Washington State turnaround on organic milk policy will impact young mothers, their children, all consumers, local economies, and the organic industry.
Washington State announced plans last week to deny mothers the choice to purchase organic milk for their infants and young children with federal WIC Nutrition Program funds. This decision takes purchasing power away from young mothers who want to buy organic milk and support organic agriculture. The decision also negatively impacts local organic dairy farmers and suppliers by lowering the demand for organic milk. This policy confuses consumers and will set a precedent for other state agencies to deny requests to empower the organic milk industry like it has subsidized the dairy industry since the 1930s.
There are many reasons to choose organic foods. Consumers may be concerned about what synthetic growth hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are doing to their family and the environment. They may appreciate benefits to local economies. They may consider the importance of a more humane treatment of animals. Maybe, they just think that it tastes better or has more nutrients. Whatever the reason, organic consumers are willing to pay more and new mothers are the fastest growing segment of the expanding organic market. However, young mothers on the WIC program are now being told there is “No benefit from organic baby food or milk” and if they want it they will have to buy it with other funds.
The WIC program in Washington State served over people 176,000 people in fiscal year 2008. That amounts to a huge boon for the recipients, the dairy industry and stores that supply the required food packages. Once WIC recipients can no longer choose organic milk, organic dairy farmers will see decreased demand for their product. Organic farmer’s costs are higher than conventional farms because of higher feed, space and labor costs. The combined effects of decreased demand, lowered prices and the current economy could have disastrous effects on organic dairy farmers in Washington State who have invested in supplying WIC consumers.
For eight years, Washington was one of the only states to provide organic milk as a choice for its low income citizens. Many felt that this was a progressive stance and that Washington WIC held a role in teaching the nutritional benefits of local, organic agriculture to the individuals they serve. Despite a strong outcry of opposition from WIC consumers and organic advocates, many scientific studies showing increased nutritional benefits from organic products, and the guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine to take into consideration the cultural values of the people they serve, WIC was unable to interpret the data.
There is a lot at stake. It is called billions of taxpayers’ money. In Washington State alone, $95,986,719 was spent in the WIC program. The WIC program subsidizes the conventional dairy, soy, wheat and peanut industries. The National Dairy Counsel is a dairy industry funded research front whose primary purpose is to tell people to drink milk and eat dairy products, These are the same people who were sued for an ad campaign two years ago stating that milk was a factor in weight loss. WIC cites their research as a factor in their decision to drop organic milk. Washington’s “experiment in organics” was a huge threat to the conventional dairy industry. The current turnaround in policy raises a few questions. Why is WIC citing studies paid for by the dairy industry? Why aren’t they able to interpret data? If cost is the true issue, why can’t WIC mothers pay the difference between organic and conventional milk?
Almost 50 % of children born in the United States will participate in the WIC program. There are over five million new mothers who are being told what to buy and how to think about organic food. The purchase power of the WIC policies makes a huge impact on prices, demand and supplies of food for all consumers. If you pay taxes, have an interest in cleaning up the environment, eating organic food or are a WIC recipient, you have a stake in this issue. As citizens of the United States we have an obligation to tell our decision makers that if they can’t interpret data, they have no business making decisions that affect millions of people. I urge you to visit the WIC website, write them a note and tell them how you feel.
Carol Dunning, MSW
A New York Times Article re: Organic milk
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/dining/09milk.html
An article comparing the difference between cost and benefits of organic milk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14458802/
Why buy organic milk – Organic Trade Association
http://www.ota.com/Organic/Dairy_Products.html
WIC organic milk defacto removal in Montana-07
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/funding_issues_cause_an_organic_response_at_wic/C520/L40/
Article on food politics
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5803
WIC Statement re: Dropping organic milk
http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/wic/materials/food/newfoodsfaq.pdf#organicmilk
NDC -referenced in WIC Organic Drop reason
http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/NationalDairyCouncil/Nutrition/Products/Organic+Milk+FAQ+HTML.htm
Very long letter to Mr Obama from M. Pollan
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Lawsuit against National Dairy campaign on Milk and weight-loss – shows relationships and previous poor research
http://www.pcrm.org/news/downloads/ftc_petition050421.pdf
Mayo Clinic spokesman 07 opinion piece – contact info
http://hoeckermediation.com/default.aspx
Memo refuting “no benefits to organic food” within The American Dietetic Association
http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/Consolidated_Comments_Sust_Food_Supply_Aug_-_Oct_05__2_.pdf
List of pesticide risks and studies from OCA web site
http://organicconsumers.org/organic/wic-faq.pdf
Organic valley comment 11/08
http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/wicinwa/