood meals, respectively, to their production range and the main meal market.

Table 1.

Absolute number and percentage contribution of seafood‐based main meal products

Manufacturer

Number of main meal products in 2012 (percentage contribution to total main meal range)

(n = 341)

Number of seafood‐based products in 2012 (percentage contribution to the manufacturers range)

(n = 13)

Number of main meal products in 2015 (percentage contribution to total main meal range)

(n = 316)

Number of seafood‐based products in 2015 (percentage contribution to the manufacturers range)

(n = 20)
Annabel Karmel 10 (2.9) 1 (10.0) 17 (5.4) 2 (11.8)
Asda's Little Angels 12 (3.5) 1 (8.3) – –
Boots Own/Boots Baby Organic 24 (7.0) 0 (0.0) 24 (7.6) 1 (4.2)
Cow and Gate 48 (14.1) 3 (6.3) 61(19.3) 5 (8.2)
Ella's Kitchen 27 (7.9) 2 (7.4) 52 (16.5) 3 (5.8)
Heinz 70 (20.5) 1 (1.4) 59 (18.7) 3 (5.1)
Hipp Organic 52 (15.3) 0 (0.0) 69 (21.8) 3 (4.4)
Holle 15 (4.4) 0 (0.0) 18 (5.7) 0 (0.0)
Little Dish 12 (3.5) 2 (16.7) 16 (5.1) 3 (18.8)
Mumtaz 7 (2.1) 0 (0.0) – –
Organix 44 (12.9) 1 (2.3) – –
Plum Organic 20 (5.9) 2 (10.0) – –
Open in a new tab

Product availability across early years' stages

Four early years' feeding stages were classified from the manufacturers' product recommended age – stage 1: 4–6 months; stage 2: 7+ months; stage 3: 10+ months; and stage 4: 12+ months. Manufacturers produced a higher number of main meal products (68.9% of products) aimed at the first two early years' stages (31.1% and 37.8%, respectively) compared with the latter two stages (17.3% and 13.8%, respectively). Vegetable‐based products were predominant at stage 1 with lower and relatively equal contributions from poultry and meat products (Fig. 1). However, at stage 2, vegetable‐based products were displaced by poultry‐ and meat‐based meals, and at stage 3, there was an overall reduction in the total number of products, which continued towards stage 4. Throughout all stages, seafood‐based meals consistently had the lowest number of products.

Figure 1.

figure

Open in a new tab

The absolute number of main meal products of each food type across the stages of early years' feeding.

Seafood‐based meals

Three varieties of seafood were included within the seafood meals, tuna (n = 4), salmon (n = 9) and cod (n = 2), but cod was only used in combination with salmon. The seafood‐based meals were combined with pasta (n = 4), rice (n = 2), potatoes (n = 1) or as a fish pie/bake (n = 6) option.

An increase in the variety of seafood species used within commercial meals is evident from the 2015 review, revealing that pollack (n = 5), sole (n = 1) and hake (n = 1) species were additionally used and that seafood‐based meals were also combined with vegetables (only) or as fish cakes in addition to previous accompaniments.

Nutritional content of main meals

Seafood‐based main meals showed significantly higher energy (83.0 kcal per 100 g) and total fat (3.2 g per 100 g) contents than their poultry (66.0 kcal, 2.1 g per 100 g), meat (66.0 kcal, 2.0 g per 100 g) and vegetable‐based (68.0 kcal, 1.9 g per 100 g) counterparts (P ≤ 0.012) and significantly higher saturated fat content (1.3 g per 100 g;) than both poultry (0.4 g per 100 g) and vegetable‐based (0.6 g per 100 g) meals (P ≤ 0.020) (Table 2). In addition, seafood‐based meals contained significantly higher protein (4.6 g per 100 g) contents compared with all other food types (P ≤ 0.001) while vegetable meals contained significantly lower protein (2.7 g per 100 g) content than both poultry (3.0 g per 100 g) and meat (3.1 g per 100 g) (P ≤ 0.001). Vegetable‐based meals contained significantly higher carbohydrate (9.4 g per 100 g), fibre (1.9 g per 100 g), and sugars (3.0 g per 100 g) contents compared with all other food types (P ≤ 0.048) while seafood contained significantly lower sugars (1.5 g per 100 g) in comparison with poultry (2.0 g per 100 g) and meat (2.1 g per 100 g) (P ≤ 0.033) (Table 2). There were no significant differences in salt content among the different food types (0.1 g per 100 g; P = 0.845) (Table 2).

