Wicked WIC

It can't be said often enough that the rules governing what is and isn't eligible for purchase under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program is crazy and horrible (Ezra example -- soy milk doesn't count as "milk" but chocolate milk does). You could try to modify the program to make it less crazy, but it's obviously the result of a screwed up political process and undue power on the part of Big Cow.

It seems to me that we should just scrap the whole thing and make WIC-eligible people eligible for larger food stamp grants. The food stamps program is far from perfect, but it's a lot less ridiculous and the reasoning behind the idea of two separate-but-similar programs is less than compelling.

Comments

This is a terrible idea, Matt. WIC basically requires you to purchase healthy food, while there is nothing preventing someone with food stamps from buying 100% mountain dew. Also, it is much, much more difficult to commit fraud with WIC checks than with food stamp cards.

Posted by Anonymous | May 19, 2008 3:33 PM

I think the WIC program is an important addition to the food stamp system during times of greater nutritional need - pregnancy and the developmental years of children. Like all governmental programs it could use some fine tuning, but that doesn't mean it should be thrown out altogether.

Posted by Julene | May 19, 2008 3:45 PM

Yeah, Matt, that's just a terrible idea. WIC vouchers give nutritional guidance to a lot of people who've heretofore had none--or, worse yet, been marketed the least healthy goods imaginable (see: Cigarettes, Menthol) in what's no less than a soft genocide of the impoverished.

Is it that hard to add soy milk to the vouchers? You sound like a Republican. "This initiative requires maintenance, so we oughtta just scrap it entirely."

Posted by Luke | May 19, 2008 3:47 PM

WIC? You're going to attack WIC for not giving out free soy milk? Really? Aside from a few lactose intolerant people that will have to do without cereal, WTF is wrong with WIC, or this rule in general? At least it prevents people from spending all their WIC credits on bisquick and syrup.

Recently the Bush administration did something good (gasp, I shudder to type the words). They started to review these food programs and work to educate the recipients that they need to buy more fresh fruits and vegetables, and try to steer them into buying more through their credits. It turns out that fresh fruits and vegetables are cost prohibitive...who knew?? And so using your WIC credits or bridge card won't pay for your daily dietary needs. Of course if you spent it all on pot pies and ramen you'd be fat and happy. Any ways, of the things that Matt can criticize, not paying for soy milk seems a bit trivial when our agricultural policies are still subsidizing cheap sugar production, creating a nation of obese people.

Posted by freddiemac | May 19, 2008 3:47 PM

If there is a change to be made, make food stamps more like WIC. Healthy food choices is one of the main values of the WIC program. The food stamp program, while valuable, allows for some terrible nutritional choices.

By the way, I agree that soy milk should be included. Potato chips and soda, not so much.

Posted by danimal | May 19, 2008 3:53 PM

Also, you can't trade WIC vouchers for drugs. I'd say that the amount of food stamps spent on drugs rivals the amount spent by originary recipients on food.

Posted by Luke | May 19, 2008 3:53 PM

The Food Stamp program should more closely resemble WIC. In fact, that's part of the few good reforms in the most recent Farm Bill. Subsidies for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program are way up. that not only promotes eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, it also encourages more local food production.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 19, 2008 3:53 PM

A terrible idea on the whole, maybe, but to be fair, the soy/cow thing is just one example that Matt chose. Moreover, it's become evident that cow milk is not actually the health food we thought it was in the days of milkmen. (Do a search on "udder pus" some time.) So the current endorsement of cow over soy does conflict a bit with the very reasonable endorsement of vegetables over pot pies, for example.

Posted by Cakesniffer | May 19, 2008 3:57 PM

What other examples are there, cakesniffer?

Posted by Anonymous | May 19, 2008 4:03 PM

If you want to beat on Congress for farm subsidies that don't mirror their own government's nutritional pyramid go ahead. Two single men who live in a blog house should probably refrain from telling young mothers they should buy soy milk and implying that they are bad parents for pushing chocolate milk on their kids.

