4.4 Article

Violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes in Mexico

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12682

关键词

breastfeeding; breast milk substitutes; International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes; Mexico; violations

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Bloomberg Philantropies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study estimated the prevalence of violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (BMS) and subsequent resolutions of the World Health Assembly (Code) at health facilities, points of sale (POS), and on BMS labelling and media in Mexico. We carried out a cross-sectional survey among 693 mothers with children aged less than 24 months and 48 health providers at public and private health facilities in two states of Mexico. Observational assessment at 20 POS and the health facilities was conducted as well as an analysis of labels on BMS products for sale. Women attending public and private health facilities reported receiving free BMS samples in the previous 6 months (11.1%), and about 80% reported seeing BMS promotion in the mass media. Health providers reported contact with BMS manufacturer representatives in the previous 6 months (15.5%), and only 41.6% of the health providers had knowledge of the Code. BMS promotions were identified at nearly all POS. Analysis of 190 BMS labels showed that 30% included pictures/text idealizing the use of BMS, and all labels incorporated health and nutrition claims. Violations of the Code are prevalent within the health services, POS, and labelling of BMS products. The high percentage of health providers with no knowledge of the Code calls for action at national level to better disseminate and comply with the Code. A transparent, free from commercial influence, and continual monitoring system for Code compliance is needed, including a follow-up component on sanctions for contraventions of the Code.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据