[MelKnee]

I don't agree with all the changes, but overall this is long past due.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8JA6RO80.html

Quote:

Adding fruits, vegetables and whole grain products follows changes last year to the government's dietary guidelines.

Quote:

The new list would increase the amount of canned fish to 30 ounces and add canned salmon as an option.

 

[aniT]

Quote:

The program would pay for $6 worth of fruits and vegetables for children and $8 for women per month. These totals are about $2 less than the institute recommended, keeping the program's cost unchanged from current levels.

What the heck is $6 worth of fruit going to buy? I paid $7 for a watermelon the other day! (Ok it was organic but still?) I paid $15 for grapes, and don't get me started on the price of apples!!

And why are they increasing tuna? More mercury anyone?

I also think they should cut milk more. When I was on WIC I was passing that stuff out to the neighborhood! Two cups is more than a child needs. Too much milk leads to anemia as well.

 

[kat85]

Hey, at least they changing it after 26 years of the same thing. But it about time they allow bread on WIC.

 

[LongIsland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT And why are they increasing tuna? More mercury anyone?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I don't see that as impressive, it's horrendous. Tuna consumption is down because of the dangers and the government picks up the slack?

Oh, this is laughable:

The revisions follow the advice of the federally chartered Institute of Medicine, which said the WIC program needs to reflect changes in science and society since it was created three decades ago.

 

[LongIsland]

The president of the U.S. Tuna Foundation, Anne Forristall Luke, applauded the plan. "Canned tuna is a convenient, affordable and nutritious food we all grew up on and is unrivaled in its nutritional benefits," she said.

:

. . . and I wonder how much "lobbying" he did to his government buddies in order to make it happen. FTR, the tuna industry successfully kept tuna off the "danger list" until consumer groups caused a huge uproar a few years ago. It was only then that the FDA added tuna to the list.

The expanded food list was outlined Friday in a proposed change to the WIC program. The Agriculture Department will accept comments from the public over the next three months. Final approval is expected next year.

Hopefully consumer groups will come out in force on this one before approval.

 

[menudo]

I am a former member of the NYS WIC Board. I was a clueless member but still...

Sadly, it is all about the $$. 'Formula companies will kill to be the WIC formula of choice! They have to give out X amount of formula ot continue funding. Why no soy? The dairy council aint having it! Organic food? NO way! Besides often (yet not always) costing more, it would be agreeing organic is better or different than conventional. Wh ycan't I get hydrogentated free peanut butter even tho the cost is the same? Just b/c they say so.

It does vary from state to state, depending on who lobbies best, etc.

All politics.

The program has a good heart but...

 

[LongIsland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebesho2 Sadly, it is all about the $$.

Exactly.

2005 Wall Street Journal article
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05213/547155.stm

Food companies urged the FDA not to single out canned tuna. In private meetings with FDA officials in fall 2000, industry and agency documents show, the industry argued that health data were inconclusive, that citing canned tuna would drive down its consumption by 19 percent to 24 percent, and that seafood producers "would face the distinct possibility of numerous class action lawsuits."

A strict advisory "could have an irreversible impact on American dietary habits, profoundly affecting consumers and producers of seafood and resulting in significant segments of the population turning away from the proven health benefits of fish consumption," said a 2000 letter to an FDA commissioner from three trade groups: the National Food Processors Association, the National Fisheries Institute and the U.S. Tuna Foundation.

When the FDA issued a revised mercury advisory in 2001, it urged women of childbearing age to shun four high-mercury species: swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico. It didn't mention tuna. Yet cumulatively, according to data provided by the EPA, the four species it urged avoiding account for less than 10 percent of Americans' mercury ingestion from fish, while canned tuna accounts for about 34 percent of it.

 

[MelKnee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT And why are they increasing tuna? More mercury anyone?

But, you can get salmon. You don't have to get tuna.

 

[aniT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelKnee But, you can get salmon. You don't have to get tuna.

Salmon is an acquired taste. You either like it or you hate it. I personally HATE IT. ick!

Even if that were not an issue, there have been studies where cans labeled as the "safe tuna" didn't actually contained that tuna but contained the tuna that is unsafe.

There have also been studies where consumer groups randomly bought "safe" fish from local markets and had them tested. They ended up having very high levels of mercury.

I no longer trust the FDA to tell me what is safe and what is not. I do not trust ANY fish. I sure would not take the chance while pregnant or breast feeding.

 

[LongIsland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT I no longer trust the FDA to tell me what is safe and what is not.

The advisory doesn't even jive with a mercury risk assessment that the EPA produced on its own years before the advisory. From the same WSJ article:

The federal advisory said that nursing mothers and women who are pregnant or may become so should eat no more than 12 ounces of chunk light tuna a week. For solid white albacore, which is higher in mercury, it set a six-ounce weekly limit. Young children, it said, should eat "smaller portions." No advice was given for men or older women.

