Last week I attended a Food Summit put on by California WIC (Women, Infants, and Children - the government nutrition program for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, infants, and kids 5 and under). I had no clue what it would be about when I signed up.
Turns out, the day long "summit" was worthwhile in terms of learning about the WIC program itself, and because it gave me (and therefore all of you as soon as I tell you how) a chance to help shape its future. As I left, I realized that the recent changes in the WIC program are perhaps the only good thing to come out of the Bush administration's entire eight years in office!
WIC is exactly the sort of program you'd imagine that Bush and their buddies would decide to defund, put under a Heckuva-Job Brownie style cronie, or privatize. I can't imagine why they didn't do that. Maybe they forgot. Instead, they slipped up and allowed the program to actually get better. Oops.
(BTW - there is an action item at the bottom of the diary.)
Note: The meeting was very California-centric but the program is national and so is the action item.
WIC was created in the 1970's and it provides breastfeeding support, nutrition counseling, and vouchers for specific foods to its recipients. The foods it provides are intended to supplement the diets of the recipients - they aren't meant to be enough to live on entirely. Also - unlike food stamps which gives recipients a dollar value to spend on anything - WIC specifies foods by the quantity, not dollar value.
The people who are eligible for WIC must make below 185% of the poverty line. That means that a family of 4 makes $38,203/year or less. It's possible for someone to make too much money for food stamps (which are available for those making 130% of the poverty line) but still qualify for WIC. In fact, 60% of CA babies are WIC babies, so we're not just talking about the totally destitute segment of the population at all.
The problem with WIC for many years now is that the foods and the advice it provides clash with one another. The counselors are stuck in a position of saying "Here's a bunch of juice but don't drink it. Here's some cheese but don't eat it. Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables but we won't give you any. Breastfeed your baby but here, have some formula."
The foods WIC gives out were determined in the '70s with one small change in the 1980's, but nutritional advice has advanced quite a bit since then. Obesity wasn't an issue then. Now it is.
The problem's fairly obvious when you look at where WIC's money goes. Of their budget spent on food, they spend:
- 38% on infant formula
- 24% on milk, cheese, and eggs
- 18% on juice
- 3% on cereal
- 1% on tuna, carrots, and beans
- 1% on peanut butter
- 1% on infant cereal
So what did the Bush administration do that's so good? They've (FINALLY) updated the WIC foods to match nutrition advice!!! AND they've aimed to do it in a way that's cost neutral, flexible for those with limited ability for transportation, cooking, and storage, and culturally sensitive. NICE! I wish a liberal could take credit for this!
What did they do? Well...
- More Fruits & Veg: They are giving less juice but providing $6-$10 per month for fresh fruit and veggies. They also allow processed alternatives such as dried, canned, or frozen items, and baby food.
- More whole grains: Cereal must be 51% or more whole grain and a variety of whole grains are allowed.
- Incentives for breastfeeding: Less formula for partially breastfed infants, increased market value for the food package for fully breastfeeding mothers, and discouragement of formula in the first month.
- Lower saturated fat: Less cheese is allowed as a milk substitute and milk must be 2% or less for all participants over the age of 2.
- Increased participant choice: Canned as well as dried beans are allowed, as are processed forms of fruit/veg as described above, and a variety of whole grains.
- Foods follow the government's dietary guidelines: Baby food is replacing some juice, juice is limited overall even for participants too old for baby food, and the only participants to receive whole milk are one year olds.
The new foods are part of an interim final rule that's being implemented right now. It has the full force of a final rule, but the government is still taking comments on it and plans to work out the kinks found during the implementation period when it issues a final rule later. The purpose of the meeting I attended was for Californians to weigh in on how we'd like to see the new rule implemented in our state.
In this diary, I'll share the discussion I heard at the meeting, and give you instructions to comment to the government so we can all make sure the final rule is something we like.
The government set a few specifications around the implementation of the new rule. First off, the state can switch to the new foods for each group (pregnant women, children, and breastfeeding mothers/infants) separately BUT must make the switch for a group completely not gradually when it does so. In other words, you can start out by switching only pregnant women over to the new foods but you can't move them to less cheese one month, add fruits/veggies the next, and reduce juice the month after that.
The second specification is that the government rule requires certain things and then lists optional substitutions that a state may or may not choose to allow. A state may choose to skip on a substitution to make their implementation easy or they might decide to allow the substitution to add flexibility for their state's WIC participants (particularly if the substitution is culturally sensitive to a large population in the state).
Allow me to pontificate for a moment about why this is so great. The program in general is exactly what I think we need to do to turn around the nutrition problems in our country. McDonalds, etc, makes it incredibly easy for people to eat poorly. A well-run program that makes it easy for people to eat well is practically the only way to combat that.
