Anyone against WIC only providing Breast Feeding Support and foods for only a year? - Page 3

[mysticmomma]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy

My DS is one & he's still getting 95-100% of his nutrition from me!!

i would say that is not "normal" for wic participants.

[khaoskat]

Originally Posted by sandcastle

CrunchyGina - Judging from your location, I am close to you. Probably just one county down from you. I am going to ask them why we seem to get different packages, but at the same time, I have hard time using the milk and eggs that we do get so I'm not sure what I would do with more. I think some months, I won't even get all the milk & eggs at the store b/c I don't know how we would use them. I would like the more juice b/c my kids do drink it and it won't go bad if I do have extra that we don't use one month like milk/eggs will go bad.

I haven't been on WIC very long, but the office in my county did seem to promote breastfeeding. They asked me how long I breastfed, offered their praise and a lot of other info. I don't know if they offer pumps, etc that some other people have mentioned, but at least they aren't totally indifferent either.

CrunchyGina and I are in the same County.

I will find a link to the new WIC food packages that I pulled the information from. It maybe that when you went in initially, you might have told them you wanted less milk, and those notes stay in the system. When I went in this last time, they set up even my first BF'ing package coupons and that was like 6+ months away.

In our county, they will provide a pump for you. I believe it is one you can keep, and is similar to a pump in style. I might have to get one this time around, as the pump I had through my other pregnancies I had to turn back to the original owner (family friend owned a Lactina hospital grade and now her daughter needs it).

[khaoskat]

Originally Posted by mysticmomma

i would say that is not "normal" for wic participants.

That is why, at least in Ohio, they are now classifying a mother as to her nursing status by how much formula she gets from WIC. The more formula she gets from WIC the lower her status for breastfeeding. So, if you are getting like 5-8 cans of formula a month from WIC you are considered minimally bf'ing and are basically given the non breastfeeding mothers package.

[leavemealone]

Originally Posted by khaoskat

CrunchyGina and I are in the same County.

I will find a link to the new WIC food packages that I pulled the information from. It maybe that when you went in initially, you might have told them you wanted less milk, and those notes stay in the system. When I went in this last time, they set up even my first BF'ing package coupons and that was like 6+ months away.

Nope, they asked me nothing about milk. I was asked if I preferred frozen concentrate or bottle juice and if I wanted peanut butter or beans. We have only been on it since mid-Jan and didn't get the full package for Jan b/c we started it in the middle of the month, and before my appt I did see the guidelines for the max benefit package. It just seems that I receive less than the max (which makes total sense for Jan since we began in mid-month). I'm not sure that two extra bottle of juice per month is worth the effort as that's all the additional items we'd really use. I have to go through the Warren county office in Lebanon and I really don't want to deal with the intake clerk there anymore than I have to (she practically argued with me over whether I was married or not and wouldn't take certain items as ID even though the postcard said it was acceptable). Maybe Warren county doesn't so the max food package. I think six gallons of milk allotted per month for three people is a lot so I really don't need more. We am set up until my next appt in early April. Perhaps then they will change it, but I don't think it's worth about $4 per month for two bottles of juice to deal with that lady.

I do agree that WIC does have to draw the line somewhere. Most women (maybe not on this site) are not breastfeeding much past one year so it would make sense to stop the breastfeeding package at that time. I don't view the foods that are provided as all that nutritious to begin with, but it's better than nothing and it does help many women.

[SwanMom]

My sister had WIC when pregnant, but didn't get it for the first year of her son's life. So anyhow, she went in at 1 year & the lady asked what kind of formula he was on. When sis said he had never had formula, the lady asked, "you're kidding! Then what did you feed him?" And she lives in a very pro-breastfeeding state. Sis had to bite her lip so as to avoid sarcasm in her answer. (um. they're called breasts--they produce milk. It's pretty nifty!)

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by mysticmomma

i would say that is not "normal" for wic participants.

Or for most babies

[AspieMom]

Originally Posted by khaoskat

Furthermore, as a breastfeeding child, my baby would get a heck of a lot more baby foods than a formula feed baby will.

Oh my, I know this. BF babies get 95 jars of babyfood each month. My ds won't EAT babyfood. My husband and I eat a lot of applesauce from 4oz jars, and I have given babyfood to about 8 different people.

I am waiting for my son to turn 1 year so we have a manageable amount of milk each month.

