{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01620274200249273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008309098462816784, 'mean_word_length': 5.37037037037037, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
G350(P) Violation of the international code of marketing of breastfeeding substitutes (who code) by the formula companies via social media

Objective The WHO Code was adopted in 1981 by the World Health Assembly (WHA) to promote safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by protecting breastfeeding through ensuring ethical marketing of breastmilk substitutes. With the emerge of social media networking sites, infant formula companies started to use digital direct-to-consumer marketing to target parents with unique personalization and frequency. The primary objective of this study was to examine the presence of infant formula marketing on social media, using the WHO Code as a framework. To our knowledge, this is the first study that collected evidences on this issue from a European country and aims to be that can inform decisions about the regulation of the advertising of infant formulas. Method This qualitative research examined the presence of 9 infant formula brand on popular social media platforms; Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, blogs, mobile applications and interactive websites that were used to promote breast milk substitute (BMS)and related content from December 2016 to January 2018. Then, their marketing activities were examined using the WHO Code as a basis for ethical marketing. Results This study assessed 46 accounts, including both official and individual holders, to examine strategies of infant formula marketing in social media that are probable to be visited by new and future parents and the findings disclose that the world leading breast milk substitute manufacturers make inappropriate promotions of their products in social media that are contrary to the WHO Code and relevant WHA resolutions. Of all the 9 BMS brands identified, 6 of them had at least one social media presence. Activities were carried mostly on Facebook and Instagram. Most violations were made through idealising the use of breastmilk substitutes with health or nutrition claims. These violations mainly made via having direct contact with mothers, establishing a financial relationship between manufacturers and bloggers, and creation of mobile apps for use of parents. Conclusion Given the rising violations of WHO Code on social media and insufficient reporting, there is a necessity for effective legislation, training and new monitoring strategies to achieve full compliance with the WHO Code.