There is a large and growing market for baby foods in India, estimated at USD 9.9 billion in 2025, which is likely to reach about USD 13.4 billion by 2030. “Baby foods” is a generic term for packaged foods sold in the market. These products are marketed as infant milk substitutes, complementary foods, toddler nutrition drinks and ready-to-eat meals.
The underlying impression is that these products are safe, healthy, hygienic, and medically suitable for consumption by infants and toddlers. But is that really so?
In this article, we shall explore the hidden dangers in baby foods and determine whether babies are actually as safe as parents assume and whether urgent reforms are needed to protect the youngest and most vulnerable consumers.
Generally speaking, baby foods or commercial products designed and marketed for feeding infants and toddlers—from birth up to early childhood—can be clubbed into five main categories or segments:
1) Infant milk substitutes (IMS):
Such products are positioned as “medically approved” for situations where breastfeeding is not possible, not sufficient, or not advised. They may include infant formula for 0–6 months, 0–12 months, and follow-up formula for 6–12-month babies, as well as specialised formulas for babies with specific needs, such as lactose intolerance, allergy-related sensitivities, reflux, prematurity, or other clinical indications. In India, such products fall in a tightly regulated category because of the law to promote breastfeeding and prevent misleading advertising to replace mothers’ milk unnecessarily.
2) Complementary foods:
Packaged foods such as rice, oats, wheat, ragi, multigrain mix, and porridges to supplement breastmilk or formula for babies transitioning to solid food, after about six months. These products are positioned as “fortified” or “easy to digest”.
3) Ready-to-eat meals for infants and toddlers:
Complete age‑appropriate ready-to-eat mini‑meals or pre‑prepared foods to supplement, not replace, regular family meals or breastfeeding/formula at appropriate ages. These products may include fruit or vegetable purees, fruit/veg blends and need little or no further cooking. They usually come in pouches, jars, trays, or cups for quick feeding on the go, at daycare, or on busy days—so parents can serve ready-made meals to their young, growing children.
4) Baby/toddler snacks:
Baby/toddler snacks are packaged, “ready-to-munch” foods marketed as convenient finger foods for infants and toddlers—often positioned as safe, melt-in-mouth, teething-friendly, or travel-friendly options. They may include puffs/melts/ring snacks, Snack sticks/crackers for toddlers, teething rusks and teething biscuits/cookies and baby biscuits (often framed as “easy to hold” or “calcium/iron”). These so-called “safe to eat” products are highly palatable and sometimes contain higher levels of added sugars/salt/flavouring than parents expect, and can quietly train a child toward sweet/salty preferences and frequent nibbling if they become routine.
5) Toddler nutrition drinks:
Packaged beverages, “growing-up milks”/toddler milks and “Kids nutrition powders / malt-based drink mixes” ready-to-drink shakes for 1–3-year-olds for growth/brain/immunity support. They claim to be good for “calcium/height gain, DHA/brain, immunity, strong bones, appetite support, or complete nutrition”.
What’s inside the pack really matters: Are baby foods “really healthy”?
This is the crux of the problem. There is no clear-cut answer – some are, while some aren’t.The term “Baby food” seems to suggest something purer than regular food, designed by experts, safer than what parents can cook at home. But how many parents in India understand or know scientific terms like fortified, DHA, easy to digest, or age-appropriate? Most parents usually believe that they are buying the best for their children. Still, they are often misled by false claims that may expose their children to risks that can cause developmental problems, obesity, childhood diabetes or other chronic diseases. Evidence from across the world shows that infant foods, marketed as safe and nourishing, often contain added sugar, heavy metals, and pesticide residues. The question is not only whether these products are legal or popular, but whether these so-called modern baby-foods are shaping an early diet that nudges children toward obesity and pediatric diabetes – later in life. What most children need is a balanced diet and water—not a sweet concoction disguised as a “nutrition drink”.
What difference does food consumed during the first few years of life make?
The first years of life (especially 6–24 months) and the first 1,000 days—from conception to the second birthday—are a learning period for babies as they develop taste preferences. This is the phase when their immune system is still immature, their organs are still developing, and their brains are undergoing rapid growth. In the first two years, the brain grows dramatically—studies estimate it reaches almost 83% of adult volume by age 2. This is when children learn what “normal food” tastes like and must learn to accept healthy foods and establish long-term dietary patterns. What they eat or drink during this period goes a long way toward shaping their health and nutritional habits 30-50 years later. If early foods are routinely sweet/salty/ultra-processed, the palate adapts—and plain foods can feel less acceptable later.
They’re selling emotions, not food
Most “baby food” being sold in the market claims to be:
- Safe (“made for babies”),
- Develop (“brain/height/immunity”),
- Relief (“your child will finally eat”),
- Status (“premium parenting”) and
- Control (“measured servings, fortified, guaranteed”)
The most brilliant sales technique in modern baby marketing is to associate snack foods with development. A biscuit is not sold as a biscuit but as “teething support.” A rusk is not a refined-carb snack, but something that is “easy to hold” and “helps chewing.” So, parents aren’t buying sugar and starch—they are buying a solution to stop the baby from crying, as well as to prevent sleepless nights or choking. The “teething” label has become a loophole through which everyday snack habits enter the child’s diet before the child even learns to eat real food. But “Safe” and “appropriate” do not have the same meaning,when Parents ask if baby foods are “safe”, they usually mean two things. First, does the product meet hygiene and contaminant standards? Second is does it support healthy eating habits and growth?