[LillianBella]

My question and concern about the WIC program is the amount of tuna that is rationed out. I understand that it's a low income program and tuna is cheap, but isn't it pretty much universally accepted that tuna contains high levels of mercury, which is linked to brain damage? I mean, when you're pregnant or breastfeeding, it seems like everyone is telling you to stay away from tuna, shellfish, etc., and it just seems like a conflicting message that they're sending to low-income women. Thoughts?

I was pleased to see this topic come up! Great discussion.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by LillianBella

My question and concern about the WIC program is the amount of tuna that is rationed out. I understand that it's a low income program and tuna is cheap, but isn't it pretty much universally accepted that tuna contains high levels of mercury, which is linked to brain damage? I mean, when you're pregnant or breastfeeding, it seems like everyone is telling you to stay away from tuna, shellfish, etc., and it just seems like a conflicting message that they're sending to low-income women. Thoughts?

I was pleased to see this topic come up! Great discussion.

Welcome to MDC! That's a good question, but probably one best suited to our Nutrition Forum. Please feel free to start a thread over there.

Just a reminder of the forum guidelines, mamas-- let's keep the conversation focused on promoting breastfeeding. Thanks!

[khaoskat]

Originally Posted by LillianBella

My question and concern about the WIC program is the amount of tuna that is rationed out. I understand that it's a low income program and tuna is cheap, but isn't it pretty much universally accepted that tuna contains high levels of mercury, which is linked to brain damage? I mean, when you're pregnant or breastfeeding, it seems like everyone is telling you to stay away from tuna, shellfish, etc., and it just seems like a conflicting message that they're sending to low-income women. Thoughts?

I was pleased to see this topic come up! Great discussion.

Under the new guidelines, they offer other canned fish - I believe you can get Salmon now.

and prior to the new guidelines, you only got 4 cans a month....

[WingonWing]

No, I'm not against it, and I don't think it's a lactivist issue except in terms of state to state and county to county consistancy. I think a year is a generous amount of time to help people who have children but cannot afford to feed them. While government programs are certainly not above criticism, it has to be considered how much it costs everyone to fund programs to supplement for even a year--and many WIC participants are supplemented through multiple years and multiple children.

Not having that food after one year doesn't mean that you can't BF anymore. Just that you might have shift what you spend your own money on because your supplementation plan has changed.

[Lauren31]

Originally Posted by WingonWing

Not having that food after one year doesn't mean that you can't BF anymore. Just that you might have shift what you spend your own money on because your supplementation plan has changed.

I just posted about this in extended breastfeeding!!!! My problem is that they give BAD information sometimes to women about the benefits of breastfeeding. Many women would otherwise stop breastfeeding!!! My friend is a WIC worker overseas with the military and she swears that WIC is breastfeeding friendly. They encourage nursing etc. But then she tells me that at age one women on WIC who are breastfeeding are no longer supplemented for their additional calorie needs. They are only given whole milk because that is what the baby needs after one. I ask her what if the mom wants to continue breastfeeding? She still doesn't get money for food? She says, the baby needs the whole milk so that is what we cover. If she wants to continue breastfeeding that is her perogative. We will still give the baby 6 dollars a month for fresh fruit/veg/juice. WTF? Am I crazy? I feel like I should say something or go to the office and present these women information on extended breastfeeding!!! These poor women who are going to WIC are basically being TOLD to stop breastfeeding!

[mama1803]

Originally Posted by WingonWing

No, I'm not against it, and I don't think it's a lactivist issue except in terms of state to state and county to county consistancy. I think a year is a generous amount of time to help people who have children but cannot afford to feed them. While government programs are certainly not above criticism, it has to be considered how much it costs everyone to fund programs to supplement for even a year--and many WIC participants are supplemented through multiple years and multiple children.

Not having that food after one year doesn't mean that you can't BF anymore. Just that you might have shift what you spend your own money on because your supplementation plan has changed.

Very well said!

[WingonWing]

Originally Posted by Lauren31

I just posted about this in extended breastfeeding!!!! My problem is that they give BAD information sometimes to women about the benefits of breastfeeding. Many women would otherwise stop breastfeeding!!! My friend is a WIC worker overseas with the military and she swears that WIC is breastfeeding friendly. They encourage nursing etc. But then she tells me that at age one women on WIC who are breastfeeding are no longer supplemented for their additional calorie needs. They are only given whole milk because that is what the baby needs after one. I ask her what if the mom wants to continue breastfeeding? She still doesn't get money for food? She says, the baby needs the whole milk so that is what we cover. If she wants to continue breastfeeding that is her perogative. We will still give the baby 6 dollars a month for fresh fruit/veg/juice. WTF? Am I crazy? I feel like I should say something or go to the office and present these women information on extended breastfeeding!!! These poor women who are going to WIC are basically being TOLD to stop breastfeeding!