Table 2.

The nutritional content of commercial main meal products by the different food types

Nutrient Food type
Poultry Meat Vegetable Seafood Dairy seafood Non‐dairy seafood Post hoc comparison*
(P) (M) (V) (S) (D) (ND)
(n = 103) (n = 121) (n = 104) (n = 13) (n = 8) (n = 5)
Energy (kcal) 66.0 66.0 68.0 83.0 94.5 72.0 S > V,M,P; D > ND
(31.0, 413.0) (40.0, 193.0) (30.0, 422.0) (66.0, 190.0) (74.0, 190.0) (66.0, 86.0)
Total carbohydrate (g) 8.4 8.1 9.4 8.9 9.0 9.1 V > S,P,M
(3.4, 68.6) (5.1, 24.4) (4.6, 70.5) (1.3, 11.2) (1.3, 11.2) (8.9, 9.3)
Sugar (g) 2.0 2.1 3.0 1.5 1.8 1.1 V > M,P > S; V > ND
(0.4, 12.2) (0.1, 9.7) (0.5, 13.8) (0.6, 3.9) (0.6, 3.6) (0.8, 3.9)
Percentage of energy from sugars 12.1 12.7 17.7 7.2 7.6 6.1
Fibre (g) 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.3 1.4 1.7 V > M,P,S
(0.3, 4.4) (0.1, 3.8) (0.3, 5.6) (0.3, 6.5) (0.2, 2.9) (0.9, 2.9)
Protein (g) 3.0 3.1 2.7 4.6 5.9 4.2 S > P,M > V; D > ND > V
(2.0, 16.2) (1.9, 11.2) (0.5, 16.8) (3.1, 13.1) (4.3, 13.1) (3.1, 4.6)
Total Fat (g) 2.1 2.0 1.9 3.2 4.5 1.9 S > P,M,V; D > ND
(0.2, 9.1) (0.5, 10.4) (0.0, 10.6) (1.8, 10.5) (2.3, 10.5) (1.8, 3.7)
Percentage of energy from total fat 28.6 27.3 25.2 34.7 42.9 23.8
Saturated Fat (g) 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.3 2.6 0.3 S > V,P; M > P; D > ND; M > ND
(0.1, 4.2) (0.1, 5.9) (0.0, 4.8) (0.3, 6.5) (1.3, 6.5) (0.3, 0.6)
Percentage of energy from saturated fat 5.5 8.2 7.9 14.1 24.8 3.8
Salt (g) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
(0.0, 1.3) (0.0, 2.0) (0.0, 1.8) (0.1, 0.3) (0.1, 0.3) (0.1, 0.1)
Open in a new tab

Data are median and minimum and maximum range for nutrient content per 100 g of product.

*Presence of ‘>’ in post hoc comparison indicates a significant difference at P < 0.05 between groups.

Ingredient contribution

Ingredients of main meal products were investigated to identify the contribution of each main food type to the product. The mean percentage contribution of seafood in the seafood‐based main meal products (11.6%) was higher than that of poultry (9.4%) and meat (9%), but lower than that of vegetable‐based meals (52%).

