Full text

Turn on search term navigation

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

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 (<26 %), including significantly more statements that IF provides brain, neural and gastrointestinal benefits; 40 % of breast-feeding/breastmilk content was dedicated to breast-feeding problems (e.g. sore nipples). Twice as many screenshots compared IF brands favourably to breastmilk than as superior to other brands. Certain companies displayed images indicating ease of IF feeding and difficulty of breast-feeding.

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.

Details

Title
Breastmilk or infant formula? Content analysis of infant feeding advice on breastmilk substitute manufacturer websites
Author
Pomeranz, Jennifer L 1 ; Chu, Xiangying 1 ; Groza, Oana 1 ; Cohodes, Madeline 1 ; Harris, Jennifer L 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

 School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA 
 UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, USA 
Pages
934-942
Section
Research Paper
Publication year
2023
Publication date
May 2023
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
ISSN
13689800
e-ISSN
14752727
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2813449022
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.