4.7 Article

Commercial Snack Food and Beverage Consumption Prevalence among Children 6-59 Months in West Africa

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11112715

Keywords

complementary feeding; children; snack foods; malnutrition; West Africa

Funding

  1. Open Philanthropy Project
  2. GiveWell
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1190179]
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1190179] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Consumption of commercial snack food and beverage products among infants, young, and school-aged children may have negative effects on child nutritional outcomes, as these foods are typically dense in energy but not in micronutrients. However, there is limited information available about the consumption of such snacks in low-income settings, particularly in Africa. We contribute to filling this gap using data from 11,537 children aged 6-59.9 months from four West African countries (i.e., Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, and Niger). We estimated the prevalence of commercial snack food and drink consumption and explored variations within the sample by age group, urban or rural residence, household wealth status, and caregiver educational attainment. The results show that 25.7% of children in Niger, 31.5% in Burkina Faso, 42.9% in Mali, and 45.4% in Cote d'Ivoire ate at least one commercial snack food or beverage in the prior 24 h. Consumption prevalence was significantly higher in urban areas than rural areas, among older children (ages 2-5 y) than those in the complementary feeding period (6-23.9 months), and among children in wealthier households. These relationships were confirmed via logistic regression. Our results confirm the widespread consumption of commercial snack foods and drinks by young children in West Africa, a finding with relevance for nutrition policy and programming.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available