A Republican might point fingers at this program because it's taking money out of their pocket and redistributing it to someone with less than them. Well, this is a darn good investment. Ensuring health during a child's first years and teaching mothers and children about healthy eating habits is one of the best long term investments we can make.
I don't have any data to quote but I'd bet that a child who gets off to a healthier start will be able to focus and learn better in school and will ultimately benefit society more (or harm it less) than a child without that opportunity. I'd love to compare the amount of money spent on WIC with the amount of money saved (due to WIC) on policing the streets, trying and jailing criminals, and performing other costly government functions that WIC reduces the need for.
Of course, the program's benefits are limited if the foods given out aren't so healthy (as has been the case in the past, apparently). I spoke to a WIC counselor during lunch and she told me that some mothers she talks to think that gummi bears are actually fruits. She says they'll report eating fruits and veggies about once a week.
For the record, once a week is less than the WIC recommendation of five a day. (The numbers they tell you to remember are 5-2-1-0... Five fruits/veggies, two hours of TV or less, 1 hour of physical activity, and zero sugary drinks per day.) The cash value vouchers for fruits and veggies are obviously very badly needed.
Another point to note is the impact the changes will have on non-WIC participants who live in lower income areas. Because retailers must be approved by the government to receive WIC vouchers - and because retailers are falling all over themselves to capture some of the over $900k in CA alone - many stores are going to start carrying more healthy foods to remain WIC-approved. That means that all of those stores' shoppers will have more access to healthy foods!
After lunch everyone split out into breakouts and I attended the one on Farm-to-WIC. I think I made a good choice because it seemed to have a good amount of controversy going on in terms of changes the attendees want in the interim final rule. That means we need to send comments in to ask for these changes if we're going to get them.
Currently, there's a Farmers Market Nutrition Program that is separate from WIC but associated with it in that the same group is eligible for it. Whereas WIC's budget in CA runs over $1 billion, FMNP only gets a paltry $3 million. In CA, it currently includes 385 markets and 1100 farmers. (That's small considering that the program has 1.4 million women and children participating in the state.)
FMNP provides $20 in 10 $2 cash vouchers to participants per season (May - Sept). They are allowed to add cash to a WIC voucher if they want to buy something more expensive, but they cannot get change back from a WIC voucher if they buy something under $2. Farmers are asked to make up the difference with extra fruits and veggies if someone is buying something that costs less than $2.
In other words, there is some precedent for WIC participants shopping at farmers' markets. The program is very popular as it brings extra business to the farmers and delicious, healthy food to WIC families. To date, there are no plans to replace FMNP now that the WIC rules have changed to include fruits and veggies.
Here are the concerns I heard expressed in the breakout about the program. I hope you'll take the time to send comments into the government about these issues after you read them. I've put instructions at the bottom of the diary.
- A farmer must sell at least 2 fruits and 2 vegetables to qualify as an approved WIC vendor. This was the #1 thing that people disliked (even though they liked the new rule very much overall). Everyone felt that it was reasonable to ask that a farmers' market had at least 2 fruits and 2 vegetables, because sometimes individual farmers sell only fruits or only vegetables.
- Farmers were concerned about the process to become approved. In the rules, farmers must apply and then attend training. Because farmers are already jumping through bureaucratic hoops for the FMNP, they wanted to see the two programs streamlined together. Farmers' markets can also get set up to accept food stamps and even though the government views these as 3 separate programs, every added step required of the farmers is a barrier to increasing farmer participation.
- Farmers were also concerned about requirements for reimbursement for WIC vouchers. Right now, the rule specifies that a WIC participant much use her voucher within the month it was given for. The rule adds that the farmer must redeem it for cash within that same month. If the farmer fails to do so, then sorry Charlie, you get no reimbursement. This was VERY unpopular. FMNP gives farmers the entire season to turn in their vouchers and allows them to turn them in to the market manager so they can redeem them immediately. Both options were more favorable to the farmers attending the meeting compared to the way the new rule for WIC currently stands.
- Attendees wanted flexibility in distribution methods of farm-fresh produce. For example, can the WIC vouchers be used towards a CSA? How about a mobile produce stand? And what if a farmer sells food he or she grew along with food purchased for resale from another farmer? Some of the attendees came from non-profits that use a variety of creative methods to make fresh, local produce accessible to low income people and they were looking to make sure that they'd be included here. Since the new WIC rules are so well-aligned with the missions of these non-profits, it'd be silly to exclude them over eligibility technicalities.
ACTION: To comment on these items or anything else, please go here. If that doesn't work, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID FNS-2006-0037.
I still think that the Bush administration must have done this by accident, or something, but I'm smiling ear to ear over it. For nearly 8 years I've been entirely stumped any time I was asked to name one good thing the Bush administration did. Now I've got one. It's not much to show for 8 years but with these criminals in office, I'll take it.