Breastmilk or infant formula? Content analysis of infant feeding advice on breastmilk substitute manufacturer websites
| Autor: | Xiangying Chu, Oana Groza, Jennifer L. Harris, Madeline Cohodes, Jennifer L. Pomeranz |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Public Health Nutrition. 26:934-942 |
| ISSN: | 1475-2727 1368-9800 |
| Popis: | Objective:To evaluate messages about infant feeding on breastmilk substitute (BMS) manufacturer websites directed at US caregivers and compare information and portrayals of breast-feeding/breastmilk with that of infant formula (IF) feeding.Design:We conducted a content analysis of US BMS companies’ websites. A codebook was created through an iterative process to identify messages and images about breast-feeding/breastmilk and IF feeding, including benefits or issues associated with each, and direct-to-consumer marketing practices that could discourage breast-feeding.Setting:Data were collected in 2019–2020 and analysed in 2020–2021 for US websites of five IF manufacturers.Participants:The websites of Similac, Enfamil and Gerber, which collectively represent approximately 98 % of the US IF market, and two US organic brands, Earth’s Best and Happy Baby.Results:Websites contained more messages about breast-feeding/breastmilk than IF but were significantly more likely to mention benefits to baby of IF (44 %) than breast-feeding/breastmilk (Conclusions:Substantial messaging on BMS manufacturer websites encouraged IF feeding and discouraged breast-feeding. Health professionals should discourage their patients from visiting these websites and the US government should regulate misleading claims. Companies should refrain from providing breast-feeding advice and align their US marketing with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|