I'll repost my comment from Ezra's blog.
- - -

Chocolate milk is a good way to get kids to drink milk. The chocolate is a cheap incentive to get kids to make a better nutritional choice then soda. Is abstinence education a good sex ed policy? No. It doesn't work with nutrition either. Chocolate milk is the mutual masturbation of the childhood nutrition world.

LA Times, 4/4/06: "I've been touting chocolate milk for years," says Felice Kurtzman, sports nutritionist for the University of California, Los Angeles' athletic department. "Chocolate milk provides carbohydrates, calcium, other trace minerals. And the important thing is that the kids drink it. I can tell you from our training table that football drinks it, swimming drinks it, track drinks it."

And since chocolate soy milk is the top-selling chocolate milk of any kind in the US maybe all you members of Soy Division should chill a bit with your holier than thou attitudes about chocolate and nutrition.
- - -
I wrote a bunch of stuff about Ezra enjoying a "nice glass of STFU" but deleted it because I know he means well but these are the kinds of posts that make people hate wonks. I just think you should re-examine the assumptions you are making about people in WIC and the purpose of the program and then make recommendations accordingly. Just because WIC is much easier to change than the minds of Congress doesn't mean that is the route to go.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 19, 2008 4:05 PM

As a point of information, green vegetables can provide all the nutrition, including calcium, that one can obntain from milk. It's generallyin a less usable form, yes, but green vegetables have their own advantages. Look up 'moringa leaves' for example. Moringa leaves are a traditional part of the diet of many immigrants of Caribbean extraction, for example, and have advantages for many people who may be intolerant of lactose.

Posted by Hector | May 19, 2008 4:09 PM

No, WIC should be more like food stamps.

With WIC, shopping is awkward and humiliating. With food stamps, you get this slick plastic card that works just like a debit card.

WIC treats you like you're poor and stupid. Food stamps just treats you like you're poor.

There is almost no way to buy drugs with food stamps. I suppose you could trade flour and sugar for crack, but the point is that the program gives something of value to people in poverty. The only way to prevent all people from using those valuable goods unwisely, or from trading them for illicit substances, is to give them nothing at all.

Posted by Dr. Eckhart | May 19, 2008 4:13 PM

Chocolate milk is perfect for recovery after strenuous exercise. It contains the exact right proportions and types of fat, protein (casein), and carbohydrates necessary for muscle recovery and growth. If I had kids and they were active, I would be giving them chocolate milk over soy milk for sure. Especially since soy milk contains a hormone that mimics estrogen.

Posted by lfv | May 19, 2008 4:14 PM

No, WIC should be more like food stamps.

With WIC, shopping is awkward and humiliating. With food stamps, you get this slick plastic card that works just like a debit card.

WIC treats you like you're poor and stupid. Food stamps just treats you like you're poor.

There is almost no way to buy drugs with food stamps. I suppose you could trade flour and sugar for crack, but the point is that the program gives something of value to people in poverty. The only way to prevent all people from using those valuable goods unwisely, or from trading them for illicit substances, is to give them nothing at all.

Posted by Dr. Eckhart | May 19, 2008 4:17 PM

No, WIC should be more like food stamps.

With WIC, shopping is awkward and humiliating. With food stamps, you get this slick plastic card that works just like a debit card.

WIC treats you like you're poor and stupid. Food stamps just treats you like you're poor.

There is almost no way to buy drugs with food stamps. I suppose you could trade flour and sugar for crack, but the point is that the program gives something of value to people in poverty. The only way to prevent all people from using those valuable goods unwisely, or from trading them for illicit substances, is to give them nothing at all.

Posted by Dr. Eckhart | May 19, 2008 4:18 PM

I'd say that the amount of food stamps spent on drugs rivals the amount spent by originary recipients on food.

Any evidence to back this up, or are you just pulling things out of your ass?

