Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40265742›Full record

ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2025

Infant Formula in the Digital Age: How US Online Formula Marketing Targets Parents.

Simone Froley, Cristina Watkins, Cecília Tomori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Simone FroleyJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-4717-1914
Cristina WatkinsJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-1740-235X
Cecília TomoriJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4235-1821

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite recommendations by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (the Code), regulatory bodies in the United States continue to permit commercial milk formula (CMF) marketing that threatens public health. The increasing popularity of online shopping highlights the need for more research on virtual CMF product marketing. To assess marketing strategies from the e-customer standpoint, we analyzed a sample of 26 bestselling virtual infant formula (IF) products from three US-based e-commerce giants. All product display content, including visual and audible components, was evaluated according to Code guidelines, analyzed thematically and assessed for theme co-occurrence. No IF labels were compliant with the Code due to widespread health benefit claims and idealization of IF. Furthermore, no US-based products were compliant with critical Code guidelines for powdered IF reconstitution instructions. Thematic analysis of virtual product web pages revealed 17 themes, of which four were novel to public health literature: purity, nature, innovation and eco-friendly. These themes co-occurred in patterned ways to capture consumers. The most popular online IF products in the United States combine Code violations with compelling online materials that idealize IF and shape cultural expectations about infant feeding and care. These practices reinforce the formula industry's well-documented efforts to undermine breastfeeding. A review of US regulations and implementation of the Code is urgently needed to protect public health.

Indexed as

Infant FormulaInternetMarketingParentsHumansInfantUnited Statesbreastfeedingcommercial milk formulainfant feedinginfant formulaInternational Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutesmarketing

Identifiers

PMID40265742
PMCPMC12150122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.