Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Anna Taylor Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring,
Unicef United Kingdom Committee, London WC2A 3NB
Correspondence to: Anna
Taylor
Objective: To estimate the prevalence of violations
of the international code of marketing of substitutes for breast milk
in one city in each of Bangladesh, Poland, South Africa, and Thailand.
The World Health Organisation estimates that 1.5 million
babies could be prevented from dying each year if women breast fed their infants (exclusively for about 6 months and until infants were 2 years old).1 Where a mother uses an alternative to breast milk to feed her baby, it is important that she makes an informed decision and that she has not been pressured by commercial promotions to use a substitute. The international code of marketing of breast milk
substitutes2 was adopted by the World Health Assembly in
1981 to encourage breast feeding and to protect mothers from pressure
to use substitutes for breast milk. At that time one member state (the
United States) voted against the code and three abstained (Argentina,
Japan, and Korea); by the 1996 World Health Assembly meeting all 191 member states had affirmed their support for the code, its
implementation, and the implementation of relevant resolutions. By
1997, 17 countries had adopted all or substantially all of the code's
provisions as legal requirements.3 Adoption of the code
represents the development of an international consensus.
Anecdotal evidence of violations of the code has been presented but no
previous studies have used formal sampling techniques.4 This study was designed to measure the prevalence of violations of the
code using randomly sampled groups of women, health workers, and health
facilities in four cities.
The study was overseen and supported financially or by other
means by 27 churches, academic institutions, and international non-governmental organisations. Experts in infant feeding were contacted for advice. Accommodation was provided by Unicef United Kingdom. The organisations and people who chose to participate wanted
to obtain unbiased information on violations of the marketing code. No
funding, support, or advice was received from the manufacturers of
breast milk substitutes or organisations forming part of the International Baby Food Action Network (Penang, Malaysia).
Sampling procedure
Selection of countries
The final four countries selected were Bangladesh (where compliance
with the code is a legal requirement), Poland (which has no code),
South Africa (where compliance is voluntary), and Thailand (where
compliance is voluntary).
Cities
Districts
Health facilities
Article 2 (products covered by the code) The code
applies to the marketing, and practices related thereto, of the
following products: breast milk substitutes, including infant formula;
other milk products; foods and beverages, including bottle fed
complementary foods, when marketed or otherwise represented to be
suitable, with or without modification, for use as a partial or total
replacement of breast milk; feeding bottles; and teats. It also applies
to their quality and availability, and to information concerning their
use
Definitions
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
References
Design: Multistage random sampling was used to select
pregnant women and mothers of infants
6 months old to interview at
health facilities. Women were asked whether they had received free
samples of substitutes for breast milk (including infant formula
designed to meet the nutritional needs of infants from birth to 4 to 6 months of age, follow on formula designed to replace infant formula at
the age of 4 to 6 months, and complementary foods for infants aged
6
months), bottles, or teats. The source of the free sample and when it
had been given to the women was also determined. 3 health workers were
interviewed at each facility to assess whether the facility had
received free samples, to determine how they had been used, and to
determine whether gifts had been given to health workers by companies
that manufactured or distributed breast milk substitutes. Compliance
with the marketing code for information given to health workers was
evaluated using a checklist.
Setting: Health facilities in Dhaka, Bangladesh;
Warsaw, Poland; Durban, South Africa; and Bangkok, Thailand.
Subjects: 1468 pregnant women, 1582 mothers of
infants aged
6 months, and 466 health workers at 165 health
facilities.
Main outcome measures: Number of free samples
received by pregnant women, mothers, and health workers; number of
gifts given to health workers; and availability of information that violated the code in health facilities.
Results: 97 out of 370 (26%) mothers in Bangkok
reported receiving free samples of breast milk substitutes, infant formula, bottles, or teats compared with only 1 out of 385 mothers in
Dhaka. Across the four cities from 3 out of 40 (8%) to 20 out of 40 (50%) health facilities had received free samples which were not being
used for research or professional evaluation; from 2 out of 123 (2%)
to 21 out of 119 (18%) health workers had received gifts from
companies involved in the manufacturing or distribution of breast milk
substitutes. From 6 out of 40 (15%) to 22 out of 39 (56%) health
facilities information that violated the code had been provided by
companies and was available to staff.
Conclusion: Violations of the code were detected with
a simple survey instrument in all of the four countries studied. Governmental and non-governmental agencies should monitor the prevalence of code violations using the simple methodology developed for this study.
Key messages
![]()
Introduction
![]()
Subjects and methods
Since no studies of this kind had been done before a 10%
prevalence of reported violations was assumed to be an important amount
of violation. A sample of 800 women would give a 95% power to observe
at least one reported violation if the true prevalence was 2%. If the
prevalence was 10% the sample size would generate estimates of
population prevalence with a standard error of 1%. Sample sizes for
health workers and health facilities were constrained by practical
considerations.
Countries were grouped into three categories that reflected the
status of requirements for compliance with the marketing code. In 63 countries compliance with the code was a legal requirement; in 36 countries compliance with the code was voluntary; and in 96 countries
the code had another status, including no code, code awaiting
government approval, or the status was unknown.3 A small
subset of countries where there were agencies already working in
partnership with the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring were
selected in each category to participate in preliminary discussions on
the feasibility of the study (3 of the 63 countries in which compliance
was legally mandatory, 2 of the 36 in which compliance was voluntary,
and 5 of the 96 classed as giving the code any other status). These
countries had contrasting geographical and economic conditions. After
discussions with partner agencies six countries were excluded from the
study because government permission or personnel support could not be
secured.
The capital city was chosen for the study in each
country; however, in South Africa, government authorities suggested
that the study should be done in Durban because the University of Natal would be able to manage the study.
Seventeen districts in Warsaw and 23 in Bangkok
in which there were at least four health facilities that served
pregnant women and mothers of infants were identified and numbered
serially; 10 districts were selected using random numbers. In Dhaka 17 districts which had a minimum of four health facilities and in which
20% of the people were living slums were selected to reflect the
overall proportion of people living in slums in the city. Districts
were numbered and 10 were selected using random numbers. In Durban there were 93 districts but there were not enough facilities in each
district for the same selection procedure to be followed. To ensure a
large enough sample of health facilities 23 districts were randomly
selected.
To be considered eligible for sampling
health facilities had to be large enough to see daily at least 10 pregnant women or mothers of infants who were
6 months old.
Altogether 132 facilities met the inclusion criteria in Warsaw, and 159 met the criteria in Bangkok. All facilities that met the criteria in
the 10 districts were numbered, and four were selected from each
district using random numbers; thus, 40 health facilities were studied
in each of these cities. In Dhaka 40 facilities met the inclusion
criteria and in Durban 46 met the criteria; all of these facilities
were included in the study. The coordinators in each country and the interviewers had had no prior contact with staff or mothers at the
health facilities studied.
Extracts from the international code of marketing of breast
milk substitutes2
Article 5.2 (provision of samples)
Manufacturers and distributors should not provide, directly or
indirectly, to pregnant women, mothers, or members of their families,
samples of products within the scope of this code.
Article 7.2 (provision of information to health
workers) Information provided by manufacturers and
distributors to health professionals regarding products in the scope of
this code should be restricted to scientific and factual matters and
such information should not imply or create a belief that bottle
feeding is equivalent or superior to breast feeding. It should also
include the information specified in article 4.2.
Article 7.3 (provision of inducements to health
workers) No financial or material inducements to promote
products within the scope of this code should be offered by
manufacturers or distributors to health workers or members of their
families.
Article 7.4 (provision of samples to health
workers) Samples of infant formula or other products within
the scope of this code ... should not be provided for
health workers except when necessary for the purpose of professional
evaluation or research at the institutional level. Health workers
should not give samples of infant formula to pregnant women, mothers of
infants and young children, or members of their families.
