All four leading brands of baby rusks have been found to contain excessive levels of sugar, writes MICHAEL KELLY
FEW PARENTS would deliberately feed their babies junk food but, according to recent surveys, they may well be doing so unwittingly. A survey carried out by the Consumers' Association of Ireland's Consumer Choicemagazine found that all four leading brands of baby rusks contained excessive levels of sugar and two were high in saturated fats.
The Irish research has similar findings to tests carried out in the UK earlier this year. In March, the UK charity Sustain, which campaigns for healthier children’s food and is funded by the British Heart Foundation, audited more than 100 products aimed at the infant market.
The organisation claimed that a cheeseburger and chocolate biscuits were more nutritious than some food specifically marketed at babies. They also found that some rusks on the market contained more sugar than a chocolate digestive biscuit.
The Consumers’ Association of Ireland has called on baby food companies to take immediate action to improve the nutritional quality of their products.
“Food companies are always telling us that these foods are within EU nutrition guidelines,” says chief executive Dermot Jewell. “The point we are making is that rather than trying to meet these levels, food companies should be trying to reduce or eliminate the sugar and saturated fat in these products altogether. Parents have a role to play too by choosing products that are low in sugar, salt and fat.”
According to the International Association for the Study of Obesity, high-sugar and high-fat diets are resulting in children becoming more susceptible to what are generally classed as adult diseases.
The organisation found that nearly a million school-age children in the EU are already showing signs of high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels and early signs of heart disease. In Ireland, the National Children’s Food Survey estimates that one in five Irish children aged four to 12 is overweight or obese.
According to Valerie Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute and a paediatric dietitian in Temple Street Hospital, diet-related problems are now far more common in very young children.
“It is definitely much more frequent to see younger children with diet-related issues now,” says Kelly. “It used to be that you were only seeing these problems in children from eight years old up to puberty. But now we are seeing problems in children as young as two, three or four years of age. A diet that is high in sugar inevitably leads to problems with weight and even obesity.”
Despite this, Kelly believes that parents should not be overly alarmed by the survey’s findings.
“I think the main point for parents to bear in mind is that they should treat baby rusks as a treat rather than an integral part of the diet. I feel the survey is a little sensationalist. The way the findings are presented it is saying that they [Farleys Rusks] have 29g of sugar per 100g.
“That equates to about 5g of sugar per rusk which is a little over a teaspoon. It’s about the equivalent amount of sugar that you would have in a glass of juice or yoghurt.”
The problem for many parents of course is that they do not see rusks as a treat, but rather as an aid to wean babies on to solid foods or when the baby is teething.
“We would not recommend that they be used as part of the weaning diet,” says Kelly. “Some parents would use rusks softened up with formula at tea-time but we do not think that’s a good idea. Basically, you are giving the baby a taste for sweet things and once a child realises what sugar tastes like they will look for it all the time. The longer that you can keep them away from sugar the better.”
Though baby rusks have been fed to babies for more than 100 years, the difference today, according to Kelly, is that they are been fed to babies in addition to other sugary snacks and it is the cumulative impact which is compounding the problem.
“In the past, rusks were the only sugary foods that babies were eating, whereas now it’s in addition to fruit juices and sugary yoghurts. It’s the combination of things that is the problem. Juice and yoghurts at least provide other nutritional benefits such as calcium and protein. Rusks do have some iron in them and added vitamins, but not a huge amount.”
The Consumer Choice survey also noted that sugar is often listed in the ingredients under a number of guises such as glucose, fructose, syrup and sucrose. “I do think that the food companies like to have a situation where parents are confused about the nutritional information,” says Kelly.
“It’s important for parents to look at the food labelling as well as the ingredients. Less than 5g of sugar per 100g is considered low in sugar whereas more than 10g per 100g is considered high in sugar. Don’t allow yourself to be swayed by other claims, for example, about added vitamins and minerals and so on.”
Janis Morrissey, dietitian with the Irish Heart Foundation and the Children’s Food Campaign, says the early stage of a baby’s development is an opportunity for parents to lay down healthy eating habits that will stick with a child for life.
“If babies are consuming food that is high in fat and sugar, then you have set their palette for life and they are at increased risk of developing diabetes, heart disease and obesity later on.
“These foods are marketed and generally perceived as a healthy snack for babies and infants, but that is not always the case. They have relatively little nutritional value and the saturated fat content would be of particular concern to us as it is a key determinant of cholesterol levels in the blood.”
Morrissey draws attention to the difference in sugar levels between the products audited in the Consumer Choicesurvey. The lowest level of sugar in the four rusk products surveyed was 18.8g per 100g in Cow Gate's Animal Biscuits. The highest level was 29g per 100g in Farleys Rusks. "That's a very significant difference and it shows the room to manoeuvre that manufacturers have – that it is possible to reduce sugar in these products.
“It also highlights the importance for parents to check labels and to look at the fat and sugar levels in different products. There is this idea that there is a fat-sugar seesaw – when they drop the sugar levels they increase the fat as it makes the food more palatable. That’s something to watch out for too.”
So are there alternatives that parents can use? “We would always say to use fruit instead,” says Morrissey. “It has that natural sweetness and it doesn’t have the fat content. Yoghurt is good but you need to be careful as some yoghurts are high in sugar too. Read the labels and try to choose the one which is lowest in sugar.”
Since rusks are generally used as a “finger food” for babies, Valerie Kelly recommends using foods which babies can hold as an alternative. “Chunks of banana are good, as are sticks of toast, well-cooked pasta shapes, rice cakes and soft fruit. If it’s just for weaning a child on to solids then baby rice and puréed vegetables are a great alternative.”