Evidence shows that breastfeeding has many health, human capital and future economic benefits for young children, their mothers and countries. The new Cost of Not Breastfeeding tool, based on open access data, was developed to help policy-makers and advocates have information on the estimated human and economic costs of not breastfeeding at the country, regional and global levels. The results of the analysis using the tool show that 595 379 childhood deaths (6 to 59 months) from diarrhoea and pneumonia each year can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to global recommendations from WHO and UNICEF. It also estimates that 974 956 cases of childhood obesity can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to recommendations each year. For women, breastfeeding is estimated to have the potential to prevent 98 243 deaths from breast and ovarian cancers as well as type II diabetes each year. This level of avoidable morbidity and mortality translates into global health system treatment costs of US$1.1 billion annually. The economic losses of premature child and women’s mortality are estimated to equal US$53.7 billion in future lost earnings each year. The largest component of economic losses, however, is the cognitive losses, which are estimated to equal US$285.4 billion annually. Aggregating these costs, the total global economic losses are estimated to be US$341.3 billion, or 0.70% of global gross national income. While the aim of the tool is to capture the majority of the costs, the estimates are likely to be conservative since economic costs of increased household caregiving time (mainly borne by women), and treatment costs related to other diseases attributable to not breastfeeding according to recommendations are not included in the analysis. This study illustrates the substantial costs of not breastfeeding, and potential economic benefits that could be generated by government and development partners’ investments in scaling up effective breastfeeding promotion and support strategies.

Rates of exclusive breastfeeding are slowly increasing, but remain suboptimal globally despite the health and economic benefits. This study estimates the costs of not breastfeeding across seven countries in Southeast Asia and presents a cost-benefit analysis of a modeled comprehensive breastfeeding strategy in Viet Nam, based on a large programme. There have been very few such studies previously for low- and middle-income countries. The estimates used published data on disease prevalence and breastfeeding patterns for the seven countries, supplemented by information on healthcare costs from representative institutions. Modelling of costs of not breastfeeding used estimated effects obtained from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Modelling of cost-benefit for Viet Nam used programme data on costs combined with effects from a large-scale cluster randomized breastfeeding promotion intervention with controls. This study found that over 12 400 preventable child and maternal deaths per year in the seven countries could be attributed to inadequate breastfeeding. The economic benefits associated with potential improvements in cognition alone, through higher IQ and earnings, total $1.6 billion annually. The loss exceeds 0.5% of Gross National Income in the country with the lowest exclusive breastfeeding rate (Thailand). The potential savings in health care treatment costs ($0.3 billion annually) from reducing the incidence of diarrhoea and pneumonia could help offset the cost of breastfeeding promotion. Based on the data available and authors’ assumptions, investing in a national breastfeeding promotion strategy in Viet Nam could result in preventing 200 child deaths per year and generate monetary benefits of US$2.39 for every US$1, or a 139% return on investment. These encouraging results suggest that there are feasible and affordable opportunities to accelerate progress towards achieving the Global Nutrition Target for exclusive breastfeeding by 2025.

Breastfeeding is critical to maternal and child health and survival, and the benefits persist until later in life. Inappropriate marketing of breastmilk substitutes (BMS), feeding bottles, and teats threatens the enabling environment of breastfeeding, and exacerbates child mortality, morbidity, and malnutrition, especially in the context of COVID-19. These tactics also violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. This study identified marketing tactics of BMS companies since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic by reviewing promotional materials and activities from 9 companies in 14 countries, and the official Code reporting data from the Philippines. Eight qualitative themes emerged that indicate companies are capitalizing on fear related to COVID-19 by using health claims and misinformation about breastfeeding. Other promotional tactics such as donations and services were used to harness the public sentiment of hope and solidarity. Past studies show that these tactics are not new, but the pandemic has provided a new entry point, helped along by the unprecedented boom in digital marketing. There was a sharp increase of reported violations in the Philippines since the pandemic: 291 during the first months of the outbreak compared with 70 in all of 2019, corroborating the thematic findings. A lack of public awareness about the harm of donations and inadequate Code implementation and enforcement have exacerbated these problems. Proposed immediate action includes using monitoring findings to inform World Health Assembly (WHA) actions, targeted enforcement, and addressing misinformation about breastfeeding in the context of COVID-19. Longer-term action includes holding social media platforms accountable, raising public awareness on the Code, and mobilizing community monitoring.

The influence of marketing on infant and young child feeding and health is well recognized, and an International Code was adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981 to reduce inappropriate marketing and protect breastfeeding. Yet the marketing and influencing continue. This scoping review systematically examined the published research evidence on the nature and extent of exposure to International Code violations from 1981 to August 2021. We used several search strategies involving multi‐language databases, organization websites, citation tracking, and expert consultation, to find research items meeting our inclusion criteria. We evaluated 657 items and retained 153 studies from at least 95 countries in the review. The majority of the studies (n = 113) documenting exposure to inappropriate marketing were published since 2010. Studies reported a broad range of marketing violations targeting mothers and families, health workers, and the general public. Marketing via digital platforms and brand extension has become more frequent. The evidence shows the use of misleading and inaccurate labeling and health and nutrition claims in breach of the Code. Our review confirms that violations of the Code have not ceased and calls for renewed attention from the WHA and national governments to protect the health of children and their mothers.

Introduction Recommendations for the clinical management of new mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and their infants are required. Guidance must weigh the risk posed by transmission of SARS-CoV-2 against the protection that maternal proximity and breastfeeding provide infants. Our aim was to review international COVID-19 guidance for maternal and newborn care, assessing alignment with WHO recommendations and the extent to which policy supported or undermined breastfeeding. Methods Guidance documents from 33 countries on the care of infants whose mothers were suspected or confirmed as having COVID-19 were assessed for alignment with WHO recommendations regarding: (1) skin-to-skin contact; (2) early initiation of breastfeeding; (3); rooming-in; (4) direct breastfeeding; (5) provision of expressed breastmilk; (6) provision of donor human milk; (7) wet nursing; (8) provision of breastmilk substitutes; (9) psychological support for separated mothers; and (10) psychological support for separated infants. Results Considerable inconsistency in recommendations were found. Recommendations against practices supportive of breastfeeding were common, even in countries with high infant mortality rates. None of the guidance documents reviewed recommended all aspects of WHO guidance. The presence of influential guidance conflicting with WHO recommendations and an undervaluing of the importance of maternal proximity and breastfeeding to infant health appeared to contribute to this poor alignment. Conclusion Those developing guidance in the COVID-19 pandemic and other infectious disease outbreaks need to appropriately consider the importance of skin-to-skin contact, early initiation of breastfeeding, rooming-in and breastfeeding to maternal and infant physical and psychological health. In weighing the value of recommendations of others in future guidance development, countries should consider past reliability and value placed on breastfeeding. Recommendations against maternal proximity and breastfeeding should not be made without compelling evidence that they are necessary, and less harmful than maintaining dyad integrity.