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

从补充喂养期开始，以婴儿为主导的补充喂养方法可促进家庭食物的摄入，而不是婴儿专用食物的摄入，倡导者认为这种方法应该便宜些。但是，从未对此进行正式检查。我们最近完成了一项为期2年的随机对照试验，比较了206例婴儿的婴儿喂养（BLISS）和传统勺式喂养（Control）补充喂养的方法。在7、8、9和12个月的婴儿时评估了可感知的支出。实际摄入成本（所提供的食物，食用的食物和剩余的食物）是根据7个月和12个月大的3天称重饮食记录计算得出的。人们认为，BLISS的价格比传统喂养便宜（P = 0.002），但实际成本的比较显示，所提供食物，已食用（0.30新西兰元，0.20新西兰元）或剩余（0.10新西兰元， NZ $ 0.20）。对于家庭而言，以婴儿为主导的方式并不比传统的勺式喂养便宜。