Formula Labelling in the United Kingdom: Manufacturers' Compliance With the Code, UK Law and Guidance Notes.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Maiko Kamata, Catherine Pereira-Kotze, Marko Kerac, Victoria Sibson
{"title":"Formula Labelling in the United Kingdom: Manufacturers' Compliance With the Code, UK Law and Guidance Notes.","authors":"Maiko Kamata, Catherine Pereira-Kotze, Marko Kerac, Victoria Sibson","doi":"10.1111/mcn.13794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes ('the Code') was established to protect babies and young children from inappropriate marketing of formula milk, bottles and teats and avoid undue commercial influence on caregiver infant feeding practices, including undermining breastfeeding and safe and appropriate formula feeding. UK law encompasses some but not all of the Code. To address persisting concerns about the marketing of infant formula (IF) and follow-on formula (FoF), we assessed labelling compliance in the UK against relevant provisions in the Code, UK law and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Guidance Notes which interpret UK law. Data were collected during July and August 2022 by taking pictures of labels from company websites, in shops and online. We developed three labelling checklists to systematically assess compliance and to compare compliance scores between the regulatory frameworks, formula types and brands. We assessed 57 labels (n = 32 IF and n = 25 FoF) and found low overall compliance: 50% complied with UK law, 32% with Guidance Notes and 40% with the Code. None of the labels complied with provisions prohibiting idealising text and photographs, nutrition and health claims (where relevant) and cross-promotion between formula types. In conclusion, UK IF and FoF labels violate many of the provisions of all three regulatory frameworks. This is evidence of inappropriate marketing. The UK law should be better enforced and strengthened in line with the Code to protect breastfeeding, support safer, appropriate formula feeding and lessen commercial influence on infant feeding practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":51112,"journal":{"name":"Maternal and Child Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":"e13794"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maternal and Child Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.13794","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes ('the Code') was established to protect babies and young children from inappropriate marketing of formula milk, bottles and teats and avoid undue commercial influence on caregiver infant feeding practices, including undermining breastfeeding and safe and appropriate formula feeding. UK law encompasses some but not all of the Code. To address persisting concerns about the marketing of infant formula (IF) and follow-on formula (FoF), we assessed labelling compliance in the UK against relevant provisions in the Code, UK law and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Guidance Notes which interpret UK law. Data were collected during July and August 2022 by taking pictures of labels from company websites, in shops and online. We developed three labelling checklists to systematically assess compliance and to compare compliance scores between the regulatory frameworks, formula types and brands. We assessed 57 labels (n = 32 IF and n = 25 FoF) and found low overall compliance: 50% complied with UK law, 32% with Guidance Notes and 40% with the Code. None of the labels complied with provisions prohibiting idealising text and photographs, nutrition and health claims (where relevant) and cross-promotion between formula types. In conclusion, UK IF and FoF labels violate many of the provisions of all three regulatory frameworks. This is evidence of inappropriate marketing. The UK law should be better enforced and strengthened in line with the Code to protect breastfeeding, support safer, appropriate formula feeding and lessen commercial influence on infant feeding practices.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Maternal and Child Nutrition
Maternal and Child Nutrition 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Maternal & Child Nutrition addresses fundamental aspects of nutrition and its outcomes in women and their children, both in early and later life, and keeps its audience fully informed about new initiatives, the latest research findings and innovative ways of responding to changes in public attitudes and policy. Drawing from global sources, the Journal provides an invaluable source of up to date information for health professionals, academics and service users with interests in maternal and child nutrition. Its scope includes pre-conception, antenatal and postnatal maternal nutrition, women''s nutrition throughout their reproductive years, and fetal, neonatal, infant, child and adolescent nutrition and their effects throughout life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信