Posted by justinb | May 19, 2008 4:18 PM

ATTN DON WILLIAMS:

Actual Haim Saban related news:

Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor
Nico Pitney and Sam Stein | The Huffington Post

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html

There you go, Don.

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 4:19 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Despite its added sugar, flavored milk may be better for kids than no milk at all, and may even be as healthy as the plain variety, a study of U.S. children suggests.

Using national survey data on more than 7,500 2- to 18-year-olds, researchers found that those who drank flavored milk had similar intakes of calcium, vitamin A, potassium and saturated fat as those who drank only plain milk.

And both groups, the study found, got more of these nutrients than children who drank no milk at all.

One reason parents might be wary of chocolate or strawberry milk is that the added sugar might encourage excess weight gain. But in this study, milk drinkers and non-drinkers had a similar average body mass index (BMI), the researchers report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

The findings suggest that flavored milk can be part of a sound diet for children, according to the research team, led by Mary M. Murphy, a nutrition science researcher with Arlington, Virginia-based ENVIRON International Corp.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSCOL45767520080424

Posted by Chocolate Milk | May 19, 2008 4:20 PM

Dr. Eckhart,

You are wrong. Many slum convenience stores will ring up booze as any generic item so that people can buy it with their bridge card. It is a problem. WIC's beauty is that it is limited to actual food, rather than bisquick and ranch dressing.

Posted by freddiemac | May 19, 2008 4:20 PM

Local farmer's markets have been making arrangements with the food stamp people to help make fresh, healthy produce more available to people. That's the kind of arrangement I'd like to see happening, rather than complaints over specific food guidelines. And the 'debit card' food stamps change was brilliant.

Posted by Persia | May 19, 2008 4:21 PM

If the WIC program is changed, trust me, those people buying eggs, cereal, cheese, milk, beans, real juice, and peanut butter(really, the only things WIC will let you purchase) will be spending their EBT allotment on Kool Aid, Cheez Curls, and Banquet Fried Chicken "convenience meals".
I see it everyday as a part time nite cashier at my urban supermarket.
EBT is a major contributing factor for the American Kids Obesity Issue.
Don't change WIC!

Posted by samp426 | May 19, 2008 4:21 PM

What other examples are there, cakesniffer?

I'm no expert, but I found the Louisiana WIC list of allowed foods with a quick search. Among the oddities: you can buy infant formula but not low-iron infant formula (not sure what you're supposed to do if your infant requires the latter); you can buy (only certain brands of) orange juice, but not orange juice fortified with calcium (makes you wonder where the calcium is supposed to come from....).

To quote the great Alton Brown, I'm not a nutritional anthropologist, but I think those two things are two more examples of how the rules are crazy, per Matt's observation.

Posted by Cakesniffer | May 19, 2008 4:22 PM

What other examples are there, cakesniffer?

I'm no expert, but I found the Louisiana WIC list of allowed foods with a quick search. Among the oddities: you can buy infant formula but not low-iron infant formula (not sure what you're supposed to do if your infant requires the latter); you can buy (only certain brands of) orange juice, but not orange juice fortified with calcium (makes you wonder where the calcium is supposed to come from....).

To quote the great Alton Brown, I'm not a nutritional anthropologist, but I think those two things are two more examples of how the rules are crazy, per Matt's observation.

Posted by Cakesniffer | May 19, 2008 4:24 PM

No, WIC should be more like food stamps.

With WIC, shopping is awkward and humiliating. With food stamps, you get this slick plastic card that works just like a debit card.

WIC treats you like you're poor and stupid. Food stamps just treats you like you're poor.

There is almost no way to buy drugs with food stamps. I suppose you could trade flour and sugar for crack, but the point is that the program gives something of value to people in poverty. The only way to prevent all people from using those valuable goods unwisely, or from trading them for illicit substances, is to give them nothing at all.

Posted by Dr. Eckhart | May 19, 2008 4:26 PM

The soy milk example is a bad one, since WIC is primarily intended for babies and toddlers, and babies and toddlers shouldn't be drinking soy milk. Doctors now strongly caution vegan parents NOT to try to feed their babies soy milk because it can't meet their nutritional needs and babies who are fed soy milk wind up malnourished.

