I'm following the WIC thread with much interest. Many people have mentioned that if mothers are prevented from getting hold of formula they will just feed their babies something totally unsuitable. My question: do we have any formal research or journal articles documenting this? I ask because, as Heather has just mentioned, here in the UK we have vouchers issued through the Healthy Start scheme whereby low income women can obtain fruit, veg and milk, including infant formula, worth ~£6 per week for their babies, and they can choose to use the whole amount on formula. They can also save up the vouchers during pregnancy so that they do have enough to exclusively formula-feed for free. As you may know, our breastfeeding rates are extremely low (the lowest in the world after France and Ireland ...) And it doesn't take a science degree to connect the dots. So predictably, the babies from the poorest backgrounds, who start off disadvantaged and just never catch up according to a recently government-commissioned report on Children in Poverty, ie the ones who most need mother's milk, and all the good mothering side-effects that go with it, yet they are the least likely to receive it. But what I really can't get my head around is that this scheme actively encourages mothers to choose not to breastfeed, and helps them not to breastfeed. I see this as a rights issue since governments have an obligation to protect the health of children. The rationale I hear all the time is 1) it used to be worse, and at least now mothers can get fruit and veg with the vouchers and 2) if we don't give them the free formula, then they'll just feed their babies something else that's really harmful. Yet I know from experience that even the poorest mothers want the best for their children and do their best to keep them healthy. And that richer mothers who find themselves living somewhere where formula is simply not available at all, no matter how many $$$$ they have, will breastfeed even if they had originally planned not to. In other words, when formula is neither affordable nor accessible then, if that's what it takes, mothers seem more than willing to breastfeed, and very motivated to get it right. Hence my question for Ilene, or others. Is there any documented research in an industrialized country to clearly prove that mothers who care about their babies actually will knowingly feed them something harmful rather than breastfeed? Or are we just afraid that they will? I'm looking for actual references. Thanks if you can help. Pamela Morrison, IBCLC Rustington, England ------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:17:02 -0500 From: Ilene Fabisch <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: WIC dilemma In response Dana, who asked "what would happen if WIC just didn't give formula at all" ...the unfortunate consequence could be the reason WIC began with formula initially which was to prevent koolaid and overdiluted formula from being used. Yup, moms that can't afford formula will offer those substitutes...too bad when breastmilk is essentially free :-( Ilene Fabisch, IBCLC/RLC Brockton, MA *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html To reach list owners: [log in to unmask] Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask] COMMANDS: 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome