Search

‘Growing‐up milks’ (GUMs)—breast‐milk substitutes targeted for young children (aged 12–36 months)—are commonly consumed in Indonesia. The World Health Assembly has stated that GUMs are not necessary for proper growth and development, and recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared that such products are not recommended for young children due to their common use of sweeteners. To contribute to the evidence base on the composition of GUMs and their appropriateness for young child diets, this cross‐sectional study documented the declared sugar content and presence of nutrient content claims of 99 GUMs newly launched in Indonesia between January 2017 and May 2019. Sugar content was evaluated against the draft 2018 Codex Alimentarius Standard for Follow‐Up Formula guidance on sugar content and the United Kingdom Food Standard Agency's front‐of‐pack (UK FSA FOP) colour coding system for sugar. Almost all (97%) GUMs contained one or more added sugars. None of the products were fully compliant with all three sugar content recommendations in the draft Codex standard. Seventy‐one per cent of GUMs were determined to have high sugar content according to the UK FSA FOP system. Nutrient content claims were found on 97% of GUMs. Median total sugar content was 7.3 g per 100 ml, similar to sugar content levels in sugar‐sweetened beverages. Many GUMs available in Indonesia claim to offer nutritional benefits; however, the current levels of sugar content in GUMs are a serious concern and are inappropriate for inclusion in the diets of young children.

In order to assess the prevalence of point‐of‐sale promotions of infant and young child feeding products in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Kathmandu Valley, Nepal; Dakar Department, Senegal; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, approximately 30 retail stores per site, 121 in total, were visited. Promotional activity for breastmilk substitutes (BMS) and commercially produced complementary foods in each site were recorded. Point‐of‐sale promotion of BMS occurred in approximately one‐third of sampled stores in Phnom Penh and Dakar Department but in 3.2% and 6.7% of stores in Kathmandu Valley and Dar es Salaam, respectively. Promotion of commercially produced complementary foods was highly prevalent in Dakar Department with half of stores having at least one promotion, while promotions for these products occurred in 10% or less of stores in the other three sites. While promotion of BMS in stores is legal in Senegal, it is prohibited in Cambodia without prior permission of the Ministry of Health/Ministry of Information and prohibited in both Nepal and Tanzania. Strengthening legislation in Senegal and enforcing regulations in Cambodia could help to prevent such promotion that can negatively affect breastfeeding practices. Key messages Even in countries such as Cambodia, Nepal and Tanzania where point‐of‐sale promotion is restricted, promotions of BMS were observed (in nearly one‐third of stores in Phnom Penh and less than 10% in Dar es Salaam and Kathmandu). Limited promotion of commercially produced complementary foods was evident (less than 10% of stores had a promotion for such foods), except in Dakar Department, where promotions were found in half of stores. Efforts are needed to strengthen monitoring, regulation and enforcement of restrictions on the promotion of BMS. Manufacturers and distributors should take responsibility for compliance with national regulations and global policies pertaining to the promotion of breastmilk substitutes.

National legislation and global guidance address labelling of complementary foods to ensure that labels support optimal infant and young child feeding practices. This cross‐sectional study assessed the labels of commercially produced complementary foods (CPCF) sold in Phnom Penh (n = 70), Cambodia; Kathmandu Valley (n = 22), Nepal; Dakar Department (n = 84), Senegal; and Dar es Salaam (n = 26), Tanzania. Between 3.6% and 30% of products did not provide any age recommendation and 8.6−20.2% of products, from all sites, recommended an age of introduction of

This cross‐sectional survey assessed the characteristics of labels of follow‐up formula (FUF) and growing‐up milk (GUM) compared with infant formula (IF), including cross‐promotion practices between FUF/GUM and IF manufactured by the same company, sold in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Kathmandu Valley, Nepal; Dakar Department, Senegal; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. All products were imported. A wide recommended age/age range for introduction was provided by manufacturers across all sites, with products with an age recommendation of 0–6 months being most prevalent in three sites, representing over a third of all products. Various age categories (e.g. 1, 1+ and Stage 1) commonly appeared on labels. A number of descriptive names (e.g. infant formula and milk formula) per category of age of introduction were used with some appearing across more than one category. Images of feeding bottles were found on most labels across all age categories, but prevalence decreased with older age categories. The majority of FUF/GUM manufactured by IF companies across all sites displayed at least one example of cross‐promotion with one or more of the company's IF: two‐thirds or more contained similar colour schemes/designs and similar brand names; 20–85% had similar slogans/mascots/symbols. A wide and potentially confusing range of ages/categories of introduction and descriptive names were found, and cross‐promotion with IF was common on FUF/GUM labels. Global guidance from normative bodies forms the basis of most low and middle income countries policies and should provide specific guidance to prohibit cross‐promotion between FUF/GUM and IF, and all three categories should be classified as breastmilk substitutes.

There is a lack of formal guidance from international normative bodies on the appropriate marketing of processed complementary foods. Such guidance is necessary to protect and promote optimal infant and young child feeding practices. The aim of this study was to field-test, in South Africa, the interim guidance provided by the Maternal, Infant and Young Child Nutrition Working Group's Draft Guide for Marketing Complementary Foods as a potential tool for use by manufacturers and national governments for guiding the appropriate labelling (as a subset of appropriate marketing practices) of complementary foods. This guidance was used to develop a checklist of questions and criteria for each possible answer, which was tested using a comprehensive database of labels from products purchased in South Africa from June to August 2011. One hundred and sixty product labels of 35 manufacturers were analysed, none of which complied with all checklist criteria. Fifty-six (35%) labels did not provide an appropriate age of introduction while 37 (23%) used images of infants appearing younger than 6 months. Nineteen (12%) labels suggested a daily ration too large for a breastfed child, and 32 (20%) potentially promote the manufacturer's infant formula. Only 58 (36%) labels were easy to read. The majority (69% and 92%) of labels provided instructions for safe and appropriate preparation/use and storage, respectively. The Draft Guide for Marketing Complementary Foods was found to be a useful tool for guiding the appropriate labelling of complementary foods, although some changes and additions are recommended to improve understanding, ease of use and to minimise the subjective interpretation of the guidance.