But I'm totally with Dr. Eckhart on WIC--I would guess around a third of customers at my local supermarket use WIC; the very cumbersome WIC check process is embarrassing for them and makes buying groceries take at least twice as long for everyone else. It's terribly insulting to assume all poor people will deliberately make unhealthy food choices for themselves and their kids. I don't notice that the people in line around me with EBT cards (food stamps) are buying anything more or less unhealthy than the other people in the store--and to the extent I see people buying things look less healthy than what I would buy, it's mostly items that are cheap and filling (which seems smart if you have a limited budget), not carts stacked up with soda and bug juice.

Posted by flippantangel | May 19, 2008 5:43 PM

On Wik, you can only get the peanut butter with high fructose corn syrup (the junk stuff) you c ant get naturalpeanut butter, or that added with omega threes(especiallyimportant toe pregnant and breastfeeding moms), eventhough their retail value is the same as the crap stuff. Most of the cereals, with few expectptions are full of sugar. Gd forbid if you could actually get whole grains (not on the list of wik cereals)...and yes, shopping with wic is humiliating because they keep telling you you cant get this or that, when most of the time they are wrong...i dread going shopping on wic

Posted by maya | May 19, 2008 5:48 PM

Cakesniffer,

That seems more like a screwy limitation that a state has imposed than a problem with WIC itself.

Dr. Eckhart,

I completely agree that the way WIC is implemented is embarrassing compared to food stamps. However, Matthew wasn't arguing for a technology change, he was arguing for change in the dietary restrictions on it. As a former grocery cashier, I think everyone would agree that making WIC shopping easier would be great. Letting WIC participants buy creme cakes and soda pop, however, would be stupid.

Posted by Anonymous | May 19, 2008 6:05 PM

Also, Dr. Eckhart,

While I don't think food stamp fraud is a serious concern or a knock against the program itself, it does happen, either from basically selling your food stamps or from shady companies charging non-food items as food. WIC is much, much less susceptible to that kind of thing.

Posted by Anonymous | May 19, 2008 6:11 PM

A lot of the comments here are based on assumptions of what poor people would or would not buy given free choice. Some of the comments seem to suggest that limiting food choice is in the person's best interest, to prevent them from buying food with low nutritional value. Some even suggest that this is necessary because of the lack of nutritional education that the poor have.

Here's an idea: flip WIC to food stamps, increase the food stamp budget to allow purchase of produce, and GIVE THEM NUTRITIONAL EDUCATION. Then they can use their unrestricted food stamp dollars (which aren't actually that unrestricted, there's foods that can't be bought with food stamps) to buy whatever food they, with their nutritional knowledge, deem the best use of their budget.

Everyone wins! (Except those who raise the boogey man of fraud, who will not rest until the $$ we spend administering a fraud-free program dwarfs the actual $$ we distribute in benefits.)

Posted by abby jean | May 19, 2008 7:40 PM

abby jean,

What types of food can't be bought with food stamps? According to the food stamps FAQ, everything other than in-store prepared food is eligible.

And WIC does provide nutritional education. But if you think education is enough to keep people from making poor decisions, you must be from one of those Scandinavian utopias.

Posted by Anonymous | May 19, 2008 9:38 PM

WIC basically requires you to purchase healthy food

Except that many state implemations of WIC require you to buy the stuff at the bottom of the range for each food type. No organic dairy, battery eggs only, frozen concentrated OJ, highly processed (but vitamin-fortified) cereals, etc.

So you get the creation of a range of low-tier foodstuffs (WICtory cheese, WICtory eggs -- you've seen them in the grocery aisles) that satisfy the criteria, while subsidising industrial agriculture.