On further investigation of the seafood‐based products, eight of the 13 products contained dairy products (milk and/or cheese) within the list of ingredients (mean dairy contribution of 33.8% per product), those of which did not contain dairy contained high levels of vegetables (mean vegetable contribution of 44.6% per product). Despite a small sample size within the non‐dairy seafood meal group, non‐parametric comparative analysis indicates that non‐dairy seafood meals contained less energy (72.0 kcal per 100 g; P ≤ 0.019), protein (4.2 g per 100 g; P ≤ 0.006), total fat (1.9 g per 100 g; P ≤ 0.011), and saturated fat (0.3 g per 100 g; P ≤ 0.002) than their dairy‐based counterparts producing nutritional contents more similar to poultry, meat and vegetable‐based meals (Table 2). In addition, non‐dairy seafood meals contained significantly more protein (4.2 g per 100 g; P = 0.022) and significantly lower sugars (1.1 g per 100 g; P = 0.031) than vegetable‐based meals and significantly lower saturated fat content (0.3 g per 100 g) than meat products (P = 0.017).

Discussion

During early years' feeding, the recommendations are that cereals, fruit and vegetable purees are the ideal first taste accompaniment to an infant's milk diet followed by the introduction of poultry, meat and seafood to improve digestive development and to minimise risk of allergies (NHS Health Scotland 2010). Vegetable‐based main meals are the leading product type in the first stage of early years' feeding (4–6 months) supporting findings from previous research (Hurley & Black 2010) and first taste recommendations (NHS Health Scotland 2010), mirroring recorded consumption patterns (Public Health England and Food Standards Agency 2014). The large contribution of poultry‐ and meat‐based main meals apparent in the stage 2 market denotes the replacement of the lower energy and protein vegetable‐based meals for the higher energy and protein of poultry, meat and seafood meals required for the growing infant. The limited range of main meals available at the later stages of early years' feeding reflects the lower use by parents for specialised, commercial infant meals from 12 to 18 months (Public Health England and Food Standards Agency 2014). The growing infant may now have developed taste preferences and habits, which parents believe can be attained from shared family meals (Food Standards Agency 2002).

The initial limited range of seafood species used in commercial infant foods has grown over the past few years from including only tuna, salmon and cod to additionally including pollack, hake and sole. These findings mirror those of the European Commission, which indicate these species (except sole) are within the top seven consumed fish species within the European Union (European Commission 2014). It is encouraging to see an increase in the number of seafood‐based meals available in the commercial infant market; however, we still see a limited number of options compared with other meat types. Manufacturers should be encouraged to keep introducing more seafood options into their market range to meet their ranges of poultry‐ and meat‐based meals. Brand buying based on an infant's acceptance, availability, personal preference (McEwen 2005) quality and price (Harris 1997; Maguire et al. 2004) can further augment the lack of available commercial seafood meal options. This brand buying could, in turn, hamper seafood introduction during taste development stages, contributing to the low seafood consumption rates in pre‐school and school‐age children currently evident in the United Kingdom (Department of Health 2011; Scottish Government 2011). Despite a growth in the availability of commercial seafood‐based infant meals, the limited infant range may reflect a lack of consumer demand, a trend following that of the adult population (Scottish Government 2012; Public Health England and Food Standards Agency 2014). It could be suggested that parents may be imparting their own aversion to seafood and food preferences on their infant by failing to offer this food (McManus et al. 2007; Neale et al. 2012). It should also be considered that the organoleptic properties of seafood may be a strong barrier to food selection and preferences (Leek et al. 2000; McManus et al. 2007; Neale et al. 2012) contributing to the avoidance of seafood meals and therefore requires further investigation.