All products marketed for infants younger than 6 months and all
follow on formulas were considered to be breast milk substitutes. Infant formulas are those substitutes designed to be used from birth up
to 4 to 6 months of age. Follow on formulas are designed to replace
infant formulas at the age of 4 to 6 months. These definitions were
based on World Health Assembly resolution 47.5 (1994) which clarified
the code and recommended "fostering appropriate complementary feeding
practices from the age of about six months." World Health Assembly
resolutions passed after the code was adopted in 1981 have the same
status as the code, which was adopted as part of World Health Assembly
resolution 34.22. Article 2 of the code specifies the products covered
by the code.
Subjects
Over two days 20 pregnant women or mothers of infants aged
6
months were selected from the appointment register at each facility and
interviewed. Where no appointment register was available women were
systematically sampled according to their position in the waiting room
(for example, every fifth consecutive woman was selected). During the
same two days, three health workers at each facility were interviewed.
The selection of health workers depended on their availability for
interview. Interviews with staff at different levels of seniority were
sought. Wherever possible confidential interviews were carried out in a
quiet designated area. A target sample size of 800 women and 120 health
workers was set for each city, except Dhaka where there were problems
with transportation because of the rainy season.
Interview procedure
The research coordinator (AT) trained 10 people in each country to
interview pregnant women, mothers, and health workers using structured
questionnaires; they were also trained to use a checklist to assess
materials produced by companies that manufactured breast milk
substitutes. (A copy of the checklist can be found on our website at
www.bmj.com.) All data were collected within each country during one
month between August and October 1996.
To confirm the validity of women's
responses, 20% of the mothers in each city who had reported receiving
free samples were asked about the samples and where they had received
them. The details were recorded and then staff at the facility that had provided the sample were interviewed. Staff were asked about the availability of samples and their responses were compared with the
woman's report.
Assessment of written information
Health workers were asked
to show the interviewer the materials that had been provided for
professional use by manufacturers. These materials were then assessed
by the interviewer using a checklist based on the requirements of
relevant articles of the code (4.2 and 7.2) (box).
Data management
The country coordinator was responsible for
the quality of the data and supervision of the interviewers. In each
country data were entered by a trained data clerk using EpiInfo
software; data were analysed in London. Confidence intervals for
proportions were estimated assuming a
binomial random effects model
to take account of possible variation between clinics.5
| |
Results |
|---|
Health facilities and respondents
Forty health facilities were visited in Dhaka, 46 in Durban,
40 in Bangkok, and 39 in Warsaw (one facility was closed for a
holiday). In Dhaka 704 women were approached for an interview and all
agreed to participate. In Warsaw 794 women were approached and
three declined to participate. In Durban 804 women were approached; five declined to participate. In Bangkok 748 women were approached; 52 declined to participate. In Dhaka 112 health workers were
asked to participate; one declined. In Warsaw 119 were
approached and four declined. In Durban 123 were approached and
one declined. In Bangkok 112 were approached and eight declined.
Free samples
In Bangkok 97 out of 370 (26%; 95% confidence interval 18% to
36%) mothers reported receiving free samples of a breast milk substitute, feeding bottle, or teat (table); many women received more
than one sample. This was a greater proportion than that found in the
other three cities. In Dhaka only one woman reported receiving a free
sample. In all cities mothers were more likely than pregnant women to
report having received free samples.
|
|
Validation
In Bangkok 97 out of 370 mothers reported receiving free samples.
Eighteen of the 19 mothers in the validation subset described the
samples they had received. The interviewer found that 12 samples were
still available. One type of sample described was no longer available
but the researcher was able to confirm that that type of sample had at
previously been dispensed by the facility. No additional information
could be obtained about the other five samples that mothers reported
receiving. In Warsaw 34 mothers reported receiving free samples; some
mothers received more than one sample. All seven mothers in the
validation subset were contacted. Information was available about only
three of the samples. In Dhaka the single reported free sample was not
verified. Problems with transportation in Durban prevented us from
verifying any of the 13 free samples reported.
Information and gifts provided to health workers
Health workers in 22 out of 39 (56%; 95% confidence interval
41% to 72%) health facilities in Warsaw received information from
manufacturers which violated the code. This was higher than in the
other three cities where prevalence ranged from 6 out of 40 (15%; 4%
to 26%) health facilities in Dhaka to 13 out of 40 (33%; 18% to
47%) in Bangkok (figure).
| |
Discussion |
|---|
In this study pregnant women and mothers in four cities reported receiving free samples of infant formula, other breast milk substitutes, feeding bottles, or teats in contravention of articles 5.2 and 7.4 of the international code of marketing of substitutes for breast milk. None of the free samples were to be used for professional research purposes according to reports from health workers interviewed at the health facilities. The greater the number of facilities given samples in each city the greater the proportion of pregnant women and mothers who received samples. Most of the samples were reported to have come from a health facility; this suggests that samples given to facilities were passed on to mothers, whether or not that was the intention of the company donating the samples.
The effect of giving free samples of infant formula, bottles, and teats to women who are breast feeding has been examined in five studies.6-10 Frank et al reported that women receiving a discharge pack that contained products consistent with the code (such as breast pads and pamphlets on breast feeding) were more likely to breast feed for longer than those receiving a commercial discharge pack (containing formula, bottles, or teats), were more likely to be breast feeding at 4 months post partum, and were more likely to delay feeding solid foods.11 Two meta-analyses of the five studies confirmed that commercial discharge packs have a detrimental effect on breast feeding at one month after birth (odds ratios 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.96)12 and 1.4 (1.0 to 2.1)13).
Article 7.3 of the code outlines the responsibilities of both health professionals and manufacturers as they pertain to the donation and receipt of gifts, yet widespread violations were detected in the four cities surveyed. Although many of the gifts were of little value financially, health professionals working in underfunded healthcare systems, such as in Bangladesh, may find it difficult to resist accepting these inducements. The presence of brand name items in the health facility may constitute professional endorsement of a particular product to patients seen in the facility.
The code states that all information produced by companies that manufacture or distribute breast milk substitutes must include details on the benefits and superiority of breast feeding and the risks associated with bottle feeding (articles 4.2 and 7.2). Nevertheless, 15% to 56% of health workers interviewed stated that their facilities had received materials that contravened these articles.
It may not be possible to generalise these findings to other areas because conditions in rural districts could be different. Equally, the promotional activities of companies may vary from country to country and city to city. However, both the number and nature of code violations suggest that systematic contravention of the code exists; it would be reasonable to believe that similar violations are occurring at similar rates in other cities and countries. These findings are the consequences of the promotional activities of 21 companies, six of which were trying to sell their products in more than one of the countries studied.
Importance of implementation and monitoring of the
code
Bangladesh was the only country studied which had laws governing
the marketing of breast milk substitutes; the smallest number of free
samples were detected there. Warsaw had the highest number of health
facilities in which information that violated the code was available to
health professionals. Warsaw also had the highest proportion of health
professionals who received free gifts; Poland has no legal or voluntary
code governing any aspects of marketing discussed in this paper. South
Africa and Thailand have voluntary codes. In Thailand the voluntary
code was revised in 1995.
|
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring is a coalition of organisations and individuals established to monitor independently the marketing code.
Contributors: Claire Grose, Dr Magdalena Gugulska, Christine Lucas, and Saree Aongsomwang acted as country coordinators. Alison Maclaine analysed the data. Caroline Leveaux provided managerial support. AT designed and implemented the study, wrote the paper, and is guarantor for the study.
Funding or other support was given by: the Ajahma Charitable Trust, British Association of Community Child Health, British Medical Association, Baptist Union of Great Britain, Bishop of Coventry Charity Projects, Children's Aid Direct, Christian Aid, Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, Church of Scotland, International Child Health Group, Methodist Church, Mother's Union, Oxfam United Kingdom and Ireland, Save the Children Sweden, Save the Children United Kingdom, Tear Fund United Kingdom, Unicef Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe/Commonwealth of Independent States, United Kingdom Committee for Unicef, United Reformed Church (Church and Society), Voluntary Service Overseas, World Council of Churches, World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe, World Vision United Kingdom.
Conflict of interest: None.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(Accepted 27 November 1997)
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.