The maximum mercury ingestion the EPA deems safe is one microgram a day for each 22 pounds of body weight. If a 130-pound woman ate as much albacore tuna as the joint federal advisory allows, she would exceed that safe level by 40 percent.

[MY NOTE: And the half a can of tuna the advisory recommends for a child exceeds EPA limits by more.]

"This is a glaring example of shutting out science," says Vas Aposhian, a University of Arizona toxicologist. He quit the FDA's Food Advisory Committee in early 2004 because he felt the agency ignored the panel's instructions to hew closely to the EPA's mercury maximum.

 

[MillingNome]

I think of WIC as sadly a government program started with the best of intentions only to be taken over by outside lobbiest (sp?) and bad science. When I was getting WIC a number of years ago, my freinds were too. We were all young, poor moms. I nursed, they didn't. I still can't figure out why I nursed since I knew nothing about all the benefits. All I knew was it was easy and cheap

My friends laughed at me because they didn't understand why I didn't just give dd the FREE formula from WIC?!?! I know it was a small group of just my friends, but I can't help but think of how many would nurse if WIC didn't give the formula away...

And the TUNA

: Sure if your trying to get a lifetime's worth of mercury before you're 5 years. Ugh.

 

[brookely ash]

Quote:

Fruits, vegetables and whole grains are being added to the program, which helps feed more than half the babies born in the U.S.

i didn't realize that statistic. thats a lot of people not able to readily afford food in our country!

 

[aniT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brookely ash i didn't realize that statistic. thats a lot of people not able to readily afford food in our country!

The income guidlines are kinda low. I don't think that half is right.

 

[brookely ash]

i know the guidlines very well! thats why i was shocked it was over 50% of america....

i can't find the actual data, atleast not with a quick google search.

 

[aniT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brookely ash i know the guidlines very well! thats why i was shocked it was over 50% of america.... i can't find the actual data, atleast not with a quick google search.

Like I said, I don't think it is acurate. We would have to have two more children, (not including the one I am pregnant with now) before we qualified.

We live pay check to pay check as it is.

 

[maxmama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT Like I said, I don't think it is acurate. We would have to have two more children, (not including the one I am pregnant with now) before we qualified. We live pay check to pay check as it is.

Those are the federal guidelines. states can (and do) choose to fund WIC beyond the federal mandates. WA, for example, at the time of my son's birth had a limit of twice the federal poverty level, which, while still low in comparison to the cost of living, was pretty close to what my friends and I were making fresh out of school.

WA also does choose to fund organic milk and has had farmer's market checks ($30/person last I checked) for years. Each state makes WIC a different program, depending on what they're willing to fund.

The changes aren't perfect, but MUCH better than being essentially drowned in milk and cheese. WIC isn't intended to replace all food anyway; it's a supplemental food program intended to supply very specific nutrients. Even the formula program doesn't supply all formula needed by a child over 4-6 months. No, it's not perfect, but it's food, and in this country there are very few sources of support for families.

About salmon being an acquired taste -- well, what isn't? I hated tuna as a kid. It seems like a reasonable alternative, though as the daughter of a fisherman in the Gulf of AK I would hope it's wild and not farmed.

 

[aniT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxmama Even the formula program doesn't supply all formula needed by a child over 4-6 months. No, it's not perfect, but it's food, and in this country there are very few sources of support for families.

When I was on WIC with both my older daughter they not only supplied enough formula for them after 6 months old, but I had enough left over to keep giving them formula until about 15 or 16 months.

Of course you could ONLY do this if you bought the powdered. I believe we got something around 8 cans of the powdered formula a month.

 

[maxmama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aniT When I was on WIC with both my older daughter they not only supplied enough formula for them after 6 months old, but I had enough left over to keep giving them formula until about 15 or 16 months. Of course you could ONLY do this if you bought the powdered. I believe we got something around 8 cans of the powdered formula a month.

This is not the case in WA. We routinely would see mamas who, having chosen to FF because of the free formula, now did not have enough formula to get them through the month and were upset at having to buy more.

 

[ASusan]

I believe the approximately 25% of the children in the US are under the poverty line. If WIC income guidelines are over the poverty line, then it would easily be able to be a source of food security for half of the country's children.

 

[menudo]

WIC income levels are fairly high compared to other gov't programs. this shocks many but I was making $11 an hour for a family of FOUR in NJ (making less now) and was told by FOOD STAMPS that I make sooo much money! I did finalyl get some assistance tho.Technically $20,000 a year for a family of 4 is over the poverty line in the USa!