We are being bombarded with misleading infant formula advertising
WHO has repeatedly warned against aggressive marketing by infant formula companies, which have been undermining breastfeeding and making deceptive claims about immunity and brain development is nothing short of unfair trade practice.
In 2022, a Lancet series documented how formula companies use pseudoscience and emotional appeals to convince parents. In my view, sugar in infant foods is poison.
According to a WHO guideline, food high in sugar, salt and trans fats, sugar-sweetened beverages and non-sugar sweeteners should not be consumed by 6–23-month-old infants.
This is corroborated by an ICMR-NIN Dietary Guideline (2024), which states: “No added sugar for children <2 years old.”
This notwithstanding, a study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine reported that about 41% of commercially available baby food brands sold in the Indian marketplace across multiple categories (dry baby foods, beverages, snacks, etc.) contain high sugar.
According to another recent study, excess sugar intake in the first 1,000 days is linked to a higher risk of chronic diseases, like type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, later in life. What this means is that even a product legally sold in the Indian market may not align with best practice for daily feeding in the first two years.
Despite Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, many baby/toddler products are marketed as an insurance policy for “brain development,” “immunity,” “height,” “strong bones,” “complete nutrition,” “doctor recommended,” “clinically proven,” and “growth support.” Yet these claims often hide unhealthy ingredients. They seem to create a powerful psychological impact using terms like “fortified,” “organic,” “gentle,” or “healthy.” The idea is to suggest that home-cooked food or a balanced diet cannot provide enough nutrients, and that packaged foods are needed.
Most of these claims often hide unhealthy ingredients. For instance, a food labelled as “Organic” may still contain heavy metals. Likewise, products marked as “without preservatives” can still contain high levels of sugar. There was a time when Cerelac marketed in India claimed to be “fortified with iron,” but contained added sugar. The net result is that parents often believe they are buying health and safety, whereas they are really buying risk.
Nestlé Cerelac Controversy
Let me share with you the Nestlé Cerelac Controversy. An investigation by Public Eye, a Swiss NGO in collaboration with the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) in 2024, discovered that all 15 Cerelac baby cereal products sold in India contained added sugar – about 3 grams per serving while Cerelac infant cereals and formulas sold in several European countries like UK and Germany—were almost sugar-free and didn’t contain added sugar. This clearly exposed the “double standards” in product formulation between high-income and lower- and middle-income markets, and violated the WHO’s complementary feeding guideline stating that 6–23-month-old children should not consume foods or beverages high in sugar. In case you are wondering what difference it makes, the issue is not merely about consuming “a few grams of sugar” but about taste-conditioning and the risk that babies are nudged to crave sweetness as “normal” before they have learned to accept real foods. Health experts warn that this could lead to childhood obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and cause babies to crave sweetness from the earliest stages of life.
Heavy metals in baby foods
Now let me deal with heavy metals in baby foods: A silent threat. Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury are naturally occurring elements. Some of them are harmless in small amounts but toxic in higher doses. Long-term exposure is linked to lower IQ, attention deficits, and increased cancer risk. Babies are especially vulnerable because their bodies absorb metals more readily than adults, and their developing brains are highly sensitive to neurotoxins.
In 2021, a U.S. Congressional report revealed that leading baby food brands sold products with dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, and cadmium. Rice‑based cereals were particularly problematic, as rice absorbs arsenic from soil and water more than other grains. Despite warnings, many brands continued selling them, exploiting regulatory loopholes. In India, independent studies have found lead and cadmium residues in packaged baby foods. Globally, watchdog groups estimate that 95% of baby foods tested contain some level of heavy metals, often above recommended safety limits.
Pesticides in baby foods
There is also evidence of pesticides in Baby Foods as Invisible Residues. Fruits and vegetables used in purees, juices, and baby snacks often contain pesticide residue even after washing and processing. Babies, with weaker detox systems, are more vulnerable to these chemicals. Investigations in Europe found pesticide residues, including chemicals linked to endocrine disruption, “within permissible limits” in apple‑based baby purees. Experts say that there is no safe level for infants. In India, pesticide monitoring is difficult as baby foods marketed as “natural” often rely on conventional supply chains, exposing infants to residues. A study found traces of pesticides in packaged fruit purees sold in Indian supermarkets in 2019, due to lax enforcement.
What can we do about this?
Now what can you do as parents? Read labels carefully and watch for added sugar, honey, or “natural” claims. Prefer freshly prepared homemade foods- fruits, vegetables, and grains. Avoid rice‑based cereals; use oats or millets, and support campaigns for stricter regulation and corporate accountability.
My policy recommendations for safer baby foods for India are, ban added sugar in infant foods as per WHO guidelines. Set strict heavy metal limits, pesticide‑free supply chains, clear disclosure of sugar, contaminants, and sourcing. Awareness amongst the consumers, especially parents about risks and rights under the banner of the multi-media JAGO GRAHAK JAGO campaign. NGOs, consumer rights groups, and pediatric associations must act as watchdogs. In case the concerned authorities fail to take notice of such articles then as law abiding citizens, we have only one option, public interest litigations (PIL), which can push systemic reforms. Media must sustain coverage beyond scandals.
I would conclude by saying baby food is not truly safe in today’s environment. Heavy metals, sugar, pesticides, and misleading claims combine to create a toxic cocktail of risks. Parents, regulators, and civil society must demand accountability. The consumer rights movement must extend to the youngest citizens, who cannot speak for themselves.