I'm not sure what the problem is. Most babies no longer receive their primary nutrition from breastmilk after age 1 (whether it's right or wrong, it's reality). Most babies eat solid food and drink milk after age 1 (unless there's an objection to cow's milk). I'm all for delayed solids and using solids as play/experimentation/texture/learning in the first year while using breastmilk as primary nutrition, but beyond that, it is certainly a CHOICE to continue nursing.

Seriously, the money should go to the baby for food, not the mother. The mother is no longer pregnant, and nursing past age 1 is not generally for nutrition. Therefore, the money should be given to the person who needs to be nourished--the baby. Besides, a mother's caloric needs are no longer as high as they were during the newborn stage.

No one is being TOLD to stop breastfeeding. That's a bit dramatic, IMO. Not giving women money to supplement their own food =/= bad information about breastfeeding.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by WingonWing

I'm not sure what the problem is. Most babies no longer receive their primary nutrition from breastmilk after age 1 (whether it's right or wrong, it's reality). Most babies eat solid food and drink milk after age 1 (unless there's an objection to cow's milk). I'm all for delayed solids and using solids as play/experimentation/texture/learning in the first year while using breastmilk as primary nutrition, but beyond that, it is certainly a CHOICE to continue nursing.

Seriously, the money should go to the baby for food, not the mother. The mother is no longer pregnant, and nursing past age 1 is not generally for nutrition. Therefore, the money should be given to the person who needs to be nourished--the baby. Besides, a mother's caloric needs are no longer as high as they were during the newborn stage.

No one is being TOLD to stop breastfeeding. That's a bit dramatic, IMO. Not giving women money to supplement their own food =/= bad information about breastfeeding.

My sense of what the pp was talking about is a scenario such as:

Mom goes in to the WIC office when her child is 1yr old. Mom has no plans on weaning. WIC says OK you don't get extra for BF'ing because now the baby needs cow's milk. Mom says OK well I guess I better wean since the baby needs cow's milk and I'm not getting the BF'ing package.

I think it's all about how it's presented. I really know nothing about WIC here so I could be off-base. But as a mom whose 17mo is still (happily) getting 90% of his nutrition from breastmilk... I do find the arbitrary age limit odd. I feel like the mom should get to choose -- based on her baby's needs -- whether to continue the BF'ing support package or get extra solid food/cow's milk for the baby.

[craft_media_hero]

Well . . . they go by the AAP's stance on bf for one year--it's a US program and they are not as much led by the WHO standard of 2+ years.

So I asked about this today at WIC---at 1 yr the food package becomes the child's rather than the bf-ingmom's but besides the change to whole milk instead of reduced fat milk which the recommend for the mommas, the food checks are the same (beans/peanut butter, whole grain, juice, veggies, eggs, etc). So the mom/baby are getting the same foods, but the individual technically receiving the foods is the little one. I'm pretty sure that the whole family always shares the foods even though they are "supposed" to be consumed only by the individual on WIC. The child can then get the food checks til age 5. So you're bf-ing that whole time, and you're still getting supplemental foods in the household.

It has been my observation that WIC is not non-supportive of extended breastfeeding past the age of one, but that because they have a huge client base to serve, they are focusing their pro-bf work on increasing duration of bf up to a year for moms who might otherwise not choose to bf at all.

IMO a mom who has nursed up to a year is not going to go "hey I guess I better insta-wean just coz WIC changed the name on the checks and the type of milk we're getting" I think that by 1yr of bf-ing a mom is pretty solid in her decision and doesn't need the same kind of bf support that a mom w/ a 3wk old and a lot of frustration and misinformation might have---so that's where WIC concentrates their pro-bf work, kwim? And a WIC nutrition educator is NOT going to tell a mom to stop bf-ing and switch to cow's milk nuh-uh that is not in their training. Some educators are more pro-bf than others, but none of them are ever going to instruct a mom to wean a child from the breast.