Understandably, growing infants require complementary foods that are energy dense, providing plentiful kcal g−1 of food. The World Health Organization's (WHO) guiding principles in complementary feeding (WHO 2009) stipulate that infants aged 6–8 months require an additional 67–100 kcal per meal (based on 200 total kcal across two to three meals per day recommendations) from solid foods. Infants aged 9–11 months require 75–100 kcal per meal (300 kcal total across three to four meals per day), and infants aged 12–23 months require an additional 138–183 kcal per meal (550 kcal total across three to four meals per day). It is evident that the commercial main meals investigated provide adequate energy levels with seafood‐based meals being the most energy dense. Seafood‐based products also achieve 30% (8% higher than that of poultry and meat) of an infant's protein reference nutrient intake (RNI) even without the presence of dairy (based on average RNI of 13.95 g d−1 for infants aged 4–24 months [Department of Health 1994)], which may help to achieve essential dietary requirements. These findings complement previous UK findings that commercial infant foods exceed the RNI for protein (Zand et al. 2012a, 2012b). The findings of this study indicate that seafood‐based meals alone contain sugar levels below the recommended <10% of energy from sugars for children (Scottish Government 1996; WHO 2009; Garcia et al. 2013)

Despite health campaigns urging the reduction of fat and saturated fat in the daily consumption of the adult population (Scottish Government 2013b), fat is required by infants for essential growth and nourishment and to help meet high energy demands (WHO 2003). The high prevalence of dairy products can be seen to influence the percentage of energy from fat in seafood meals. Less than 35% of energy from fat was evident in these meals; however, the presence of dairy contributed to excessive energy from saturated fats surpassing dietary recommendations, which states that energy from saturated fats should be no more than 11% (Scottish Government 1996). Parents are encouraged to include a nutritiously balanced diet, which contains fat, and are advised that implementing a low‐fat diet should not occur until the child is 2 years of age (Department of Health 1994). However, it should be considered that to help combat obesity, we need infants to develop healthy dietary patterns, which they would take into adulthood. Manufacturers need to be encouraged to replace current high‐fat dairy ingredients for more lower‐fat alternatives. This will help provide parents with a larger range of lower saturated fat, non‐dairy commercial seafood meals that rivals poultry‐, meat‐ and even vegetable‐based meals for low saturated fat contents.

The tendency of the commercial seafood meal market to be high in saturated fat may deter health‐conscious parents (Harris 1997) from purchasing these meals for their infant, thus reducing their seafood meal options further. However, currently unpublished qualitative work by the authors reveals that the aversion to seafood‐based meals may come from the parent's perception of an infant's taste preferences rather than nutritional composition (Carstairs et al. unpublished data). By continually exposing children to seafood varieties parents will provide an increased opportunity for the acceptance of this flavour to occur.

Contrary to Garcia et al.'s (2013) conclusion that commercial foods are unsuitable to serve the intended purpose of providing additional nutrients to the milk diet, our findings indicate that main meal products, in particular seafood‐based meals, are energy‐dense options that meet early years recommendations (WHO 2009). The study by Garcia et al. did, however, compare nutrient content of ready‐made foods to breast and formula milks as well as a home‐cooked comparator meal (Garcia et al. 2013) and not to dietary recommendations as in our study. We conclude that caution should be conveyed to parents who predominantly use commercial products to wean their infant because of the high prevalence of energy from sugars within vegetable‐, poultry‐ and meat‐based meals, and because of the high amount of energy‐derived from saturated fats in dairy‐based seafood meals.

We assumed that parents select meal options for their infant based on the name of the product and so the classification of meal food types was based on the name of the product and not on the full ingredient content. Our analysis was interested in looking at the nutritional information provided to consumers using on‐product nutrition labels. It is important to note nutrient analysis was not conducted in this study and discrepancies may exist in the nutrient composition of the meals (Kanzler et al. 2015). However, despite evidence identifying that commercial ready‐to‐feed baby meals contain variations between actual and declared nutrient concentrations (Zand et al. 2012b), nutritional composition information on product labels is permitted to vary providing they comply with regulatory recommendations (The Commission of European Communities 2006). This study did not investigate full micronutrient composition or the inclusion of artificial preservatives, flavourings, colourings or stabilisers. These are important aspects to consider in the overall healthiness and acceptability of the meals. Sensory appeal of the main meal products was not examined in this study, and it must be acknowledged that these factors will play an important role in the selection and consumption of these products.

