I disagree with Alison about the block grant funding being good.  Perhaps if
mothers were unable to get free formula, they might be more inclined to
breastfeed.  In Ohio, I feel that breastfeeding would be further swept under
the carpet, since both drug and dairy lobbys are so strong and so rich.

I have grave concerns about block granting the welfare money to the states.
 Here in Ohio, we have been very UNSUCCESSFUL in even getting the Ohio
Department of Health to acknowledge that breastfeeding should be included in
the Maternal Child Health Block Grant.  In the past year, breastfeeding rates
have risen by a staggering 1% here in Ohio.  The state health department
ho-hums us at every turn and continue to see BF as "nice" but definitely NOT
NECESSARY. Heaven forbid that mothers would be told of the actual health
benefits of breastfeeding BECAUSE THEY MIGHT FEEL GUILTY.  I have absolutely
ZERO confidence that when the feds hand over the block granted funds to the
state that Ohio would be able to do anything other than fund TOOTH FLOSSING
WITH EDIBLE FLOSS because the dental lobby is so strong. (They rated 3-4
pages in the block grant while nutrition rated 1/2 page).

WIC currently ear marks funds for breastfeeding promotion.  If this were to
be block granted, Ohio would immediately drop this.  Ross headquarters are
just down the block from the Ohio Dept of Health.  Even the governor of Ohio
has refused to sign a breastfeeding proclamation  (for the last 2 years)
although he gives lip service to babies and families first.

The Ohio Lactation Consultant Assn. was purposely eliminated from the
consulant group that advises about block grant content.  There is very little
hope of being re-instated while the current Director of the Health Dept.
continues.

Allowing the states to determine who gets welfare nutrition moneys and
letting them make up their own nutrition "standards"  will result in even
more "good old boy" networks.  Ohio can barely get its act together to fund
minimal training for WIC and CFHS staff for breastfeeding.  If it were left
up entirely to the state (it IS WIC MONEY that was primarily used), these
fundings would not be present.  I can just picture the deal that the formula
companies would cut with the state health department - rebates, training,
etc.

A letter to the editor in the Dayton paper summed up the potential situation
as follows:
When states are allowed to determine how their welfare nutrition funds are
spent, it will be to the state's interest to have a lousy program.  That way
all the people who would be served will move to states that have better
programs.

Unfortunately, the women and children will be the ones hurt if nutrition
funding is not administered in a competent manner.  I don't have any good
answers, but I am very reluctant to see nutrition programs that do increase
the health of women and children dismantled in favor of letting 50 individual
states come up with whatever kinds of plans the legislators think would be
"good enough".  When I visited my legislators this spring in Columbus, they
were very ignorant about the coming block grant and felt that "crossing that
bridge when it gets here" would be the best strategy.

I would encourage you to contact your federal legislators with your point of
view on this very important issue.

Here is what the American Dietetic Association says: "Members of the welfare
reform conference committeemust be urged to support the Senate version of
Title IV (Nutrition Programs) of the welfare reform bill (H.R.4),  The Senate
bill contains uniform national nutrition standards for vital perograms that
provide services to segments of the population at risk for poor nutritional
status."  The House version of the bill makes nutrition standards VOLUNTARY.


Martha Brower, who wants to believe that the states could do a good job, but
feels the past performance of her state makes it unlikely that future
performance in the nutrition arena could be anything but a disaster.