Journal
PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages 2680-2692Publisher
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980022001446
Keywords
Baby food marketing; Violation; International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes; NetCode; Thailand
Funding
- Food and Nutrition International Health Policy Foundation (FHP)
- Capacity Building on Health Policy and Systems Research programme (HPSR Fellowship)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study investigated the prevalence and compliance of different types of breast-milk substitutes (BMS) marketing with regulations and international guidelines in Thailand. The findings showed that BMS marketing did not fully comply with the regulations and guidelines, highlighting the need for stronger government monitoring and education efforts.
Objective: To report on the prevalence of different types of breast-milk substitutes (BMS) marketing and the compliance of such marketing with the 'Control of Marketing of Infant and Young Child Food Act 2017' (The Act) and the 'International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (WHO Code)' in Thailand. Design: Cross-sectional quantitative study, guided by the WHO/UNICEF NetCode Periodic Assessment Protocol. Setting: Health facilities and retail outlets in Bangkok, Thai media. Participants: Mothers of 0-2-year-old children, health professionals, promotions at retail outlets and health facilities, product labels, marketing on television and the internet. Results: Marketing to mothers was highly prevalent, mostly from electronic or digital media, while BMS companies provided items to health professionals to distribute to mothers. Promotional materials in health facilities displayed company brands or logos. At retail outlets, most promotions were price-related. Approximately two-fifths of labels contained nutrition or health claims. Television marketing was growing-up-milk (GUM) advertisements, while internet promotions were varied from price-related materials to product reviews. Most instances of non-compliant BMS marketing with the Act were advertisements to mothers, and most were infant formula. Most non-compliant BMS marketing with the WHO Code was mainly concerned GUM, which are not covered by the Act and appeared in the media. Conclusions: BMS marketing does not fully comply with the Act or the WHO Code. The Thai government should conduct regular monitoring and enforcement activities, educate health professionals, and strengthen the Act's provisions on the media and GUM to fully align with the WHO Code.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available