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
|