They do support educating moms about gentle, child-led weaning, and the families can still get foods up to when the child is 5 so

[SashaBreeze]

I had a really interesting conversation with my local WIC nutrition counselor today. I live in an area where breastfeeding at all is very rare no less for more than a year. She was saying today that our county has a 30% start up rate for breastfeeding but that most mothers only last 1-3 DAYS because of societal pressures. She feels like her hands are really tied in the situation because there is only so much funding to go around.
On that same note not only did she seemed surprised that I was no longer breastfeeding our youngest but also was very very supportive of me going to be breastfeeding the twins when they get here. After some talking turns out she had twins that she breastfed and that one of her twins also had twins that she breastfeed! how cool is that?
I wonder how much it has to do with the personal history of the people you are working with at WIC and how much is policy? Oh and turns out if you breastfeed twins you get an insane amount of food, so they do take that into account as well which I thought was pretty cool.

[khaoskat]

Originally Posted by Lauren31

I just posted about this in extended breastfeeding!!!! My problem is that they give BAD information sometimes to women about the benefits of breastfeeding. Many women would otherwise stop breastfeeding!!! My friend is a WIC worker overseas with the military and she swears that WIC is breastfeeding friendly. They encourage nursing etc. But then she tells me that at age one women on WIC who are breastfeeding are no longer supplemented for their additional calorie needs. They are only given whole milk because that is what the baby needs after one. I ask her what if the mom wants to continue breastfeeding? She still doesn't get money for food? She says, the baby needs the whole milk so that is what we cover. If she wants to continue breastfeeding that is her perogative. We will still give the baby 6 dollars a month for fresh fruit/veg/juice. WTF? Am I crazy? I feel like I should say something or go to the office and present these women information on extended breastfeeding!!! These poor women who are going to WIC are basically being TOLD to stop breastfeeding!

I have been on WIC for a while. Where I live, except under my previous circumstances of having an extended waiting period to get benefits re-established, they have been awesome with regards to breastfeeding support. They worked their brains off trying to figure out a way to help me a month or so ago when we were going through issues, on how to either get a pump immediately or a scale. They couldn't help, because I was not currently on benefits, but waiting for an appointment, with a rental of either.

When they found out how sick the baby was and we ended up hospitalized (all this went down in a matter of like 2 days - late Thursday, with trying to get their help on Friday, to hospitalized first thing Saturday morning), they were calling and checking up on us in the hospital. When we got out, they offered help, support and assistance as well - even though we were still waiting on our appointment so we could get benefits again.

So, eve though we couldn't rent a pump or scale, they were there and still are, to help through other types of support. And, they worked with us to find a local office with an appointment that was sooner than six weeks away, so that they could help us with what we needed.

I don't mind that my benefits end at 1 year. Even though it would be nice, I should be able to start providing for myself by then. And the "whole" milk thing..they only get "whole" milk from age 1 year to age 2 years. At 2 years of age, you are no longer allowed "whole" milk. And I know many families who continue to use whole milk beyond 1 year of age.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by craft_media_hero

IMO a mom who has nursed up to a year is not going to go "hey I guess I better insta-wean just coz WIC changed the name on the checks and the type of milk we're getting" I think that by 1yr of bf-ing a mom is pretty solid in her decision and doesn't need the same kind of bf support that a mom w/ a 3wk old and a lot of frustration and misinformation might have---so that's where WIC concentrates their pro-bf work, kwim?

I get what you're saying. But at the same time, it's easy to assume that a 1-yr BF'ing mom is knowledgeable & committed (because especially if you spend a lot of time here on MDC, that's often the case!) But I know many mainstream moms that BF up to 10-12 mos and then started the weaning process. "The doctor told them" to switch to whole milk so they could be weaned by their 1st birthday, for ex. Many of them seem to feel sad at the prospect of weaning, or frustrated/nervous about it because their 1-yo eats so few solids. I don't think the idea of BF'ing past age 1 is common knowledge. I didn't know you "could" BF 'til age 2 or longer until I came here to MDC. I likely would've weaned DS around 1 if I hadn't stumbled upon this site. So I think one more person (i.e. the WIC office) reinforcing the idea of weaning at 1 & pushing whole milk from age 1 on is contributing toward the lack of knowledge on EBF.

[smpayne]

Originally Posted by sandcastle

I think six gallons of milk allotted per month for three people is a lot so I really don't need more.

When ds#1 stopped formula at age 1, we went through about 4-5 gallons a WEEK (but we are all big milk drinkers). While this is a huge money saver over formula, it is still acting as their main food source until nearly age 2 unless they are BF. Solids are still acting more like a snack. My cousins family goes through about 2 gallons a week just for their 18 month old.

It is a shame that BF is not encouraged/supported until age 2+, but there is a huge difference from even 20 years ago. There was a time when you couldn't even get pumps through WIC.