A structured review of the commercially available main meal food products reveals a limited range of seafood‐based meals available across the early years' stages. The presence of dairy products in seafood‐based meals significantly contribute to the nutritional composition of these meals resulting in conflicting high saturated fat contents in this otherwise energy‐ and protein‐dense meal option. Parents who predominantly use commercial products to wean their infant are likely to face challenges in sourcing a range of products to enable the inclusion of seafood, which is likely to hinder the introduction of this food into the diet of their infant. Health practitioners should encourage parents to regularly and continually introduce different seafood species to their infant throughout the early years' stages to reduce potential consequences of avoiding this omega‐rich food.

Source of funding

The study was funded by the Seafish and Interface Food and Drink as part of a Doctorate Scholarship undertaken at the University of Aberdeen.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data for the work were conducted by SAC under the supervision of KK, DM and LCAG. Drafting of the paper was done by SAC with revision for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published given by KK, DM and LCAG. There is agreement between the authors that SAC is accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the food manufacturers for answering queries and supplying missing nutritional information.

Carstairs, S. A. , Marais, D. , Craig, L. C. A. , and Kiezebrink, K. (2016) Seafood inclusion in commercial main meal early years' food products. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 12: 860–868. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12185.

References

  1. Altekruse S.F., Timbo B.B., Headrick M.L. & Klontz K.C. (1995) Associations between diet and health behaviour – results from the 1992 Rhode Island behaviour risk factor survey. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 18, 225–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Birch L.L. & Fisher J.O. (1998) Development of eating behaviors among children and adolescents. Pediatrics 101 (Suppl. 2), 539–549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Birch L.L., McPhee L., Steinberg L. & Sullivan S. (1990) Conditioned flavor preferences in young children. Physiology & Behavior 47 (3), 501–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Birch L.L., Gunder L., Grimm‐Thomas K. & Laing D.G. (1998) Infants' consumption of a new food enhances acceptance of similar foods. Appetite 30 (3), 283–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Caton S., Blundell P., Ahern S., Nekitsing C., Olsen A., Møller P. et al (2014) Learning to eat vegetables in early life: the role of timing, age and individual eating traits. PLoS ONE 9 (5), e97609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Department of Health (1994) Weaning and the Weaning Diet. Report on Health and Social Subjects 45. HMSO: London. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Department of Health (2011) Diet and Nutrition Survey of Infants and Young Children 2011. Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency: London. [Google Scholar]
  8. European Commission (2014) The EU Fish Market. Directorate‐General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission: Brussels. [Google Scholar]
  9. Food Standards Agency (1999) Guidance Notes on Nutrition Labelling. Food Standards Agency: London. [Google Scholar]
  10. Food Standards Agency (2002) Feeding Your Toddler. Food Standard Agency: London. [Google Scholar]
  11. Garcia A.L., Raza S., Parrett A. & Wright C.M. (2013) Nutritional content of infant commercial weaning foods in the UK. Archives of Disease in Childhood 98 (10), 793–797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Harris M. (1997) Consumers pay a premium for organic baby foods. Food Review 20 (2), 13–16. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoddinott P., Craig L., Britten J. & McInnes R. (2010) A Prospective Study Exploring the Early Infant Feeding Experiences of Parents and their Significant Others During the First 6 Months of Life: What would Make a Difference?. NHS Health Scotland: Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hurley K.M. & Black M.M. (2010) Commercial baby food consumption and dietary variety in a statewide sample of infants receiving benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants, and children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 110 (10), 1537–1541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. IBM Corp (2013) IBM Statistic for Windows Version 22.0. IBM Corps: Armonk, New York. [Google Scholar]
