The cost of baby-led vs. parent-led approaches to introducing complementary foods in New Zealand

• Published in: European journal of clinical nutrition Vol. 74; no. 10; pp. 1474 - 1477
• Main Authors: Bacchus, S., Taylor, R. W., Fleming, E. A., Haszard, J. J., Fangupo, L., Daniels, L., Heath, A.-L. M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.10.2020; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 692/700/1720; 692/700/2814; Brief Communication; Clinical Nutrition; Epidemiology; Feeding; Food; Food intake; Infants; Internal Medicine; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metabolic Diseases; Physical growth; Public Health
• ISSN: 0954-3007; 1476-5640
• DOI: 10.1038/s41430-020-0606-7

Baby-led approaches to complementary feeding promote intake of family foods rather than infant specific foods, from the start of the complementary feeding period, which advocates suggest should be less expensive. However, this has never been formally examined. We recently completed a 2-year randomised controlled trial comparing baby-led (BLISS) and traditional spoon-feeding (Control) approaches to complementary feeding in 206 infants. Perceived expense was assessed at infant 7, 8, 9 and 12 months of age. The actual cost of intake (food offered, consumed and left over) was calculated from 3-day weighed diet records at 7 and 12 months of age. BLISS was perceived as less expensive than traditional feeding ( P  = 0.002), but comparisons of actual costs showed only small differences in total daily cost for food offered (NZ$0.20 and NZ$0.10 at 7 and 12 months, respectively), consumed (NZ$0.30, NZ$0.20) or left over (NZ$0.10, NZ$0.20). Baby-led approaches are not cheaper for families than traditional spoon-feeding.