It may seem like a topic only a toddler could love: a battle over the cost and contents of infant formula. But a recent bill involving the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman, Infants, Children (WIC) exemplifies the food industry’s aggressive lobbying and marketing tactics, which could leave the government footing an unnecessary $100 million bill, while ensuring many low-income families stay hungry.
At case here is a provision in the pending reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, which expires September 30th. WIC, which provides formula and healthy food vouchers to low-income mothers with small children, is part of the Act. As reported on The Hill, the Senate passed a version of the Act in August, but it didn’t include a very important measure: establishing a science-based process for assesing whether WIC should offer foods that contain functional ingredients.
You’ve no doubt seen the names of these functional ingredients splashed across the front of food packages: probiotics, DHA, lycopene, omega-3s and other intriguing-sounding additives. Included in yogurt, eggs, cereals, and other products, they are also becoming ubiquitous in infant formula. But their addition isn’t necessarily a good thing. Not only does the formula with additives cost more, they are also touted as providing nutritional or other health benefits, without much science to support their claims. Enfamil’s proprietary ingredient LIPIL, for instance, contains DHA and ARA designed to “support baby’s brain and eye development.” Their Dual Prebiotics suggest it will “support babies’ own defenses.”
For WIC, increased expenditure on additive-laden foods means fewer women are able to enroll in the program — the more money it spends on food, the fewer number of enrollees. According to the Economic Research Service, part of the USDA, functional ingredients in infant formula cost WIC up to $90 million a year. Yet there is no scientific consensus showing that the added ingredients impart any health benefits.
Food marketers are are eager to latch onto the latest diet and nutrition trends to promote their questionable goods. Some of these descriptors might be useful — such as low-salt — but catchy labels don’t tell us much about the nutritional content of the product. However, many consumers think they do.