Little Freddie babyfood pouches fail to meet World Health Organization standards for on-pack sugar labelling, despite the brand claiming it is “always” reflective of the body’s guidelines.
An assessment of 20 fruit-containing products listed on the Little Freddie website developed for weaning babies aged six months and above has revealed the average energy coming from sugar was 49%.
The WHO standards recommend front-of-pack warning labels for fruit-based products where more than 30% of energy comes from sugar.
Researchers at the University of Leeds, led by Dr Diane Threapleton, found 18 of the 20 Little Freddie products assessed would require a sugar warning label to alert shoppers under the guidelines.
The findings contradict Little Freddie’s response to last week’s revelations by The Grocer that the brand’s weaning pouches contained more sugar than stated on pack. Lab tests showed some had almost double the amount of sugar listed.
UK general manager Rich Keir said: “Little Freddie has always been committed to choosing the very best ingredients for little ones . In practice, this has meant that our products are always developed alongside registered paediatric nutritionists, and reflective of NHS and WHO guidelines.”
The University of Leeds researchers also said Little Freddie packs did not include an overt warning about not drinking via the spout, something recommended by the WHO because of concerns with regards to dental health and rapid over-consumption of sugar-rich foods.
Little Freddie did not respond to a request from The Grocer to comment on the research.
Keir told The Grocer last week: “As we learn more about the [Grocer’s] report and findings, we need to undertake an assessment to understand if any discrepancies exist and why. Our process will work alongside The Grocer to understand the Eurofins testing, as we ensure relevant external, impartial parties are involved in a full retest of all our products to confirm the accuracy of our printed nutritional values.”
Keir also said the Eurofins lab results revealed by The Grocer last week did not reflect what the business had tested in its independent laboratories. He added: “Our independent nutritional testing results are exactly as we reflect on our packs.”
However, Little Freddie has not responded to requests to share any of its results with The Grocer.
Retailer response
The Grocer has shared all the relevant details from the Eurofins tests with Little Freddie, including batch codes, dates of tests and a sugar breakdown of each product.
All supermarkets selling Little Freddie products were contacted for comment, but Tesco, Morrisons, Ocado and Co-op all declined to respond.
A Sainsbury’s spokeswoman said: “We continue to be in close contact with Little Freddie and are awaiting further updates.”
The Grocer understand the other retailers are also in conversation with the brand while they investigate the allegations.
The Food Standards Agency, Defra and the Department of Health & Social Care all declined to provide a comment but said food law enforcement in the UK, including food labelling, was the responsibility of local authorities.
The Grocer is awaiting a response from the London Borough of Camden Trading Standards office as the authority responsible for the area where the Little Freddie UK base is located.
Almost double the sugar
As reported last week, lab tests by Eurofins revealed nine out of 12 Little Freddie’s stage one pouches contained more sugar than the declared value on the label.
Sugar levels in four of the SKUs – Banana & Raspberry Coconut Yoghurt; Peaches & Raspberries; Pink Lady Apple Yoghurt; and Coconut & Summer Berries – were almost twice as high as stated on packs.
Little Freddie responded: “Everything we print and claim is based on the data reports provided by our independent laboratory, SGS.”
However, Georgina Stewart, founder of food consultancy The Nutrient Gap, questioned whether the brand had been regularly retesting or just trusted the results done during development.
“Both labs [Eurofins and SGS] are internationally renowned and unlikely to be wrong,” she said. “But potentially one lab tested samples that were made months or years earlier than the other. Could anything have changed about the ingredients or the processes that might mean that both results are correct, but the labs are not comparing apples with apples (or apple purée with apple purée)?
“When we work on the nutritional panels for food products, we can base the numbers on fully tested figures from a laboratory, or on calculated nutritional values. We always ask for three results to compare the average. It’s not unusual for these to differ a little, but not by the amounts suggested in this study. It’s also true to say that the sugar content of some fruits can vary according to the time of year or the stage of the crop when they are picked. Again, we wouldn’t expect that to make a difference as significant as this disparity in the results.
“For some product types, we’re happy to create a calculated profile. For something as reliant on parental trust as a babyfood, we’d always advise testing, and it’s clear that Little Freddie has had independent testing done, but less clear whether they’ve continued to test at intervals since launch.”
No comments yet