Parents could be wasting hundreds of pounds on "unnecessary" toddler milks that can contain more sugar and less calcium than cows' milk, consumer group Which?
said.
It found almost half of mothers with a child over the age of one (46%) use toddler, or "growing up", milk, despite health professionals regularly advising parents that a healthy diet including cows' milk provides a young child's required nutrition.
Which? said parents could save at least £500 a year by switching from ready-to-serve toddler milk, costing around £593 a year, to cows' milk, which costs £62.
Government advice is that toddler milk is unnecessary as children can drink cows' milk from the age of one.
A comparison found full-fat cows' milk contains less sugar - 4.7g per 100ml - than Hipp Organic combiotic growing up milk powder, at 7.9g.
The study also found cows' milk contains higher levels of calcium - 122mg per 100ml - than Apatamil 1yr+ growing up milk powder and Cow & Gate 1-2 yrs growing-up milk powder, which both contain 86mg.
The report said toddler milks contain more iron and vitamin D than cows' milk, but these nutrients could be obtained from a child's diet and a multivitamin that contains vitamin A, C and D.
Unlike infant formula, toddler milks are not covered by specific legislation on ingredients.
According to Which?, the formula market is worth around £359 million a year, with toddler milks the fastest growing sector.
Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: "At a time when so many household budgets are severely squeezed, parents could be saving hundreds of pounds on toddler milks that the Government says are unnecessary.
"Ministers should make their advice much clearer and introduce guidance on the ingredients of toddler milks, including the level of sugar and calcium."
Which? surveyed 727 mothers with children under three years between November 8 and December 6 last year.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article