The first two years of life represent the most rapid period of brain development, laying the foundations for language, cognition, and social-emotional wellbeing. Despite clear guidance from leading organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advising against screen use under age two, the reality is that many babies are regularly exposed to visual media.
Research consistently shows that the majority of screen-based entertainment designed for children is aimed at preschoolers, not infants. Fast-paced, brightly edited programmes dominate the market, while parents of babies — often juggling multiple demands — turn to screens for soothing, entertainment, or simply to create space for everyday tasks.
This paper argues that while most content currently available is unsuitable for babies, there is potential to create visual media that supports, rather than hinders, early development. By designing with the baby’s brain in mind, and by encouraging co-viewing and moderation, visual content can form part of a supportive ecosystem for families.
For innovators, this represents an untapped opportunity to lead a new category of trusted, evidence-based content for under-2s. For policymakers, it highlights the need for nuanced guidance that recognises both the risks and realities of screen use in infancy.
Media consumption is now embedded in family life from birth. A 2023 Ofcom report found that over half of UK children under two had been exposed to screen-based media daily, with many watching programmes not designed for their age. In the US, the Common Sense Census reported that by 18 months, 68% of children were using mobile devices regularly, often without direct parental supervision.
Despite guidance advising “no screens under two,” the figures show that babies are already part of the digital ecosystem.
The drivers are easy to understand:
The majority of this content is unsuitable for babies. Programmes designed for preschoolers emphasise narrative, humour, or fast editing — all of which risk overwhelming an infant’s developing brain. Yet parents rarely have realistic alternatives.
The first 1,000 days of life are marked by extraordinary brain growth. Synaptic connections form at a rate of one million per second in the early months. This period is characterised by heightened plasticity, meaning the brain is especially receptive to environmental input.
Key elements of development at this stage include:
“Serve and return” interactions — where a baby vocalises or gestures and a caregiver responds — are crucial. When screens displace these interactions, there is a risk of missed developmental opportunities. This underpins the AAP and WHO’s cautious stance. However, the same science also suggests that visual and auditory input, when designed carefully, could reinforce early learning if used sparingly and with adult engagement.
Research has identified several concerns with exposing babies to mainstream children’s media:
Studies have found correlations between heavy screen use before age two and later challenges in attention and executive function. Although causality is difficult to establish, experts like Sonia Livingstone and Dimitri Christakis caution that poor-quality content and unmonitored use may undermine early learning environments.
Despite the risks, families continue to use screens with their infants. Research led by Sonia Tiwari and colleagues shows that parents often feel conflicted: they recognise official guidance but rely on screens in moments of stress, exhaustion, or necessity.
Parents cite several reasons:
There is also a significant element of stigma. Parents report feeling judged if they admit to using screens, yet they are offered few practical alternatives. This gap between guidance and reality highlights the need for constructive, rather than prohibitive, approaches.
Recent studies suggest that not all screen use is equal. Important distinctions include quality, context, and co-viewing.
While most attempts to create content targeted for the under 2’s are beginning to acknowledge and consider the research regarding harmful elements and techniques, I have yet to see a program that addresses most of these concerns. These programs require independent research to validate their safety and effectiveness.
If we accept that babies are watching screens, the critical question is: what kind of content would be safe, purposeful, and enriching? Research and practice point to the following design principles:
Crucially, content for babies should complement rather than replace real-world interaction. A programme might, for example, show a simple ball rolling and then invite the parent to roll a real ball with their child. This bridges screen and physical play.
The current market leaves a vacuum: babies are consuming content made for older children, and parents are left without trusted options. This presents both a responsibility and an opportunity.
From a commercial standpoint:
From a social standpoint:
Investment in this space aligns with wider health and education policy priorities, including early years development and digital wellbeing.
Based on the evidence, this paper makes the following recommendations:
Babies are already watching screens, despite expert advice to the contrary. The risks of inappropriate content are real and should not be underestimated, but the reality of modern parenting makes zero exposure unrealistic for many families.
The solution is not to deny this reality but to innovate responsibly. By designing content specifically for the infant brain i.e. simple, slow, relational, and supportive of interaction, we can protect developmental needs while offering parents peace of mind.
There is a rare opportunity to create a new category within the children’s media landscape: trusted, evidence-based, baby-appropriate visual content. For policymakers, it is a chance to update guidance, reduce stigma, and empower families with realistic tools.
The earliest years matter most. Getting this right is both a public good and a commercial opportunity.
© All Rights Reserved. 2025