I'm uneasy with tying benefits to specific items, but the idea to provide nutritional education is actually saying 'change the way the US does healthcare, education and food production', which isn't easy. In the meantime, expanding states' leeway to support local producers (the produce coupons are good, but limited) would make a difference.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2008 11:51 PM

pseudonymous in nc - WIC is a grant program. The money states get is fixed.

Without addressing the effects of food pricing and subsides at the macro level asking state WIC programs to expand their menu to include healthier food choices that don't benefit from the irrational subsidies is the same as asking the states cut the number of people that are covered by WIC.

I think it's incredibly wrong headed to address A) the disconnect of farm subsidies and the food pyramid and B) the real but vague problem of obesity through a captive audience of mostly poor pregnant women and mothers with toddlers under the age of 5.

A quick look online at Peapod suggests free range organic eggs cost between 25-40% more and soy milk 33% more than cow milk. Absent an increase in the funding to WIC those people advocating for broadening the WIC offerings are also advocating reducing the scope of the program.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 20, 2008 1:07 AM

You picked a BAD example. WIC is supposed to provide food for infants. Infants should not drink soy "milk" which is just soybeans ground up and mixed with water (often with sugar and flavorings like vanilla added). Soy "milk" is neither milk nor a reasonable substitute (unlike, say, infant formula) and lacks virtually all the nutrients vital to infants. Furthermore, it's full of phytoestrogens which can harm the development of infants (especially boys). Feeding soy "milk" to an infant instead of actual animal (human, cow, goat...) milk is tantamount to child abuse. For good scientific and humanitarian reasons, the WIC program discourages ill-educated, often unwise WIC mothers from poisoning their infants with soy "milk," even if they pick up the notion to do so from some arrogant, ill-informed pundit like you. So next time, do a little research before you spout off about something vital of which you are obviously abysmally ignorant.

Posted by Nonesuch | May 20, 2008 2:52 AM

Re: WIC basically requires you to purchase healthy food

Not really: all sorts of perfectly healthy foods are not included-- like fresh fruit, for example. Also, WIC coupons are very difficult to rpocess, unlike food stamp debit cards which function like a debit card that can only be applied to items classed as "Grocery" in the store's computer system.

Re: Many slum convenience stores will ring up booze as any generic item so that people can buy it with their bridge card.

That is not a problem with food stamp program; that's a problem with the stores doing it. Throw the book at them. Or maybe introduce a rule that no store that sells liquor can accept food stamps (unless maybe the liquor is only sold at a special cash register that does not accept food stamps).

Posted by JonF | May 20, 2008 7:13 AM

Nonesuch,

Green leaves (such as moringa) powdered and mixed with porridge is a nutritious infant food with many of the benefits of milk including calcium. It is promoted as a weaning food and infant food throughout developing countries, particularly for women who do not have enough milk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moringa_oleifera#Malnutrition

WIC needs to be broadened to cover green vegetables.

Posted by Hector | May 20, 2008 8:18 AM

Oh my, a government program that has good intentions, but gets subverted by lobbyists, and thus makes the very people it was meant to help worse off.

no vegetables? No soy-milk products? (for the mom, of course). No yogurt, but cheese is ok.

Bottom line - this is the natural and inevitable effect of government programs where a small number of people can profit greatly from doing a modest amount of harm to a lot of people.

Corruption will always exist. Your democratic leaders are not saints. And, in any case, the concept of a government that requires saints in order to work properly is far more obscene than two chicks, one cup.

Over and over again, we see government programs which start with good intentions, but lead to the accumulation of power and money into the hands of a few, with rather less-good intentions.

The next time you think "There ought to be a government program...", spend 5 minutes thinking about how someone clever and selfish could manipulate and corrupt it to his or her own ends. Then spend as much time as necessary trying to figure out how to set up the program so that doesn't happen. Then share the concept with 25 of your friends, and be dismayed at all the flaws and loopholes that they can discover in your "corruption-proof" plan.

Finally, say to yourself: "After careful examination, I realize that this plan will not do any actual good, but it will give the appearance of doing good things (thus making my party seem more effective), all the while funneling money and power into the hands of corrupt legislators and exploitative businesses."