  16. Innis S. (2007) Dietary (n‐3) fatty acids and brain development. The Journal of Nutrition 137 (3), 855–859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kanzler S.M., Manschein M., Lammer G. & Wagner K. (2015) The nutrient composition of European ready meals: protein, fat, total carbohydrates and energy. Food Chemistry 172, 190–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Leek S., Maddock S. & Foxall G. (2000) Situational determinants of fish consumption. British Food Journal 102 (1), 18–31. [Google Scholar]
  19. Maguire K., Owens N. & Simon N. (2004) The price premium for organic babyfood: a hedonic analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29 (1), 132–149. [Google Scholar]
  20. McEwen W. (2005) Married to the Brand. Why Consumers Bond with Some Brands for Life. Gallup Press: New York. [Google Scholar]
  21. McManus A., Burns S., Howat P., Cooper L. & Fielder L. (2007) Factors influencing the consumption of seafood among young children in Perth: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 7 (1), 119–125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Neale E.P., Nolan‐Clark D., Probst Y.C., Batterhan M.J. & Tapsell L.C. (2012) Comparing attitudes to fish consumption between clinical trial participants and non‐trial individuals. Nutrition & Dietetics 69 (2), 124–129. [Google Scholar]
  23. NHS Health Scotland (2010) Fun First Foods: An Easy Guide to Introducing Solid Foods. NHS Health Scotland: Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  24. Public Health England and Food Standards Agency (2014) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Results from Years 1, 2, 3 and 4 (combined) of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2011/2012). Public Health England: London. [Google Scholar]
  25. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2004) Advice on Fish Consumption: Benefits and Risks. Food Standards Agency and Department of Health, TSO: London. [Google Scholar]
  26. Scottish Government (1996) Eating for Health – A Diet Action Plan for Scotland. Scottish Government: Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  27. Scottish Government (2011) Diet and Nutrition Survey in Infants and Young Children in Scotland 2011. Scottish Government: Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  28. Scottish Government (2012) The Scottish Health Survey 2011 – Volume 1: Adults. Scottish Government: Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  29. Scottish Government (2013a) Revised Dietary Goals for Scotland. Scottish Government: Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  30. Scottish Government (2013b) The Scottish Health Survey. 2012. Scottish Government: Edinburgh. Volume 1 – Main Report. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sullivan S.A. & Birch L.L. (1994) Infant dietary experience and acceptance of solid foods. Pediatrics 93 (2), 271–277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Synott K., Bogue J., Edwards C., Scott J., Higgins S., Norin E. et al (2007) Parental perceptions of feeding practices in five European countries: an exploratory study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 61, 946–956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. The Commission of European Communities (2006) Commission Directive 2006/125/EC of 5 December 2006 on processed cereal‐based foods and baby foods for infants and young children.
  34. Trondsen T., Braaten T., Lund E. & Eggen A. (2004) Consumption of seafood – the influence of overweight and health beliefs. Food Quality and Pref 15, 361–374. [Google Scholar]
  35. World Health Organization (WHO) (2001) The Optimal Duration of Exclusive Breastfeeding: Report of an Expert Consultation. World Health Organisation: Geneva. [Google Scholar]
  36. World Health Organization (WHO) (2003) Guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child.
  37. World Health Organization (WHO) 2009. Complementary feeding In: Infant and Young Child Feeding. Model Chapter for Textbooks for Medical Students and Other Allied Health Professionals, pp. 23 WHO World Health Organization: Geneva. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Zand N., Chowdhry B.Z., Wray D.S., Pullen F.S. & Snowden M.J. (2012a) Elemental content of commercial ‘ready to‐feed’ poultry and fish based infant foods in the UK. Food Chemistry 135 (4), 2796–2801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zand N., Chowdhry B.Z., Pollard L.V., Pullen F.S., Snowden M.J. & Zotor F.B. (2012b) Commercial ‘ready‐to‐feed’ infant foods in the UK: macro‐nutrient content and composition. Maternal and Child Nutrition 8, 1740–1752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Maternal & Child Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES