Research II. Food and Nutrient Intake: Original Research| Volume 110, ISSUE 12, SUPPLEMENT , S38-S51, December 01, 2010

# Food Consumption Patterns of Infants and Toddlers: Where Are We Now?

## Abstract

### Objectives

To describe current infant-feeding practices and current food group consumption patterns of infants and toddlers and to compare 2008 data with 2002 data to identify shifts in these practices and food consumption over time.

### Design

The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS) 2008 is a cross-sectional survey of a national random sample of US children from birth up to age 4 years. Data for three age subgroups (infants 4 to 5.9 months and 6 to 11.9 months and toddlers 12 to 23.9 months) were used from the 2002 (n=2,884) and 2008 surveys (n=1,596).

### Statistical methods

All analyses use sample weights that reflect the US population aged 4 to 24 months. Descriptive statistics (means, proportions, and standard errors) and t tests were calculated using SUDAAN (release 9, 2005, Research Triangle Park Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC).

### Results

These data show a higher percentage of infants receiving breast milk from 4 to 11.9 months of age with a concurrent decreasing percentage of infants receiving formula, which is significantly different from data for the 9- to 11.9-month-old age group. The use of complementary foods also appears to be delayed in FITS 2008: There is a significantly lower proportion of infants consuming infant cereal at 9 to 11.9 months in FITS 2008 compared to 2002 data. Fruit and vegetable consumption remains lower than desired. Significant reductions in the percentage of infants and toddlers consuming any desserts or candy, sweetened beverages, and salty snacks were seen in 2008.

### Conclusions

The findings presented here provide important insights to the content of messages and types of interventions that are still needed to improve the diets of infants and toddlers.
Improper early childhood feeding, including issues related to the duration of breastfeeding, use and quantity of human milk substitutes, and timing and introduction of complementary foods, has been linked with overall dietary nutrient inadequacy and suboptimal childhood growth and development (
• Haisma H.
• Coward W.A.
• Albernaz E.
• Visser G.H.
• Wells J.C.K.
• Wright A.
• Victora C.G.
Breast milk and energy intake in exclusively, predominately, and partially breast-fed infants.
,
• Victora C.G.
• Morris S.
• Barros F.C.
• Horta B.L.
• Weiderpass E.
• Tomasi E.
Breast-feeding and growth in Brazilian infants.
,
• Dewey K.G.
• Peerson J.M.
• Brown K.H.
• Krebs N.F.
• Michaelsen K.F.
• Salmenpera L.
• Yeung D.L.
Growth of breast-fed infants deviates from current reference data: A pooled analysis of US, Canadian, and European data sets World Health Organization working group on infant growth.
). Of particular public health concern today is the dietary and physical activity or inactivity behaviors of infants and toddlers that are contributing to the high prevalence of childhood obesity (
• Lederman S.A.
• Akabas S.R.
• Moore B.J.
• Bentley M.E.
• Devaney B.
• Gillman M.W.
• Kramer M.S.
• Mennella J.A.
• Ness A.
• Wardle J.
Summary of the presentations at the Conference on Preventing Childhood Obesity, December 8, 2003.
). The most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2007-2008) indicate that 9.5% of infants and toddlers were ≥95th percentile of weight for length; an estimate that has remained relatively stable since 1999 (
• Ogden C.L.
• Carroll M.D.
• Curtin L.R.
• Lamb M.M.
• Flegal K.M.
Prevalence of high body mass index in US children and adolescents, 2007-2008.
).
Few studies have been conducted on a large, national sample that can contribute to our understanding of the parental behaviors potentially leading to this early childhood obesity. The previous Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS), conducted in 2002 on a national random sample, was instrumental in documenting the feeding patterns of children aged 4 to 24 months and how they compared to established guidelines (
• Fox M.K.
• Pac S.
• Devaney B.
• Jankowski L.
Feeding infants and toddlers study: What foods are infants and toddlers eating?.
,
• Briefel R.
• Reidy K.
• Karwe V.
• Devaney B.
Feeding infants and toddlers study: Improvements needed in meeting infant feeding recommendations.
). These data provided incredible insights into some of the problems that may be contributing to the increased rates of obesity at an early age, such as the early introduction of foods during infancy that are high in fat, sugar, and sodium (
• Fox M.K.
• Pac S.
• Devaney B.
• Jankowski L.
Feeding infants and toddlers study: What foods are infants and toddlers eating?.
). With the completion of yet another survey conducted in 2008, we have the opportunity to explore changes in the feeding patterns and food consumption of this age group between 2002 and 2008. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe the current infant-feeding practices in terms of breastfeeding and use of human milk substitutes as well as the introduction of complementary foods among infants participating in FITS 2008, describe food group consumption patterns of infants and toddlers, and compare the 2008 with the 2002 FITS data to identify shifts in these practices and food consumption over time.

## Methods

### Study Design and Response Rates

FITS 2008 is a cross-sectional survey of a national random sample of US children from birth through age 47 months, similar to that conducted in 2002 (
• Devaney B.
• Kalb L.
• Briefel R.
• Zavitsky-Novak T.
• Clusen N.
• Ziegler P.
Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study: Overview of the study design.
). The recruitment of subjects, the sampling frame, sample characteristics, and data collection and quality assurance procedures are described in detail by Briefel and colleagues elsewhere in this supplement (see pages S16-S26) (
• Briefel R.R.
• Kalb L.M.
• Condon E.
• Deming D.M.
• Clusen N.A.
• Fox M.K.
• Harnack L.
• Gemmill E.
• Stevens M.
• Reidy K.C.
The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008: Study design and methods.
). All instruments and procedures were reviewed and approved by Mathematica Policy Research's independent institutional review board (Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA).
Among sampled households that could be reached to verify an age-eligible child, 60% responded to the recruitment interview. Among respondents who completed the recruitment interview, 78% completed a 24-hour dietary recall. The overall analytic response rate among those located with an eligible child is 47% (0.60×0.78=0.47) (
• Briefel R.R.
• Kalb L.M.
• Condon E.
• Deming D.M.
• Clusen N.A.
• Fox M.K.
• Harnack L.
• Gemmill E.
• Stevens M.
• Reidy K.C.
The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008: Study design and methods.
). This response rate is comparable to what other large-scale telephone surveys in the past decade have experienced (
• Curtin R.
• Presser S.
• Singer E.
Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century.
,
• Singer E.
Nonresponse bias in household surveys.
,
). Data are weighted to account for nonresponse and undercoverage of some subgroups of children not included in the sample frame and to reflect the US population.

### Sample

This article broadly focuses on three age subgroups using data from both the 2002 (n=2,884) and 2008 surveys (n=1,596). In 2002 and 2008 there were 486 and 166 infants 4 to 5.9 months (meaning up to age 6 months), respectively; 1,395 and 505 older infants aged 6 to 11.9 months, respectively; and 1,003 and 925 toddlers aged 12 to 23.9 months, respectively.

### Data Collection Methods and Outcome Measures

Similar to the 2002 data collection methods (
• Ziegler P.
• Briefel R.R.
• Clusen N.
• Devaney B.
Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS): Development of the FITS Survey in Comparison to Other Dietary Survey Methods.
), study participants received up to three telephone interviews between June 2008 to January 2009: a recruitment interview to determine whether there was an age-eligible child and to collect household and child characteristics, including child feeding patterns; a dietary interview, including a 24-hour dietary recall and questions on breastfeeding, and the introduction of foods; and a second 24-hour dietary recall 3 to 10 days following the first recall (on a subsample for the estimation of usual intake distributions). Before the dietary interview, respondents (the primary caretaker of the selected child, typically the mother) were mailed a packet of materials, including a study letter, food model booklet, ruler, liquid measuring cup with instructions, and instructions for foods consumed while the child was in child care (see reference [9] for details on data collection methods and quality control).
Dietary interviews were administered by certified dietary interviewers at the University of Minnesota's Nutrition Coordinating Center by telephone using the FITS 2008 protocol and the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR) (version 2008, University of Minnesota Nutrition Data System for Research, Minneapolis). All study materials were available in English and Spanish. Respondents received a $20 incentive for participation in the first dietary interview and an additional$10 for the second 24-hour dietary recall. Approximately 26% of the dietary recalls were collected for weekend intakes (ie, Saturday or Sunday) and 74% reflected intake on weekdays (ie, Monday through Friday).

### Foods Database

The NDSR 2008 includes more than 18,000 foods with values for 156 nutrients, nutrient ratios, and other food components. This database contains more than 7,000 brand-name products, including many baby/toddler foods and infant formulas. When a reported food was not available in the database, the item was entered as “missing” along with details (brand name, description, preparation details, package size, dimensions, and weight or number consumed) and resolved after data entry was completed for the recall. A total of 358 foods were added to the FITS 2008 database.
All foods and beverages reported in the 24-hour dietary recalls were assigned by Mathematica nutrition researchers to food groups in a manner consistent with those used for the food group analysis in the 2002 FITS (
• Fox M.K.
• Pac S.
• Devaney B.
• Jankowski L.
Feeding infants and toddlers study: What foods are infants and toddlers eating?.
). The 2002 food groups were updated and expanded, as needed, to incorporate new foods and beverages reported in the FITS 2008 and to address the research objectives on consumption of foods and food groups/subgroups.
We used the food group data to calculate the percentage of children who consumed specific foods or food groups at least once in a day. One-day estimates from 24-hour recalls for the purpose of estimating group means has been previously shown to be appropriate (
• Nelson M.
• Bingham S.A.
Assessment of food consumption and nutrient intake.
). All reported foods and beverages are included in the estimates, regardless of the amount consumed. Estimates are based on foods as consumed; that is, food mixtures, such as soups, pizza, or pasta-based dishes, are considered single items and were not broken down into their constituent ingredients. In this manner the estimates of the percentages of infants and toddlers consuming vegetables and fruits should be considered as lower-bound estimates.

### Statistical Analysis

Sample weights were calculated to account for nonresponse and to weight the sample to known population demographic characteristics. All analyses use sample weights that reflect the US population for the appropriate ages and survey year. All estimates (eg, means and proportions) were calculated using the Statistical Analysis System (version 9.1.3, 2004, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and accounted for the weighting and design effects. Standard errors, χ2, and t tests were calculated using SUDAAN (release 9, 2005, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC). We denote significance using P values <0.05 and 0.01. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons since the rationale was to identify differences that may be meaningful for further exploration and confirmation in other studies (
• Morgan J.F.
P value fetishism and use of the Bonferroni adjustment.
).

## Results

### Population Characteristics

Characteristics of the child, mother, and household for each survey weighted to the US population are shown in Table 1. There were similar distributions of child's sex, attendance at out-of-home child care, mother's age, and education in each survey year. Compared to the 2002 population, in 2008 there was a higher proportion of Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks, a higher proportion of children participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), a lower proportion of parents married, more mothers working, and a higher proportion of families with household incomes in the upper categories.
Table 1Comparison of characteristics of the dietary interview sample in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS) 2002 and 2008 for ages 4 to 23.9 months weighted to be nationally representative
CharacteristicFITS 2002FITS 2008
PercentStandard errorPercentStandard error
Child's sex
Male52.41.250.52.0
Child's race/ethnicity
Differences in the overall distribution were tested using χ2. Differences for each individual row were tested using a t-test for difference in means.
Non-Hispanic white73.10.854.7
1.6
Non-Hispanic black6.70.613.8
1.0
Hispanic12.30.822.6
1.6
Other7.90.28.90.9
WIC=Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
25.31.036.7
1.9
Attends child care46.71.243.32.0
Age of mother at birth (y)
Differences in the overall distribution were tested using χ2. Differences for each individual row were tested using a t-test for difference in means.
<1400.20.2
14-193.90.55.41.0
20-2418.30.915.51.9
25-2927.61.133.0
2.4
30-3429.71.125.42.4
35-3915.90.916.02.1
≥404.70.54.60.9
Mother's education
Differences in the overall distribution were tested using χ2. Differences for each individual row were tested using a t-test for difference in means.
Highest year or grade of school completed. Special education applied to 0.2% in 2002 and 0.1% in 2008.
Includes biological and adoptive mothers. Includes primary female caretaker in 2002.
1.1
0.7
Completed high school25.21.122.1
1.8
Some post secondary28.01.130.6
1.9
Completed college26.71.123.7
1.8
1.5
Parents' marital status
Differences in the overall distribution were tested using χ2. Differences for each individual row were tested using a t-test for difference in means.
Married82.40.976.3
1.7
Separated or divorced2.70.44.01.0
Widowed0.10.00.30.2
Not married8.90.711.61.2
Partners living together6.00.67.81.1
Mother works57.21.250.6
2.1
Household income
Differences in the overall distribution were tested using χ2. Differences for each individual row were tested using a t-test for difference in means.
Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category $10,000-$34,999.
<$10,0001.50.35.3 P<0.01 (no adjustments are made for multiple comparisons). 0.9$10,000-$14,999 Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category$10,000-$34,999. 1.60.3N/A N/A=not available. N/A$10,000-$19,999 Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category$10,000-$34,999. N/AN/A6.30.9$15,000-$24,999 Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category$10,000-$34,999. In FITS 2002, two other income categories were allowed and accounted for 0.4% each; responses were assigned to the midpoint of the range (ie, ‘<$35,000 was included in ‘$15,000-$24,999’ and ‘$35,000-$99,000’ was included in ‘$50,000-$74,999’).
7.80.7N/AN/A
$20,000-$34,999
Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category $10,000-$34,999.
N/AN/A14.11.4
$25,000-$34,999
Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category $10,000-$34,999.
11.60.8N/AN/A
$35,000-$49,99924.31.114.7
1.5
$50,000-$74,999
In FITS 2002, two other income categories were allowed and accounted for 0.4% each; responses were assigned to the midpoint of the range (ie, ‘<$35,000 was included in ‘$15,000-$24,999’ and ‘$35,000-$99,000’ was included in ‘$50,000-$74,999’). 19.91.020.51.5$75,000-$99,9999.50.714.4 P<0.01 (no adjustments are made for multiple comparisons). 1.4 ≥$100,0008.70.713.7
1.3
Missing (not reported)14.40.611.11.5
a Differences in the overall distribution were tested using χ2. Differences for each individual row were tested using a t-test for difference in means.
b WIC=Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
c Highest year or grade of school completed. Special education applied to 0.2% in 2002 and 0.1% in 2008.
d Includes biological and adoptive mothers. Includes primary female caretaker in 2002.
e Lower income categories varied slightly between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 and are shown on separate lines. There was no significant difference between FITS 2002 and FITS 2008 in the combined income category $10,000-$34,999.
f N/A=not available.
g In FITS 2002, two other income categories were allowed and accounted for 0.4% each; responses were assigned to the midpoint of the range (ie, ‘<$35,000 was included in ‘$15,000-$24,999’ and ‘$35,000-$99,000’ was included in ‘$50,000-\$74,999’).

### Infant Feeding Practices

Rates for infants being ever breastfed remained high in 2008 (79.5%±1.5%, and 76.2±1.1 in 2002; P=0.07). The percentage of infants currently breastfeeding was significantly higher for infants aged 4 to 5.9 months in 2008 (42.5%±5.1%) than in 2002 (26.2%±2.2%) (P<0.01) as well as for those aged 9 to 11.9 months (36.7%±5.0% vs 20.9%±1.9% in 2008 and 2002 respectively), and reached borderline significance for infants aged 6 to 8.9 months (37.3%±5.4% vs 26.9%±1.8% in 2008 and 2002, respectively; P=0.07). Breastfeeding during the second year of life in 2008 was similar to that reported in 2002 (7.4%±1.1% vs 7.1±0.9, respectively). Overall, in 2008 there were 49.4%±1.7% of infants being breastfeed at age 6 months and 24.2%±1.4% at age 12 months.
In Table 2, the percentage of infants and toddlers consuming different types of milk shows a higher percentage of infants receiving breast milk from 4 to 11.9 months of age with a concurrent decreasing percentage of infants receiving formula; a trend that is significantly different for the 9- to 11.9-month-old age group only. Furthermore, a small but albeit concerning proportion of infants are consuming cow's milk at age 6 to 8.9 and 9 to 11.9 months, 5% and 17%, respectively; however, among 12- to 14.9-month-old toddlers, we see a significantly smaller percentage consuming cow's milk in 2008 compared to 2002. During the second year of life, among the children consuming cow's milk, the most commonly consumed type of milk was whole milk (60% to 68% of toddlers) and 14%, 21%, 30%, and 33% reported consumption of reduced-fat milk (1% to 2% and nonfat varieites) in 12- to 14.9-month-olds, 15- to 17.9-month-olds, 18- to 20.9-month-olds, and 21- to 23.9-month-olds, respectively, similar to the percentages seen in the 2002 survey (data not shown).
Table 2Percentage of infants and toddlers consuming different types of milk in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
Food group/foodYearPercentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Age (mo)
4-5.96-8.99-11.912-14.915-17.918-20.921-23.9
mean±standard error
Breast milk200842.2±5.133.2±5.133±5.0
Mean between 2002 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
13.9±2.94.4±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.45.6±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200239.8±2.427.6±1.921±1.913.7±2.03.6±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.9±1.45.9±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Formula200865.3±5.074.5±5.063.8±5.0
Mean between 2002 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
24.4±4.57.1±3.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200273.4±2.681.4±1.675.9±1.922.0±2.55.1±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.3±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.7±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cow's milk (all types)20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.3±2.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
16.6±4.270.2±4.7
Mean between 2002 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
85.6±3.687.4±3.087.7±3.7
20020.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18.4±1.783.7±2.187.3±2.489.9±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
85.9±2.8
Soy milk/rice milk20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
00.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Mean between 2002 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
3.2±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.0±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.3±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.7±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.5±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.1±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.7±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Mean between 2002 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Mean between 2002 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
The use of complementary foods in 2008 is shown in Figure 1. There was minimal consumption of foods beside grains (10.9% predominately in the form of infant cereal). The majority of complementary foods appear in the 4- to 5.9-month-olds (Figure 1), with infant cereal being the most commonly consumed (Figure 2). In 2008, 50.4% of infants consumed infant cereal compared to 64.5% in 2002 (P<0.05) (see Figure 2 and Table 3). Figure 2 also illustrates that there is a significantly lower proportion of infants consuming infant cereal at age 9 to 11.9 months in the 2008 compared to the 2002 survey. The next most commonly consumed foods were vegetables and fruit. Very few 4- to 5.9-month-olds consumed meat or other protein sources, but consumption did increase among children in the older age groups. Approximately 4.8% of infants consumed desserts, sweets, and sweetened beverages in the second youngest age group; a proportion that triples in 6- to 8.9-month-olds and reaches 43% among the 9- to 11.9-month-olds. Whereas Figure 1 shows the percentage of children consuming any complementary foods in the 2008 survey, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 provide the detailed information on the types of foods consumed.
Table 3Percentage of infants and toddlers consuming different types of grain products in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
Food group/foodYearPercentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Age
6-11 mo12-23 mo
4-5.96-8.99-11.912-14.915-17.918-20.921-23.9
mean±standard error
Any grain or grain product200852±5.1
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
89.4±2.592.2±2.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
99.2±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
97.7±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
98.9±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
99.1±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200265.2±2.389.8±1.297.5±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
97.5±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
98.9±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
99.1±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
99.3±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Infant cereals200850.4±5.179.1±3.551±5.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
22.9±4.58±12.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.6±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.4±4.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200264.5±2.482.1±1.663.8±2.122.6±2.411.1±2.31.7±1.02.4±1.3
Noninfant cereals
Includes both ready-to-eat and cooked cereals.
20080.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
42.6±5.062.5±5.059.4±4.861.7±5.454.7±5.9
20020.6±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.4±1.443.4±2.259.4±2.958.8±3.556.7±4.153.8±4.3
Presweetened
Defined as cereals with more than 21.2 g sugar per 100 g.
20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8±3.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
19.1±3.226.7±5.221.9±4.030±4.6
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.9±1.317.1±2.224.8±3.125.2±3.425.1±3.8
Not presweetened20080.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.4±2.235.9±4.647.4±4.939.1±4,841.3±5.530±4.9
20020.3±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
11.5±1.336.2±02.145.7±3.040.8±3.535.2±3.831.4±4.1
Also includes biscuits, bagels, and tortillas.
Does not include bread and rolls in sandwiches. Sandwiches are included in mixed dishes.
20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.6±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
14.3±3.126.5±4.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
31.7±4.635.3±5.3
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
53.7±5.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
20020.3±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.2±1.121.1±1.838.8±2.941.6±3.548.6±4.138.7±4.2
Crackers, pretzels, rice cakes20080
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20.4±2.444.5±4.846.7±4.742.3±4.844.7±5.345.7±5.6
20021.1±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.9±1.334.7±2.146±3.047.9±3.543.8±4.046.3±4.3
Cereal or granola bars20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.7±2.87.3±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.4±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.9±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.2±0.79.6±1.710.7±2.28.6±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.7±2.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Pancakes, waffles, french toast20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.8±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
13.5±3.515.5±3.613.3±4.421.9±5.7
20020.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.4±1.214.7±1.215.2±2.416.7±3.113.4±2.7
Rice and pasta
Does not include rice or pasta in mixed dishes.
20081.4±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.2±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
15.3±4.023.3±4.132.6±5.237.1±5.431.3±5.9
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±0.917±1.623.9±2.534.9±3.434.1±3.935.6±4.1
Grains in mixed dishes
Includes dishes that are primarily grain; other mixed dishes that include grain in combination with protein and/or vegetables are reported elsewhere.
20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18.5±3.546.2±4.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
62±5.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
56.3±5.564.2±5.4
20020.2±0.23.9±0.923±1.948.3±3.049.2±3.556.7±4.156.3±4.3
Sandwiches20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.8±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20.5±3.719.1±3.627.4±5.119.3±3.8
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.3±1.320.7±2.524.3±3.029.4±3.722.8±3.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.3 ±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.5±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.4±1.4
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.7±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.7±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.1±1.1
Macaroni and cheese20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.8±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.3±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.2±1.918±3.813.1±2.515.2±4.0
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±0.914.4±2.115.1±2.514±2.816.4±3.4
Pizza20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.1±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
15.2±4.45.3±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.4±4.7
20020.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5 ±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.7±1.66.7±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.9±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
13±3.0
Pot pie/stuffed sandwich20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.6±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4 ±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0 ±0.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.6±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Spaghetti, ravioli, lasagna20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18±3.322±4.3
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
17.2±4.023.5±5.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9±1.416.4±2.311.9±2.411.3±2.68.7±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Sample size2008166249256243251219212
2002486708687371239189168
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
b Includes both ready-to-eat and cooked cereals.
c Defined as cereals with more than 21.2 g sugar per 100 g.
d Also includes biscuits, bagels, and tortillas.
e Does not include bread and rolls in sandwiches. Sandwiches are included in mixed dishes.
f Does not include rice or pasta in mixed dishes.
g Includes dishes that are primarily grain; other mixed dishes that include grain in combination with protein and/or vegetables are reported elsewhere.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
Table 4Percentage of infants and toddlers consuming different types of fruit in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
Food group/foodYearPercentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Age (mo)
4-5.96-8.99-11.912-14.915-17.918-20.921-23.9
mean±standard error
Any fruit or juice200821.8±3.9
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
76.9±3.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
89.8±2.590.2±2.486.9±3.792.1±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
92.8±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200243.9±2.584.7±1.589±1.491.1±1.688.6±2.386.3±2.986.7±3.1
Any fruit200818.5±3.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
64.5±5.180.6±4.074.3±4.274.7±4.584±3.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
73.4±4.6
200236.5 ±2.473.5±1.876.1±1.975.9±2.572.4±3.270±3.865.4±4.2
Baby food fruit200816.8±3.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
50.2±5.4
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
42.4±4.915.9±3.78.6±2.410.3±3.4
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
2.1±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200234.8±2.466.4±2.045.3±2.216.5±2.16.3±1,7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.2±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Non–baby food fruit20081.7±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
21.2±5.251±5.068.8±4.471.9±4.580.8±3.3
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
72.2±4.6
20023.1±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
13.7±1.443.3±2.266±2.868.7±3.369.8±3.864.8±4.2
100% fruit juice20087.1±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
31.2±5.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
40.9±4.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
55±4.851.8±5.254±5.460.9±5.7
200218.7±2.043.4±2.158±2.158.9±2.962.1±3.461.8±4.067.4±4.0
Types of non–baby food fruit
Canned fruit20081.2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.1±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18.6±4.031.4±4.527.1±3.931.1±5.329.8±5.5
20021.3±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±0.820.9±1.831.8±2.824.3±3.024.2±3.419.6±3.2
Sweetened or packed in syrup20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.4±3.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.9±2.49.1±2.214.4±4.514.7±5.2
20020.9±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8±1.215.1±2.213.2±2.49.9±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.4±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Unsweetened or packed in juice or water20081 ±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.4±2.718.8±4.417.1±3.513.8±3.711.1±2.6
20020.3±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.7±0.812.9±1.518±2.410.4±2.012.3±2.611.2±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Unknown pack20080.2 ±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.9±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.9±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.8±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.4±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.2±1.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.5±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.4±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Fresh or frozen fruit20080.8±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18.4±5.237±5.054.1±4.861.3±4.759±5.156.1±5.8
20022.2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.8±1.327.9±2.050.8±3.055.7±3.554.6±4.149.9±4.3
Dried fruit20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.7±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.5±2.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.7±3.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.6±3.46.6±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.3±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.6±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.3±1,7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.3±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.3±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Types of fruit
Includes all baby food and non–baby food fruits.
Apples20087.2±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
27.9±5.232.5±4.525.9±4.432.1±4.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
28.6±4.630.6±5.3
200215.5±1.932.8±2.031.6±2.027.6±2.718±2.620.6±3.220.4±3.6
Bananas20086.1±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
34.3±5.532.4±4.829.3±4.130.3±4.824.7±4.129.7±5.3
200213.1 ±1.629.7±2.034.3±2.137.1±2.930.4±3.332.2±3.927.4±3.9
Berries20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.1±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.8±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
14.4±3.811.6±3.54.3±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.3±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±1.05.8±1.313.7±2.59.5±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.2±1,8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Citrus fruits20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.4±3.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.4±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.4±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
14.6±4.86.4±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.3±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.4±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.5±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Grapes20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.3±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.4±3.415.8±4.017.3±3.514.3±3.1
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.5±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.3±0.99.1±1.911.8±2.315±3.010±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Melons20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.6±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.1±4.02.9±1.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020.7±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.4±1.07.2±1.67.9±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
11.2±2.76.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Types of juice
Includes all 100% juice (baby and non–baby).
Apple/apple blend20084±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
17.9±4.7
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
24.4±4.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
29.6±4.232.4±4.731.1±5.322.8±4.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
200210.3±1.628.5±1.934.1±2.831.4±2.830.7±3.328.1±3.634±4.1
Grape/grape blend20081.7±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.4±4.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.4±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.7±2.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.5±3.3
20024.1±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.4±1.212.3±1.411.9±2.013.1±2.511.7±2.514.2±3.1
Citrus/citrus blend20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.8±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.5±3.411.7±4.19.9±2.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
12.1±3.1
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.9±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.4±0.911.1±1.919.5±2.919.5±3.316.3±3.1
Sample size2008166249256243251219212
2002486708687371239189168
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
b Includes all baby food and non–baby food fruits.
c Includes all 100% juice (baby and non–baby).
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
Table 5Top five fruits consumed by infants and toddlers in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
20082002
Top 5 fruits by age groupPercentage consuming at least once in a dayTop 5 fruits by age groupPercentage consuming at least once in a day
mean±standard errormean±standard error
4-5.9 mo (n=166)4-5.9 mo (n=486)
Baby food apples6.1±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food apples14.7±1.8
Baby food bananas5.5±1.8Baby food bananas12±1.6
Baby food pears4.7±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food peaches7.5±1.4
Baby food peaches3.8±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food pears6.6±1.3
Canned applesauce1.2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food prunes2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6-8.9 mo (n=249)6-8.9 mo (n=708)
Baby food apples25.3±5.1Baby food apples29.2±1.9
Baby food bananas18.1±3.9Baby food bananas23.4±1.8
Fresh banana16.8±5.2Baby food pears16.7±1.6
Baby food pears9.6±2.4Baby food peaches12.5±1.4
Baby food peaches6.9±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Fresh banana7.3±1.1
9-11.9 mo (n=256)9-11.9 mo (n=687)
Baby food apples21.3±4.1Fresh banana18.5±1.7
Fresh banana20±4.0Baby food apples18.5±1.6
Baby food bananas13.7±3.6Baby food bananas16.8±1.6
Baby food pears11.2±3.0Baby food pears12.3±1.4
Canned applesauce7.5±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned applesauce10.9±1.4
12-14.9 mo (n=243)12-14.9 mon (n=371)
Fresh banana23.6±3.8Fresh banana32.7±2.8
Canned applesauce16.8±4.1Canned applesauce14.1±2.2
Fresh grapes9.4±3.4Fresh grapes9.1±1.9
Fresh apple6.3±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Fresh apple8.9±1.7
Canned peaches6.1±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned peaches7.3±1.6
15-17.9 mo (n=251)15-17.9 mo (n=239)
Fresh banana29.6±4.8Fresh banana27.7±3.2
Fresh apple18.2±4.1Fresh strawberries12.9±2.4
Fresh grapes15.8±4.0Fresh grapes11.8±2.3
Canned applesauce12.4±3.0Fresh apple10±2.1
Fresh strawberries10.9±3.7Canned peaches9.6±2.2
18-20.9 mo (n=219)18-20.9 mo (n=189)
Fresh banana24.1±4.0Fresh banana31.4±3.9
Fresh grapes17.3±3.5Fresh grapes15±3.0
Fresh apple16.6±3.9Fresh apple12.9±2.7
Canned peaches14.2±4.5Fresh strawberries8.7±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned applesauce9±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned applesauce8.3±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
21-23.9 mo (n=212)21-23.9 mo (n=168)
Fresh banana29.7±5.3Fresh banana27.1±3.9
Fresh apple22.3±5.1Fresh apple13±3.1
Fresh grapes14.3±3.1Raisins12.3±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned applesauce9.5±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Fresh grapes10±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned peaches9.4±4.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Canned applesauce6.8±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Table 6Percentage of infants and toddlers consuming different types of vegetables in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
Food group/foodSurvey yearPercentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Age (mo)
4-5.96-8.99-11.912-14.915-17.918-20.921-23.9
mean±standard error
Any vegetable200825.9±4.662.8±5.372.3±4.872.4±4.770.8±5.072.1±4.168.1±5.7
200232.1±2.367.5±2.068.9±2.074.3±2.674.5±3.180.8±3.179.3±3.4
Baby food vegetables200824.3±4.651.3±5.333.8±4.315.1±3.57.6±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±1.61.5±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
200230.7±2.356.9±2.134.6±2.013.1±1.93.5±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.8±1.01.8±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked vegetables
Includes 100% vegetable juice.
20081.8±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
15.2±3.545.4±5.061±4.860.7±5.169.2±4.262.9±5.7
20022±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
15±1.541.9±2.264.6±2.967.2±3.378±3.271.3±3.8
Raw vegetables20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.1±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.5±2.38.6±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
15.6±4.5
20020.4±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.7±0.95.6±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.2±2.314.6±2.916.9±3.2
Types of vegetables
Includes commercial baby food, cooked vegetables, and raw vegetables.
Dark green vegetables
Reported dark-green vegetables include broccoli, spinach and other greens, and romaine lettuce.
20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.9±3.610.9±3.26.5±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.6±4.58.7±2.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Deep yellow vegetables
Reported deep-yellow vegetables include carrots, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, and winter squash.
200820.5±4.336±4.930.3±4.124.4±4.515.1±3.620.7±5.115.4±4.7
200221.7±2.041.3±2.127.4±1.922.1±2.513±2.313.7±2.911.4±2.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
White potatoes20080.6±0.4
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.4±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20.1±3.632.4±4.629.6±5.026.1±4.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
31.5±5.6
20022±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.9±1.321.6±1.833.9±2.836.1±3.444.5±4.136.9±4.1
French fries and other fried potatoes20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.3±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18.5±3.811.6±3.713.8±3.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
16.7±3.7
20020.5±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.3±1.213±1.919.3±2.826.2±3.819±3.2
Other starchy vegetables
Reported starchy vegetables include corn, green peas, immature lima beams, black-eyed peas (not dried), cassava, and rutabaga.
20081.8±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
12.4±3.512.6±2.711.8±2.122.8±4.317.9±4.522.6±4.6
20024.9±1.211.3±1.415.8±1.516.1±2.018.8±2.722±3.523.8±3.7
Other vegetables
Other reported vegetables include artichoke, asparagus, beets, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumber, eggplant, green beans, lettuce, mushrooms, okra, onions, pea pods, peppers, tomatoes/tomato sauce, wax/yellow beans, and zucchini/summer squash.
20088.1±3.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
23.9±4.928.4±4.426.8±3.7
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
34.3±4.436.2±5.335.2±5.6
20029.3±1.523.1±1.832.7±2.037.8±2.935.1±3.446.4±4.140.8±4.3
Sample size2008166249256243251219212
2002486708687371239189168
a Includes 100% vegetable juice.
b Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
c Includes commercial baby food, cooked vegetables, and raw vegetables.
d Reported dark-green vegetables include broccoli, spinach and other greens, and romaine lettuce.
e Reported deep-yellow vegetables include carrots, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, and winter squash.
f Reported starchy vegetables include corn, green peas, immature lima beams, black-eyed peas (not dried), cassava, and rutabaga.
g Other reported vegetables include artichoke, asparagus, beets, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumber, eggplant, green beans, lettuce, mushrooms, okra, onions, pea pods, peppers, tomatoes/tomato sauce, wax/yellow beans, and zucchini/summer squash.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
Table 7Top five vegetables consumed by infants and toddlers in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
20082002
Top 5 vegetables by age groupPercentage consuming at least once in a dayTop 5 vegetables by age groupPercentage consuming at least once in a day
mean±standard errormean±standard error
4-5.9 mo (n=166)4-5.9 mo (n=486)
Baby food sweet potatoes11.01±3.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food sweet potatoes8.5±1.3
Baby food green beans7.9±3.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food carrots7.1±1.2
Baby food squash4.6±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food squash6.2±1.3
Baby food carrots4.4±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food green beans5.9±1.2
Baby food peas1.6±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food peas4.7±1.2
6-8.9 mo (n=249)6-8.9 mo (n=708)
Baby food sweet potatoes16.2±4.2Baby food carrots13.2±1.4
Baby food mixed/garden vegetables14.3±4.8Baby food sweet potatoes12.7±1.4
Baby food carrots11.3±2.5Baby food squash12.4±1.4
Baby food peas9.5±3.3Baby food green beans11.1±1.3
Baby food squash9.0±2.3Baby food peas7.9±1.2
9-11.9 mo (n=256)9-11.9 mo (n=687)
Mashed/whipped potatoes10.5±2.7Baby food mixed/garden vegetables8.9±1.3
Baby food sweet potatoes10.4±2.8Cooked green beans8.8±1.2
Cooked broccoli7.7±3.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
French fries/other fried potatoes8.4±1.3
Cooked green beans7.0±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked carrots7.4±1.2
Baby food green beans6.8±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Mashed/whipped potatoes7.2±1.1
12-14.9 mo (n=243)12-14.9 mo (n=371)
French fries/other fried potatoes18.5±3.8Cooked green beans18.4±2.3
Mashed/whipped potatoes11.2±3.9French fries/other fried potatoes13.0±1.9
Cooked green beans8.6±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked carrots9.5±1.8
Cooked carrots6.7±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Mashed/whipped potatoes9.4±1.7
Baked/boiled potatoes6.7±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked peas8.3±1.5
15-17.9 mo (n=251)15-17.9 mo (n=239)
Mashed/whipped potatoes16.7±4.2French fries/other fried potatoes19.3±2.8
Cooked green beans15.6±3.3Cooked green beans14.1±2.5
Cooked peas11.8±3.3Baby food peas11.7±2.2
French fries/other fried potatoes11.6±3.7Mashed/whipped potatoes10.7±2.3
Cooked corn6.9±2.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked corn8.6±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
18-20.9 mo (n=219)18-20.9 mo (n=189)
Cooked carrots16.6±5.0French fries/other fried potatoes26.2±3.8
Cooked corn14.3±4.4Cooked green beans19.0±3.4
Cooked green beans14.2±4.6Cooked peas11.2±2.7
French fries/other fried potatoes13.8±3.2Cooked corn10.8±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked broccoli10.3±4.4Cooked broccoli9.0±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
21-23.9 mo (n=212)21-23.9 mo (n=168)
French fries/other fried potatoes16.7±3.7French fries/other fried potatoes19.0±3.2
Cooked green beans16.1±4.3Cooked green beans16.5±3.1
Cooked corn13.7±3.2Cooked corn13.9±3.1
Cooked carrots11.1±4.6Cooked peas11.0±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked peas9.8±3.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cooked mixed vegetables10.0±3.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Table 8Percentage of infants and toddlers consuming meat or other protein sources in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
Food group/foodYearPercentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Age (mo)
6-1112-23
4-5.96-8.99-11.912-14.915-17.918-20.921-23.9
mean±standard error
Any meat or protein source20083.1±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
38.5±5.476.9±3.791.4±2.391±2.897.6±1.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
96.1±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20026.9±1.347±2.178±1.886.1±2.289.8±2.193.1±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
93.8±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Baby food meat20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.1±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.7±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020.4±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±0.95.9±1.13.5±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Non–baby food meat20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.6±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
33.1±5.060.4±4.874.9±3.776.2±4.276.1±4.7
20020.6±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.6±1.028±2.054±3.066.2±3.476.1±3.480±3.5
Other protein sources20080.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.6±3.732.3±3.759.4±4.560.8±5.365.2±4.770±5.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
20020.6±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.3±1.233.3±1.253.2±3.061.3±3.466.5±3.756.6±4.3
Dried beans and peas, vegetarian meat substitutes20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.1±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.5±3.511.5±3.414.5±5.311.4±3.4
20020.3±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.9±1.46.4±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.2±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Eggs20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.8±2.914.7±3.528.9±4.622.1±4.917.1±3.2
20020.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.3±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.9±1.016.3±2.224.4±3.124.1±3.622.5±3.7
Peanut butter, nuts, and seeds20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.5±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.2±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.3±4.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.3±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.1±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.1±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.4±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.3±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Cheese20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
13.1±3.721±4.524.8±4.131±5.331.6±5.0
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.5±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
15.5±1.629.8±2.832.7±3.439.3±4.131.9±3.8
Yogurt20080.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7±3.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
11.2±1.925±4.3
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
17.8±3.124.4±4.327.8±5.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
20020.2±0.23.8±3.115.4±1.915.5±4.320.9±3.115.1±4.314.6±5.8
Protein sources in mixed dishes20082.9±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
25.8±5.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
42.4±5.033.2±4.624.5±4.722.7±4.424.6±5.2
20025.9±1.236.8±2.046.9±2.229.6±2.724.4±3.022.4±3.317.3±3.2
Baby food dinners20082.9±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
24±5.024.9±4.3
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
9.9±2.53.4±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20025.3±1.133.1±2.034.6±2.110.5±1.82.9±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.6±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.1±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Beans and rice, chili, and other bean mixtures20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.6±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.1±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.8±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.1±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Mixtures with vegetables and/or rice/pasta20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.6±3.7
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
15.9±4.210.4±2.910.8±3.014.8±4.9
20021±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±1.08.3±1.69.8±2.210.5±2.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Soup
The amount of protein provided by soup varies.
20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.7±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.2±2.512.8±4.210±3.49.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.2±0.89.4±1.311.8±1.910.9±2.111.5±2.59.7±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Types of meat
Includes baby food and non–baby food meats.
Beef20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.7±0.7
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.8±2.1
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
13.4±3.415.9±4.713.9±4.9
20020.5±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6±1.013.2±1.912.7±2.413.5±2.617.6±3.2
Chicken or turkey20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.7±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
21.7±4.435.6±4.947±5.038±5.240.3±5.4
20020.5±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.9±1.020±1.731.5±2.741.4±3.543.2±4.144.5±4.3
Fish or shellfish20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.2±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.9±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.8±1.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.5±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.5±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.9±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.9±3.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Hot dogs, sausages, and cold cuts20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.1±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.7±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
17.8±3.922.2±4.122.3±3.928.4±5.2
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.4±1.115.8±2.120±2.818.9±3.627.6±3.9
Pork/ham20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.7±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.3±1.2
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.5±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
14.1±4.414.8±5.0
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.5±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.5±0.88.7±1.79±2.113.9±2.711.2±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Other20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.2±3.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.3±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.1±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.6±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.1±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.8±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.9±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.1±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.8±1.6
Sample size2008166249256243251219212
2002486708687371239189168
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
b The amount of protein provided by soup varies.
c Includes baby food and non–baby food meats.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
Table 9Percentage of infants and toddlers consuming desserts, sweets, sweetened beverages, and salty snacks in the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 and 2002
Food group/foodYearPercentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Age (mo)
4-5.96-8.99-11.912-14.915-17.918-20.921-23.9
mean±standard error
Any type of dessert, sweet, or sweetened bweverage20084.8±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
17±4.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
43±5.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
62.8±4.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
68.1±4.9
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
74±4.7
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
80.6±4.8
20028.5±1.436±2.058.8±2.175.4±2.583.6±2.690.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
86.9±2.9
Desserts and candy20084.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
11.2±2.1
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
35.9±4.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
53.9±4.8
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
51.4±5.1
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
59.2±5.4
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
67.6±5.3
20025.4±1.232.6±2.053.3±2.265.5±2.869.2±3.281.1±2.973±3.8
Baby food desserts20081.2±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.8±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
11.9±3.92±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
0.3±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
0.9±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20023.4±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
14.1±1.417.6±1.76.1±1.43.2±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.9±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
22.5±3.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
40.4±4.942±4.936.6±4.7
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
39.3±5.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
20021.4±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20.9±1.838.3±2.147.9±3.051.2±3.562.7±3.953.5±4.3
Baby cookies, teething biscuits, and animal crackers20080.7±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.7±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
5.4±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
12.9±3.113.9±3.38.9±2.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.9±3.9
20021.4±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
13.5±1.518.1±1.716.4±2.110.4±2.214.7±3.011±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2 ±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
13.2±2.921.5±4.320±3.6
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
18.8±3.4
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
27±5.1
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.3±1.118.4±1.728.3±2.736.7±3.442.7±4.034.4±4.1
Cake20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.3±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.6±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.4±3.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.5±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.7±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.9±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.1±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.6±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Pies and pastries20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.5±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.4±3.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.4±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.9±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.6±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.7±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.6±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.3±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Sweet rolls, doughnuts, muffins20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.8±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.8±2.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.2±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.3±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.4±0.74.9±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8±2.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.8±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
14.1±3.1
Ice cream, frozen yogurt, pudding20081.4±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.5±3.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.3±3.49.7±2.913.3±4.014.6±4.6
20020.7±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.1±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.5±1.111.3±1.916.9±2.718.9±3.415±3.0
Other desserts20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.4±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.2±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.8±3.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.2±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.4±1.04.9±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.7 ±2.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
8.3±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Candy20080.8±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
0.5±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
6.6±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.3±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
20.1±4.731.8±5.5
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
9.5±1.814.1±2.419.8±3.321.4±3.2
Other sweets20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
1.2±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.5±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.7±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
15.8±3.817.1±4.421.9±5.0
20022.3±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.6±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6±1.116.1±2.325.3±3.125.2±3.625.6±3.7
Milk flavorings20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±1.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.9±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.7±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.2±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.2±1.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.7±1.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.5±1.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Sugar, syrup, preserves20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
1.2±0.9
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.8±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
15±3.814.4±4.218.3±4.8
20022.3±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.6±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.9±1.115.9±2.222.6±2.920.7±3.422±3.4
Sweetened beverages20080.6±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5±4.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.7±3.214.3±3.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
29.4±5.128.6±5.5
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
38.2±5.6
20021±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.4±1.010.3±1.329.1±2.836.8±3.446.9±4.138.6 ±4.1
Carbonated sodas20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
2.1±1.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.6±0.8
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
4.2±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
10.8±4.7
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.8±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.9±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.8±2.210.3±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
10.7±2.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Fruit-flavored drinks20080.6±0.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5±4.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
7.1±2.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
12.8±3.0
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
25.5±4.922.9±5.4
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
24.4±3.9
20021±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.8±0.98.4±1.224.6±2.630.1±3.239.2±4.032.9±4.0
Other20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.5±1.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.3±0.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.3±2.2
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.2±2.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
6.9±2.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.4±0.3
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1±0.4
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
3.1±1.0
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.7±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
4.3±1.7
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
2.9±1.6
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Salty snacks
Includes potato chips, popcorn, cheese curls/puffs, tortilla chips, and other types of chips and salty snacks.
20080
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
0.1±0.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.
2.3±1.1
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
10.4±2.716.5±3.914.8±4.823.7±5.2
20020
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
1.4±0.5
Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
5.6±1.115.8±2.218.4±2.726.8±3.726±3.8
Sample size2008166249256243251219212
2002486708687371239189168
a Point estimate is considered imprecise because of small sample size and uncommon or very common event.
b Includes potato chips, popcorn, cheese curls/puffs, tortilla chips, and other types of chips and salty snacks.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.05.
Means between 2008 and 2002 significantly different at P<0.01.

### Grains

Consumption of other grain products is shown in Table 3. Non–infant cereals are being introduced as early as 6 to 8.9 months with a dramatic rise in the percent consuming at age 9 to 11.9 months. Similar proportions of infants and toddlers were consuming non–infant cereals in 2008 as were in the earlier survey. Two other foods with an interesting pattern from the 2002 data were bread/rolls and pastas in a mixed dish. In the 2008 data, we see significantly lower consumption of bread and rolls among toddlers in two age groups, 12 to 14.9 months and 18 to 20.9 months; whereas in the oldest age group, a significantly higher percentage of 21- to 23.9-month-olds were consuming these foods than in the previous survey. For pastas eaten in a mixed dish (eg, ravioli and lasagna), a significantly higher percentage of 15- to 17.9-month-olds and 21- to 23.9-month-olds were consuming these foods in 2008 compared to 2002.

### Fruits and Juices

For fruits and juices we once again see a significantly lower proportion of infants in the 4- to 5.9-month-old and 6- to 8.9-month-old age groups consuming jarred baby food fruit and 100% fruit juice in 2008 compared to 2002, and this trend continued among 9- to 11.9-month-old children for juices (Table 4). However, among children aged 18 to 20.9 months, we see a significantly higher proportion of toddlers consuming both jarred baby food fruit and non–baby fruit in the 2008 survey. Overall, the percentage of children consuming any discrete fruit at least once a day ranged from a low of 18.5% among 4- to 5.9-month-olds to a high of 84% among 18- to 20.9-month-olds in 2008, whereas in 2002 it ranged from a low of 36.5% among children aged 4 to 5.9 months to a high of 76% among 9- to 11.9-month-olds. The percentage of children consuming any fruit in 2008 was significantly different from the 2002 survey for only two age groups: the youngest (those aged 4 to 5.9 months) and 18- to 20.9-month-olds (84% vs 70%). The top five most commonly consumed fruits in 2008 are shown in Table 5 for each age group.

### Vegetables

There were fewer notable differences in the proportion of children consuming vegetables between the two surveys (Table 6). Consumption of white potatoes was markedly lower in 2008 among toddlers in two age groups, 15- to 17.9-month-olds and 18- to 20.9-month-olds with the difference in latter group being statistically significant and most of this appeared to be in the form of french fries. Among children aged 18 to 20.9 months, the percent consuming french fries significantly decreased by almost 50%. There also appeared to be a significantly lower consumption of other vegetables, which included foods like green beans, squash, and tomatoes, among children aged 12 to 14.9 months in 2008 compared to 2002. There were no significant differences by year across any of the age groups in the percentage of infants and toddlers consuming any vegetable. The top five most commonly consumed vegetables in 2008 are shown in Table 7. The younger age groups (<12 months) appear to be consuming more commonly the nutrient-rich dark-green, orange, and yellow vegetables compared to the toddlers, and french fries/fried potatoes only appears in the list for 12- to 23.9-month-olds.

### Meats, Fish, Eggs, and Nuts

Table 8 presents data on the percentages of infants and toddlers consuming different types of protein sources in 2002 and 2008. Among children aged 9 to 11.9 months in 2008, we see close to an 80% decline in the percentage consuming baby food meats, which is significant without a compensating increase in other protein sources. Among the oldest toddlers, we see a significant increase in the consumption of other protein sources, which appears to be attributable primarily to the increase in yogurt consumption, and less so to legumes and vegetarian meat substitutes. There was also a significant increase in yogurt consumption among children aged 12 to 14.9 months. There were significant declines in the percentage consuming protein sources in mixed dishes for 6- to 8.9-month-olds as well as in baby food dinners for 9- to 11.9-month-olds from 2002. In this latter age group we see a significant increase in the percent consuming protein with vegetables and/or rice/pasta (12.6% vs 4.7% for 2008 and 2002, respectively). In examining the types of meats consumed (Table 8), we see significant declines in beef consumption among children aged 9 to 14.9 months as well as in fish or shellfish for children aged 15 to 17.9 months when comparing the 2008 to 2002 data.

### Sweets, Sweetened Beverages, and Salty Snacks

For foods that contribute discretionary energy in the diets of infants and toddlers such as desserts, sweets, sweetened beverages, and salty snacks, we see some major shifts in the percent consuming these foods in 2008, as shown in Table 9. First, there are significantly lower percentages of children aged 6 to 20.9 months consuming desserts and candy in 2008 compared to 2002. We see this in baby food desserts for the age groups of 6 to 8.9 months, 12 to 14.9 months, and 15 to 17.9 months; in cakes, pies, and cookies for infants aged 6 though 11.9 months and in toddlers aged 18 through 23.9 months; and in candy for children aged 6 to 11.9 months and 15 to 17.9 months. Consumption of other sweets, primarily from sugar, syrup, and preserves declined significantly for children aged 4 to 5.9 months and 12 to 14.9 months from 2002 to 2008. Finally, the percentage of toddlers consuming sweetened beverages declined significantly among 12- to 14.9-month-olds and 18- to 20.9-month-olds. Among infants aged 6 to 11.9 months the percentage consuming salty snacks has also declined from 2002.

## Discussion

Developing good eating habits early in life is important for one's long-term health status (
• Birch L.L.
Development of food acceptance patterns in the first years of life.
,
• Ness A.R.
• Maynard M.
• Frankel S.
• Smith G.D.
• Frobisher C.
• Leary S.D.
Diet in childhood and adult cardiovascular and all cause mortality: The Boyd Orr cohort.
,
• Engeland A.
• Bjorge T.
• Sogaard A.J.
• Tverdal A.
Body mass index in adolescence in relation to total mortality: 32-year follow-up of 227,000 Norwegian boys and girls.
). The new data from FITS illustrates that some positive changes have occurred while concern still exists in other areas. Of great importance is what appears to be a longer duration of breastfeeding followed by a delay in the introduction of complementary foods. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding throughout the first year of life, but has disagreement among its experts on the appropriate timing of the introduction of complementary foods (
Pediatric Nutrition Handbook.
). The Committee on Breastfeeding recommends introduction of complementary foods around age 6 months when the infant is developmentally ready (
• Gartner L.M.
• Morton J.
• Lawrence R.A.
• Naylor A.J.
• O'Hare D.
• Schanler R.J.
• Eidelman A.I.
American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding
Breastfeeding and the use of human milk.
), whereas the Committee on Nutrition states that complementary foods may be introduced between age 4 and 6 months (
Pediatric Nutrition Handbook.
). The 2008 survey shows that more children are being fed consistent with this recommendation now than in 2002. This pattern of a longer duration of breastfeeding has also been documented by others for the same time period (
Infant Feeding Practices Study II Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
). Both a longer duration of breastfeeding and a delayed introduction of complementary foods are positive trends, given their suggested role in the development of childhood obesity (
• Lederman S.A.
• Akabas S.R.
• Moore B.J.
• Bentley M.E.
• Devaney B.
• Gillman M.W.
• Kramer M.S.
• Mennella J.A.
• Ness A.
• Wardle J.
Summary of the presentations at the Conference on Preventing Childhood Obesity, December 8, 2003.
,
• Harder T.
• Bergmann R.
• Kallischnigg G.
• Plagemann A.
Duration of breastfeeding and risk of overweight: A meta-analysis.
). On the other hand, not consistent with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines is the use of cow's milk before age 1 year, with 17% of children falling in to this category, as well as the use of reduced-fat milk in the second year of life with approximately 20% to 30% of children being fed low-fat milk. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends whole milk for children aged 12 to 24 months, the American Heart Association recommends 2% milk for children in this age group (
• Gidding S.S.
• Dennison B.A.
• Birch L.L.
• Daniels S.R.
• Gilman M.W.
• Lichtenstein A.H.
• Rattay T.
• Steinerger J.
• Stettler N.
• Van Horn L.
Dietary recommendations for children and adolescents: A guide for practitioners.
). Whatever the type of milk, ensuring adequate intake of both total fat and essential fatty acids in the diets of toddlers requires special effort and attention. Although we do not yet have data on specific fatty acid intake from FITS 2008, with some children with relatively low fat intakes and high saturated fat intakes it is likely that they are not getting enough of the healthy types of fats. We know from FITS 2002 that toddlers were not getting enough essential fatty acids (40% not getting enough n-3 fatty acids). It is critical to include foods such as fish; avocados; and foods made with vegetable oils, such as canola and soybean oil, to help achieve the right balance of fat for toddlers. These healthy fats should also replace the saturated fats found in whole milk, and other high-fat dairy products such as butter and cheese and fatty meats, including hot dogs, bacon, and sausages.
Foods rich in iron are recommended to be introduced around 4 to 6 months of age (
• Butte N.
• Cobb K.
• Dwyer J.
• Graney L.
• Heird W.
• Rickard K.
The Start Healthy feeding guidelines for infants and toddlers.
). Infant cereal, a food that meets this need, was consumed in 2008 by a lower percentage of infants in two age groups—4- to 5.9-month-olds and 9- to 11.9-month-olds—compared to the 2002 survey. Whereas delaying the introduction of any complementary food is appropriate for the younger age group, a lower consumption in the older age group is of concern given the inadequate intake of iron in this age group reported by Butte and colleagues (
• Butte N.F.
• Fox M.K.
• Briefel R.R.
• Siega-Riz A.M.
• Dwyer J.T.
• Deming D.M.
• Reidy K.C.
Nutrient intakes of US infants, toddlers, and preschoolers meet or exceed Dietary Reference Intakes.
) in this supplement (see pages S27-S37). This was indeed the case in our observations, since a significantly lower percentage of infants in this age group was reported to be consuming baby food meats. Furthermore, 43% of infants in this age group were consuming non–infant cereals. Whereas non–infant cereals are appropriate to encourage the development of feeding skills, they do not contain the same amount of iron on a per-gram basis as infant cereal, according to the NDSR.
A more complex pattern to interpret is the percentage of infants and toddlers consuming fruits and vegetables compared to recommendations. Whereas we see a significantly lower percentage reporting consumption of any 100% juice as well as any fruits and vegetables at 4 to 5.9 months of age—which is in line with delaying the introduction of complementary foods—and a lower percentage consuming any 100% juice between age 6 through 11.9 months with a sustained percentage of any fruit consumption, there is still a substantial proportion of infants and toddlers who do not consume any fruits or vegetables in a given day. The proportion not consuming any vegetables was even greater than that of fruits, which is consistent with studies showing a preference for fruits at this age (
• Gibson E.L.
• Wardle J.
• Watts C.J.
Fruit and vegetable consumption, nutritional knowledge and beliefs in mothers and children.
,
• Jaramillo S.J.
• Yang S.J.
• Hughes S.O.
• Fisher J.O.
• Morales M.
• Nicklas T.A.
Interactive computerized fruit and vegetable preference measure for African-American and Hispanic preschoolers.
). This finding of less-than-adequate fruit and vegetable intake among infants and toddlers is in line with others (
• Lindquist C.H.
• Herd S.L.
• Goran M.I.
Comparison of children's dietary intake patterns with US dietary guidelines.
,
• Guenther P.M.
• Dodd K.W.
• Reedy J.
• Krebs-Smith S.M.
Most Americans eat much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables.
) and of concern given that parents are the gatekeepers of food for these age groups (
• Klesges R.C.
• Stein R.J.
• Eck L.H.
• Isbell T.R.
• Klesges L.M.
Parental influence on food selection in young children and its relationships to childhood obesity.
,
• Savage J.S.
• Fisher J.O.
• Birch L.L.
Parental influence on eating behavior: Conception to adolescence.
). It is also of concern for the health of our population given the World Health Organization conclusion that dietary habits from childhood through adulthood could affect one's lifetime risk of cancer (
• Uauy R.
• Solomons N.
Diet, nutrition, and the life-course approach to cancer prevention.
).
On a positive note, significant reductions in the percentage of infants and toddlers consuming any desserts or candy were seen in 2008. This pattern existed among children aged 6 to 20.9 months but disappeared for those aged 21 to 23 months. In a similar manner, reductions in the percentage consuming sweetened beverages were seen from 12- to 20.9-month-olds and for salty snacks among 4- to 11.9-month-olds. Reductions in these foods—which are contributors of discretionary energy—are appropriate. Given the limited capacity of a child's stomach at these ages and the demand for nutrients required for proper growth and development, nutrient-rich foods should be among those most commonly consumed (
• Butte N.
• Cobb K.
• Dwyer J.
• Graney L.
• Heird W.
• Rickard K.
The Start Healthy feeding guidelines for infants and toddlers.
). We saw evidence of nutrient-rich foods being offered during the first year of life in the most commonly consumed vegetables, which consisted of sweet potatoes, carrots, green beans, and broccoli.
Although this most recent survey provides some interesting findings suggesting that the infant feeding practices and food consumption of our youngest children have improved, we must interpret them with caution (
• Briefel R.R.
• Kalb L.M.
• Condon E.
• Deming D.M.
• Clusen N.A.
• Fox M.K.
• Harnack L.
• Gemmill E.
• Stevens M.
• Reidy K.C.
The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008: Study design and methods.
). First, and of most importance, there are some differences in the population characteristics between 2002 and 2008 that are reflective of true population differences. The Hispanic population in the United States has grown during this time period (
• Ortman J.M.
• Guarneri C.E.
United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050.
), and Hispanic women have been previously shown to have higher rates of breastfeeding and a longer duration of breastfeeding compared to other racial/ethnic groups (
• Scanlon K.S.
• Grummer-Strawn L.
• Li R.
• Chen J.
Racial and ethnic differences in breastfeeding intiation and duration by State-National Immunization Survey, US 2004-2008.
). Although the overall education distribution is not significantly different between 2002 and 2008, the characteristics of the 2008 sample include a higher proportion of college-educated women than the 2002 FITS sample. Therefore, it is possible that the longer breastfeeding duration and improvements in food group consumption in the 2008 FITS are related to the food choices of mothers and caretakers who, on average, are more educated. In addition, there were fewer working mothers and more children receiving WIC benefits in 2008 than in 2002. Trends that may also explain some of our findings given the greater emphasis of breastfeeding in the WIC program (
Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board Committee on Revising the WIC Food Packages
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change.
) and women not having stop breastfeeding early due to work commitments. Second, the results also need to be interpreted with caution since this was an observational study done in a cross-sectional manner, and, thus, we cannot infer causality. Future in-depth analysis could be done to look at changes in race/ethnicity, income, and the like. Similarly, subgroup analysis could be done to determine whether any and how much of the 2008 changes could be driven by survey response issues. Lastly, some of the statistically significant findings reported here may have been due to chance.

## Conclusions

The newest data from FITS appear to indicate that parents/caregivers may have heeded the advice of health care providers and public health messages that resulted from the publication of the 2002 survey. These positive changes include the longer duration of breastfeeding, a delay in the introduction of complementary foods, and a lower percentage of infants and toddlers consuming fruit juices, desserts, sweets, sweetened beverages, and salty snacks. However, there are still concerns related to low intakes of overall fruits and vegetables for all ages and iron-rich foods for 9- to 11.9-month-olds as well as the use of cow's milk before age 1 year and the use of reduced-fat milks during the second year of life. Furthermore, the duration of breastfeeding appears longer: The overall percentage of infants and toddlers breastfeeding at age 6 months and age 12 months is close to the Healthy People 2010 objectives (49% and 24% compared to 50% and 25%, respectively) (). The findings presented here provide important insights to the content of messages and types of interventions that are still needed to improve the infant-feeding practices and food-consumption habits of infants and toddlers. Parents and caregivers play an important role in forming the dietary habits in early childhood. Research is growing showing the association between availability of healthy foods and their consumption in children (
• Jago R.
• Baranowski T.
• Baranowski J.C.
Fruit and vegetable availability: A micro environmental mediating variable?.
). A dietary pattern that is low in fruits and vegetables (
• Bes-Rastrollo M.
• Martinez-Gonzalez M.A.
• Sanchez-Villegas A.
• de la Fuente Arrillaga C.
• Martinez J.A.
Association of fiber intake and fruit/vegetable consumption with weight gain in a Mediterranean population.
) and high in fat (
• Astrup A.
• Ryan L.
• Grunwald G.K.
• Storgaard M.
• Saris W.
• Melanson E.
The role of dietary fat in body fatness: Evidence from a preliminary meta-analysis of ad libitum low-fat dietary intervention studies.
,
• Baxter A.J.
• Coyne T.
• McClintock C.
Dietary patterns and metabolic syndrome—A review of epidemiologic evidence.
,
• Panagiotakos D.B.
• Pitsavos C.
• Skoumas Y.
The association between food patterns and the metabolic syndrome using principal components analysis: The ATTICA Study.
) has been associated with excessive weight gain in older individuals. Adequate fruit and vegetable intake are especially important, as diets rich in these foods have numerous health benefits (
• Heidemann C.
• Schulze M.B.
• Franco O.H.
• van Dam R.M.
• Mantzoros C.S.
• Hu F.B.
Dietary patterns and risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all causes in a prospective cohort of women.
). Given that food preferences start early (
• Birch L.L.
Development of food acceptance patterns in the first years of life.
), are likely to continue through life, and are difficult to change in adulthood, providing adequate and high quality foods during the early years are of paramount importance for one's overall health.
STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: This research project was funded by Nestlé (Florham Park, NJ) (authors D.M.D. and K.C.R.) through a contract with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc (Princeton, NJ) for the data collection, analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation (authors M.K.F., E.C., and R.R.B.). A.M. Siega-Riz was a member of the advisory panel for the study design, analysis, and interpretation of results and was commissioned by Nestlé to write this paper. In this capacity, she received consultant fees and an honorarium. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or recommendations of their respective affiliations.
FUNDING/SUPPORT: The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008 was funded by Nestlé (Florham Park, NJ) through a contract with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc (Princeton, NJ) and its subcontractor, the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN). This research project was a collaborative effort among Mathematica Policy Research, scientific advisors, and Nestlé scientists.

