LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 21, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Rise Up or Die

Revenge of the Bear: Russia Strikes Back in Syria

Tumblr Is Worth $1.1 Billion to Yahoo for One Reason: You

Real American Boy: How Our Byzantine Immigration System and Failed Economy May Have Made a Terrorist

DOJ Allegedly Spied on Fox News Correspondent, the FBI Investigates Bachmann, and More

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Lock Up Washington
 * NEW! * Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued
 * NEW! * Warming Climate Endangers U.K. Farming

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
The John Lennon Letters

The John Lennon Letters

Edited by Hunter Davies
$29.99

Last Dance in Havana

Last Dance in Havana

By Eugene Robinson
$19.95

more items

 
Reports

The Thing That Ate the WIC Budget

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 13, 2010

By 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

All well and good if the pricier formulas were clearly better for babies. (The best thing for babies is breast milk, but that’s another matter.) Manufacturers claim that the additives promote brain and eye development, and that the evidence for this is overwhelming. But while the Food and Drug Administration has approved the additives’ safety, it has not—because it says that’s not part of its mandate—looked into whether they have the claimed beneficial effects. 

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


New and Improved Comments

If 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
breastfeeding 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.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

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 this
rico, suave's avatar

By 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 this

By 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 this

By Ibett, July 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

kerryrose, you are so right! Another product of our
country 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)

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

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 this

By 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 this

By 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 this
kerryrose's avatar

By 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
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.