If, at the end of the day, you choose to benefit your party, even though you know the program will be corrupted and exploited, and bring no actual benefit to the people it's meant to help, congratulations - you're one of the corrupt.

Posted by jb | May 20, 2008 10:23 AM

As far as "a better educated population will make wiser choices" goes, didn't our trust fund Harvard-grad moderator just advocate giving soy milk to infants?

Posted by Luke | May 20, 2008 10:28 AM

Just to add a random note to this conversation, a lot of African Americans (including myself) are lactose intolerant and can't drink milk without great discomfort - therefore some of us rely on soy products instead.

As another note, I had to have soy-based formula as a baby myself - and I don't believe that my parents were "poisoning" me at the time (early 70s) - they were trying to make sure I was able to get *something* down.

Posted by Kath in NoVa | May 20, 2008 10:53 AM

Kath in NoVa: Your remarks show exactly why WIC should NOT pay for soy "milk."

(1) soy-based INFANT FORMULA is VERY DIFFERENT from "soy milk." The infant formula is based on heavily processed extracts from soybeans with many other things added to make it nutritious for infants-- and with dangerous things (phytoestrogens) removed. Infant formula is an industrial substitute for mothers' milk. The supermarket's "soy milk" decoctions are just ground-up soybeans mixed with water (and sugar and flavorings-- read the labels!). If some ignorant mom feeds her infant soy "milk" instead of soy-based infant formula she will starve and/or poison her child.

(2) Many ADULTS (including, as you wrote, many African-Americans, and also many Asian-Americans, and some of everyone else) are lactose-intolerant. Very few INFANTS are lactose-intolerant, because lactose is present in mothers' (human) milk as well as other animal milks. Lactose-intolerant adults who WRONGLY assume that their infants should not eat lactose-containing products are liable to deprive those infants of necessary nutrients. (The very rare baby who really is lactose-intolerant must be given special infant formula. If fed only supermarket "soy milk" such an infant would suffer greatly and might just die.)

(In fact, the human body digests lactose using a particular enzyme which infants and children generate inside their bodies. As people mature, the production of this enzyme tends to fall off. However, in many people (many European-Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans, for example), however, enzyme production remains strong even into adulthood, especially if the person keeps eating lactose-containing foods.)

Posted by Nonesuch | May 20, 2008 12:33 PM

>> our agricultural policies are still subsidizing cheap sugar production

Maybe someone in a previous post corrected it, but the relevant sugar policy is actually an import quota and price support. We are not getting fat off cheap sugar, rather it is the subsidized corn and its refined result, high fructose corn syrup, that is making us fat.

That, and all the grease and saturated fat.

Posted by jn | May 20, 2008 4:24 PM

How many people posting here have actually used WIC?

I haven't myself but I do have two good friends who have each used WIC at various times in their lives. Both have husbands in the military (a post for another time). Due to the WIC program, they were able to get their children milk, cereal, juice, peanut butter, cheese -- all things that kids like. The WIC program is what fed their children breakfast AND lunch for many lean months.

Both of my friends have, at different times, expressed gratitude that the WIC program was available to them. Without it, their children would have not had nearly enough food to eat.

As for the old healthy vs. unhealthy food argument, I would venture to say that when the WIC program was developed, foods were put on the list that were considered healthy for kids at the time AND that kids would actually eat. It's clear that nowadays some people think differently. Note the word 'some'. Outside of the blogosphere, plenty of Americans feed their kids cereal, milk, peanut butter, juice and cheese quite often and consider those foods to be nutritious and healthy.

I think the addition of fresh fruits and vegetables to the WIC program would be great.

As for the person who posted about the WIC program/other government programs being corrupt, I say: that may be. I don't have any personal knowledge in that regard. But you cannot say that the WIC program only gives "the appearance" of doing good. For many, many children across the United States, WIC is the difference between going to bed full or hungry.

Posted by Anne | May 21, 2008 10:46 PM