## References

• Haisma H.
• Coward W.A.
• Albernaz E.
• Visser G.H.
• Wells J.C.K.
• Wright A.
• Victora C.G.
Breast milk and energy intake in exclusively, predominately, and partially breast-fed infants.
Euro J Clin Nutr. 2003; 57: 1633-1642
• Victora C.G.
• Morris S.
• Barros F.C.
• Horta B.L.
• Weiderpass E.
• Tomasi E.
Breast-feeding and growth in Brazilian infants.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1998; 67: 452-458
• Dewey K.G.
• Peerson J.M.
• Brown K.H.
• Krebs N.F.
• Michaelsen K.F.
• Salmenpera L.
• Yeung D.L.
Growth of breast-fed infants deviates from current reference data: A pooled analysis of US, Canadian, and European data sets.
Pediatrics. 1995; 96: 495-503
• Lederman S.A.
• Akabas S.R.
• Moore B.J.
• Bentley M.E.
• Devaney B.
• Gillman M.W.
• Kramer M.S.
• Mennella J.A.
• Ness A.
• Wardle J.
Summary of the presentations at the Conference on Preventing Childhood Obesity, December 8, 2003.
Pediatrics. 2004; 114: 1146-1173
• Ogden C.L.
• Carroll M.D.
• Curtin L.R.
• Lamb M.M.
• Flegal K.M.
Prevalence of high body mass index in US children and adolescents, 2007-2008.
JAMA. 2010; 303: 242-249
• Fox M.K.
• Pac S.
• Devaney B.
• Jankowski L.
Feeding infants and toddlers study: What foods are infants and toddlers eating?.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004; 104: S22-S30
• Briefel R.
• Reidy K.
• Karwe V.
• Devaney B.
Feeding infants and toddlers study: Improvements needed in meeting infant feeding recommendations.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004; 104: S31-S37
• Devaney B.
• Kalb L.
• Briefel R.
• Zavitsky-Novak T.
• Clusen N.
• Ziegler P.
Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study: Overview of the study design.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004; 104: S8-S13
• Briefel R.R.
• Kalb L.M.
• Condon E.
• Deming D.M.
• Clusen N.A.
• Fox M.K.
• Harnack L.
• Gemmill E.
• Stevens M.
• Reidy K.C.
The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2008: Study design and methods.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2010; 110: S16-S26
• Curtin R.
• Presser S.
• Singer E.
Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century.
Public Opin Q. 2005; 69: 87-98
• Singer E.
Nonresponse bias in household surveys.
Public Opin Q. 2006; 70: 637-645
1. Special Issue of Public Opinion Quarterly. 2006; 70 (Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys): 637-809
• Ziegler P.
• Briefel R.R.
• Clusen N.
• Devaney B.
Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS): Development of the FITS Survey in Comparison to Other Dietary Survey Methods.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2006; : S12-S27
• Nelson M.
• Bingham S.A.
Assessment of food consumption and nutrient intake.
in: Margetts B. Nelson M. Design Concepts in Nutrition Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, London, UK1997: 123-167
• Morgan J.F.
P value fetishism and use of the Bonferroni adjustment.
Evid Based Ment Health. 2007; 10: 34-35
• Birch L.L.
Development of food acceptance patterns in the first years of life.
Proc Nutr Soc. 1998; 57: 617-624
• Ness A.R.
• Maynard M.
• Frankel S.
• Smith G.D.
• Frobisher C.
• Leary S.D.
Diet in childhood and adult cardiovascular and all cause mortality: The Boyd Orr cohort.
Heart. 2005; 91: 894-898
• Engeland A.
• Bjorge T.
• Sogaard A.J.
• Tverdal A.
Body mass index in adolescence in relation to total mortality: 32-year follow-up of 227,000 Norwegian boys and girls.
Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157: 517-523
2. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, IL2009
• Gartner L.M.
• Morton J.
• Lawrence R.A.
• Naylor A.J.
• O'Hare D.
• Schanler R.J.
• Eidelman A.I.
• American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding
Breastfeeding and the use of human milk.
Pediatrics. 2005; 115: 496-506
3. Infant Feeding Practices Study II.
(Accessed April 23, 2010)
• Harder T.
• Bergmann R.
• Kallischnigg G.
• Plagemann A.
Duration of breastfeeding and risk of overweight: A meta-analysis.
Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 162: 397-403
• Gidding S.S.
• Dennison B.A.
• Birch L.L.
• Daniels S.R.
• Gilman M.W.
• Lichtenstein A.H.
• Rattay T.
• Steinerger J.
• Stettler N.
• Van Horn L.
Dietary recommendations for children and adolescents: A guide for practitioners.
Consensus statement from the American Heart Association Circulation. 2005; 112: 2061-2075
• Butte N.
• Cobb K.
• Dwyer J.
• Graney L.
• Heird W.
• Rickard K.
The Start Healthy feeding guidelines for infants and toddlers.
J Am Dietetic Assoc. 2004; 104: 442-454
• Butte N.F.
• Fox M.K.
• Briefel R.R.
• Siega-Riz A.M.
• Dwyer J.T.
• Deming D.M.
• Reidy K.C.
Nutrient intakes of US infants, toddlers, and preschoolers meet or exceed Dietary Reference Intakes.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2010; 110: S27-S37
• Gibson E.L.
• Wardle J.
• Watts C.J.
Fruit and vegetable consumption, nutritional knowledge and beliefs in mothers and children.
Appetite. 1998; 31: 205-228
• Jaramillo S.J.
• Yang S.J.
• Hughes S.O.
• Fisher J.O.
• Morales M.
• Nicklas T.A.
Interactive computerized fruit and vegetable preference measure for African-American and Hispanic preschoolers.
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006; 38: 352-359
• Lindquist C.H.
• Herd S.L.
• Goran M.I.
Comparison of children's dietary intake patterns with US dietary guidelines.
Br J Nutr. 2000; 84: 361-367
• Guenther P.M.
• Dodd K.W.
• Reedy J.
• Krebs-Smith S.M.
Most Americans eat much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2006; 106: 1371-1379
• Klesges R.C.
• Stein R.J.
• Eck L.H.
• Isbell T.R.
• Klesges L.M.
Parental influence on food selection in young children and its relationships to childhood obesity.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1991; 53: 859-864
• Savage J.S.
• Fisher J.O.
• Birch L.L.
Parental influence on eating behavior: Conception to adolescence.
J Law Med Ethics. 2007; 35: 22-34
• Uauy R.
• Solomons N.
Diet, nutrition, and the life-course approach to cancer prevention.
J Nutr. 2005; 135: 2934S-2945S
• Ortman J.M.
• Guarneri C.E.
United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050.
(Accessed September 13, 2010)
• Scanlon K.S.
• Grummer-Strawn L.
• Li R.
• Chen J.
Racial and ethnic differences in breastfeeding intiation and duration by State-National Immunization Survey, US 2004-2008.
Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010; 59: 327-334
• Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board Committee on Revising the WIC Food Packages
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change.
• Healthy People 2010
(Accessed September 13, 2010)
• Jago R.
• Baranowski T.
• Baranowski J.C.
Fruit and vegetable availability: A micro environmental mediating variable?.
Public Health Nutr. 2007; 10: 681-689
• Bes-Rastrollo M.
• Martinez-Gonzalez M.A.
• Sanchez-Villegas A.
• de la Fuente Arrillaga C.
• Martinez J.A.
Association of fiber intake and fruit/vegetable consumption with weight gain in a Mediterranean population.
Nutrition. 2006; 22: 504-511
• Astrup A.
• Ryan L.
• Grunwald G.K.
• Storgaard M.
• Saris W.
• Melanson E.
The role of dietary fat in body fatness: Evidence from a preliminary meta-analysis of ad libitum low-fat dietary intervention studies.
Br J Nutr. 2000; 83: S25-S32
• Baxter A.J.
• Coyne T.
• McClintock C.
Dietary patterns and metabolic syndrome—A review of epidemiologic evidence.
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2006; 15: 134-142
• Panagiotakos D.B.
• Pitsavos C.
• Skoumas Y.
The association between food patterns and the metabolic syndrome using principal components analysis: The ATTICA Study.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2007; 107: 979-987
• Heidemann C.
• Schulze M.B.
• Franco O.H.
• van Dam R.M.
• Mantzoros C.S.
• Hu F.B.
Dietary patterns and risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all causes in a prospective cohort of women.
Circulation. 2008; 118: 230-237

## Biography

A. M. Siega-Riz is a professor and associate chair, Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
D. M. Deming is a principal scientist, nutrition, Global Meals & Drinks, Nestlé Infant Nutrition, Florham Park, NJ.
K. C. Reidy is head, nutrition, Global Meals & Drinks, Nestlé Infant Nutrition, Florham Park, NJ.
M. K. Fox is a senior fellow, Mathematica Policy Research, Cambridge, MA.
E. Condon is a senior research analyst, Mathematica Policy Research, Cambridge, MA.
R. R. Briefel is a senior fellow, Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC.