|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
The Thing That Ate the WIC BudgetPosted on Jul 13, 2010By Ruth Marcus Sometimes an obscure lobbying fight tells a larger story. This phenomenon is playing out right now on the unlikely issue of infant formula—and the broader, disturbing lesson is how hard it is to take even the most common-sense steps to save taxpayer dollars. Infant formula is big business, and formula makers’ biggest customer by far is the federal government. More than half of U.S. formula sales come through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides it free. In fiscal 2009, formula accounted for $850 million of WIC’s $7.3 billion budget. Starting in 2002, formula makers began to offer products with additives—docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA)—to replicate fatty acids in breast milk. Not surprisingly, these formulas cost more. The Agriculture Department, which oversees WIC, allowed state programs to decide what formula to buy. Not surprisingly, formula makers lobbied states to spring for the souped-up versions. And, perhaps not coincidentally, when WIC was reauthorized in 2004, Congress tucked in language telling states that when soliciting bids for infant formula, they could not require manufacturers to include or omit specific ingredients. You can guess what happened next: Formula makers began submitting bids only for the costlier products. A February 2010 Agriculture Department study pegged the added cost at $91 million annually, more than a tenth of the infant formula budget. Now new formulas with even more ingredients—and even higher prices—are being offered through WIC. Advertisement No one expects WIC to go back to the old formula. In fact, it’s not even available. The real issue is what happens as these kinds of ingredients proliferate. DHA and ARA are turning up in everything from baby foods to eggs to juice, along with other ingredients such as prebiotics, probiotics, lutein and lycopene. Additives are threatening to become The Thing That Ate the WIC Budget. With WIC up for reauthorization, the Senate Agriculture Committee has approved a measure to require the Agriculture Department to assess the additives. A House committee this week is poised to consider a similar provision that directs USDA to get the best scientific advice before deciding whether to provide costlier foods with extra ingredients. Not surprisingly, formula makers—Abbott, Nestle and Mead Johnson—are lobbying hard against the provision. So is the manufacturer of the additives, Martek Biosciences Corp., which has brought in well-connected Democratic lobbyist Lanny Davis. In an e-mail to one Democratic lawmaker, Davis argued that the provision “is a ‘Trojan Horse’ for those who have an agenda to deprive women, and especially poor women … of the choice of using infant formula,” and warned of potential “discriminatory” effects. In a telephone interview, Davis said the issue was being pushed by unnamed “lactivists” who want to force all women to use breast milk. The industry trade group, the International Formula Council, was also quick to play the race card, arguing that it “would likely result in a two-tiered system, in which nutritionally at-risk WIC participants, many of whom are minorities, are denied access to products widely available to the general population.” This touching concern for the poor would be more persuasive if those supporting a scientific review did not include the National WIC Association; the California WIC Association, the largest state group; and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, lawmakers who like to lecture about wasting taxpayer dollars are oddly hostile to a provision that could spend them more wisely. In the House committee, Michigan Republican Peter Hoekstra is expected to try to strike the review provision, and it is at risk of being removed on the Senate floor. You might think that lawmakers would welcome the chance to save money in an era of tight budgets. You might think that companies confident about their products’ value would welcome the chance for a federal stamp of approval, not fight it. But only if you haven’t spent much time in Washington. Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2010, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Reality and Reform for How the EU Keeps Its Peace Next item: There’s Just No Pleasing Some Robber Barons New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Monalisa, July 16, 2010 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
What I find disturbing is the fact that within WIC
Report thisbreastfeeding is not very well promoted as a
better alternative.
There is a widespread Eww factor some women
take, on breastfeeding in general. I’ve never
understood this. By all accounts, breastfeeding
is way more convenient. No bottles to deal with,
no measuring, or having to make sure the temp
is just right.
Also, most women who receive WIC must be
under a certain income requirement. Usually not
working or working very little hours per week.
So, the “Not having time” factor seems to be no
excuse for not breastfeeding.
I just wish more women would breastfeed their
babies. Even the most nutritionally deficient
women in American produces better milk than
powder formula.
By JDmysticDJ, July 16, 2010 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
Ruth…! Ruth…! Ruth…! You get more and more annoying as time passes. You want to attribute corporate abuses to Government. When giving anecdotal evidence, two can play that game.
First, Lanny Davis may be registered as a Democratic lobbyist, but he is a corporate shill, loud mouthed, an atrociously rude demagogue, and a warmonger. Note that your other villain in this piece is a Corporatist Republican.
Back to the anecdotal evidence; when it comes to Government versus Business in terms of abuse; how about the Gulf disaster for starters. Small Government Republicans gutted regulations and oversight, but you want to attribute abuses to Big Government.
When Democrats try to initiate regulation and oversight, they are stonewalled by Republicans with cries of “Big Government,” Government takeover,” and other such propagandist blathering. Have you adopted the Corporatist agenda, or are you just being duped by right wing sophistry?
Oh well, you’re not alone, many Democrats, and much of the electorate, are also being duped by right wing sophistry, much of it disseminated by the so called liberal media. In other words, jounalists like you.
Report thisBy rico, suave, July 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
“the broader, disturbing lesson is how hard it is to take even the most common-sense steps to save taxpayer dollars.”
I’ve got an idea!
Let the taxpayers KEEP their dollars and let THEM figure out how to use them!
This is why the Tea Party even exists. The government takes peoples’ money, then, 90% of the time, can’t figure out how to use it wisely.
Report thisBy purplewolf, July 15, 2010 at 3:18 am Link to this comment
The price of infant formula is obscene. I recently was behind a person using WIC to purchase formula and could not believe the prices. The cost of feeding one baby a week is unreal, parents don’t need a two income family if they have just one baby, they need a third source of income just to pay for the formula.
All of these “better additives” will no doubt be found to cause cancer, obesity and other major health issues down the road. For all of the “healthier” food products available, even for people who eat a healthy diet and keep an active lifestyle does not mean you will not be obese. I believe, in many cases of obesity and Diabetes II we see so much of today, can be related to all the additives put into our food supply. There have been theories of putting unhealthy ingredients into the food supply, thus causing medical problem, which lead to more doctor visits and more pills and such to correct the problem created in the first place by mega corporations in the name of greed.
I fed my daughter Similac-popular in the 70’s and put her on skim milk starting at 6 months. And back then, the pediatricians wanted babies from the time they were 6 weeks old to also start having baby cereal. Never heard of much before then as most mothers waited much longer to start babies onto foods other than milk. That was also about when the childhood obesity rates started to climb-giving extra calories when not really needed by babies leads to excessive fat cells in the body.
Yes, we can all see that these companies have our best interest in mind when they make and push their products unto the public.
Report thisBy Ibett, July 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
kerryrose, you are so right! Another product of our
Report thiscountry needing 2 incomes to make ends meet, so the mom has to work, is lazy kids that cannot read, and only want to run up and down the street causing trouble. (gangs)
By PatrickHenry, July 14, 2010 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
The latest PR campaign on Capital Hill is to deny or accept funding for an extra F-35 engine.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/58015-senators-scrap-money-for-second-f-35-engine
No doubt to fight terrorists and that pesky Al Queda air force.
3.9 billion could do alot more good in this country with social programs like WIC than making spare jet engines to give to Israel.
A 637 billion defense budget, what a waste.
Report thisBy jean gerard, July 14, 2010 at 10:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The venality of Congress (or anybody else) deciding to save money by denying
infants the best available food when a substitute for mothers’ milk is needed, is
too low for even a snake to touch.
On the other hand, allowing chemical tampering with formula milk at the risk
of infant health is also venal, yet chemical/pharmaceutical/formula companies
are not to be trusted in this decision because they have generally proved
morally suspect in their overeagerness to get richer.
Surely, such hugely important decisions as this should not be in the hands of
people who know nothing about science and child nutrition, nor in the hands
of money-greedy corporate producers.
All women’s organizations and women as individuals as well as medical and
health authorities ought to get on this one immediately and stay with it. If we
had a decent government, the issue would not be coming up again and again.
(Remember the long fight against Nestle formula being pushed on women in
third world countries who couldn’t afford it, but, believing the advertising,
thought they must use it. Therefore they watered it down to make their supply
last longer, and babies died of water-borne diseases or from malnutrition!)
We’ve been through this kind of battle before and we have to stay with it!
Report thisBy FRTothus, July 14, 2010 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
“...to save taxpayer dollars.”
Does it ever occur to anyone that it’s not about saving taxpayer dollars? That it’s about spending taxpayer dollars in a useless way that enriches the already rich where it can, and is intentionally wasted to keep prices and scarcity up? Pentagon spending is a prime example, agricultural “price supports” another; gifts from the taxpayers to the corporations.
The sad truth of the matter is that our corporate-coddling country is decidedly anti-family.
Report thisBy kerryrose, July 14, 2010 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
Sure, Marcus.
Making infant formula the poster child for saving money is doing the taxpayer’s a service? Supporting Republican claims to ‘review’ government purchase of breast milk as a ‘common sense’ way to save money?
Are you kidding?
How about the ‘common sense’ solution of regulating the cost of inflated corporate sales for items that are essential and should not be subject to corporate monopoly.
Formula, despite your snide comment about breastfeeding, is essential because this country does not support working mothers or childcare, and it is a rare family that can survive on a single salary, so that mom can stay home and ‘do the right thing’—breastfeed.
Report this