This cross‐sectional survey assessed the characteristics of labels of follow‐up formula (FUF) and growing‐up milk (GUM) compared with infant formula (IF), including cross‐promotion practices between FUF/GUM and IF manufactured by the same company, sold in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Kathmandu Valley, Nepal; Dakar Department, Senegal; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. All products were imported. A wide recommended age/age range for introduction was provided by manufacturers across all sites, with products with an age recommendation of 0–6 months being most prevalent in three sites, representing over a third of all products. Various age categories (e.g. 1, 1+ and Stage 1) commonly appeared on labels. A number of descriptive names (e.g. infant formula and milk formula) per category of age of introduction were used with some appearing across more than one category. Images of feeding bottles were found on most labels across all age categories, but prevalence decreased with older age categories. The majority of FUF/GUM manufactured by IF companies across all sites displayed at least one example of cross‐promotion with one or more of the company's IF: two‐thirds or more contained similar colour schemes/designs and similar brand names; 20–85% had similar slogans/mascots/symbols. A wide and potentially confusing range of ages/categories of introduction and descriptive names were found, and cross‐promotion with IF was common on FUF/GUM labels. Global guidance from normative bodies forms the basis of most low and middle income countries policies and should provide specific guidance to prohibit cross‐promotion between FUF/GUM and IF, and all three categories should be classified as breastmilk substitutes.

In order to assess the prevalence of point‐of‐sale promotions of infant and young child feeding products in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Kathmandu Valley, Nepal; Dakar Department, Senegal; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, approximately 30 retail stores per site, 121 in total, were visited. Promotional activity for breastmilk substitutes (BMS) and commercially produced complementary foods in each site were recorded. Point‐of‐sale promotion of BMS occurred in approximately one‐third of sampled stores in Phnom Penh and Dakar Department but in 3.2% and 6.7% of stores in Kathmandu Valley and Dar es Salaam, respectively. Promotion of commercially produced complementary foods was highly prevalent in Dakar Department with half of stores having at least one promotion, while promotions for these products occurred in 10% or less of stores in the other three sites. While promotion of BMS in stores is legal in Senegal, it is prohibited in Cambodia without prior permission of the Ministry of Health/Ministry of Information and prohibited in both Nepal and Tanzania. Strengthening legislation in Senegal and enforcing regulations in Cambodia could help to prevent such promotion that can negatively affect breastfeeding practices. Key messages Even in countries such as Cambodia, Nepal and Tanzania where point‐of‐sale promotion is restricted, promotions of BMS were observed (in nearly one‐third of stores in Phnom Penh and less than 10% in Dar es Salaam and Kathmandu).Limited promotion of commercially produced complementary foods was evident (less than 10% of stores had a promotion for such foods), except in Dakar Department, where promotions were found in half of stores.Efforts are needed to strengthen monitoring, regulation and enforcement of restrictions on the promotion of BMS.Manufacturers and distributors should take responsibility for compliance with national regulations and global policies pertaining to the promotion of breastmilk substitutes.

National legislation and global guidance address labelling of complementary foods to ensure that labels support optimal infant and young child feeding practices. This cross‐sectional study assessed the labels of commercially produced complementary foods (CPCF) sold in Phnom Penh (n = 70), Cambodia; Kathmandu Valley (n = 22), Nepal; Dakar Department (n = 84), Senegal; and Dar es Salaam (n = 26), Tanzania. Between 3.6% and 30% of products did not provide any age recommendation and 8.6−20.2% of products, from all sites, recommended an age of introduction of <6 months. Few CPCF products provided a daily ration (0.0−8.6%) and 14.5−55.6% of those that did exceeded the daily energy recommendation for complementary foods for a breastfed child from 6 to 8.9 months of age. Only 3.6−27.3% of labels provided accurate and complete messages in the required language encouraging exclusive breastfeeding, and almost none (0.0−2.9%) provided accurate and complete messages regarding the appropriate introduction of complementary foods together with continued breastfeeding. Between 34.3% and 70.2% of CPCF manufacturers also produced breastmilk substitutes and 41.7−78.0% of relevant CPCF products cross‐promoted their breastmilk substitutes products. Labelling practices of CPCF included in this study do not fully comply with international guidance on their promotion and selected aspects of national legislation, and there is a need for more detailed normative guidance on certain promotion practices in order to protect and promote optimal infant and young child feeding.