Why to Boycott Supplements in Baby Formula- The Atlantic

[Guest guest]

http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/06/why-to-boycott-supplements-in-ba\

by-formula/57978/

If you don't have a small baby, or if your baby is breastfed (and see note at

the end of this post), you no doubt are missing the furor over " functional "

ingredients that companies have been adding to infant formulas.

DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid) came first. As I discuss in my book What to Eat,

infant formula companies could not wait to add it. They knew they could market

it on the basis of preliminary evidence associating DHA with visual and

cognitive benefits in young infants. Although evidence for long-term benefits is

scanty, the companies also knew that they could charge higher prices for

formulas containing DHA.

The FDA approved the use of DHA in infant formulas on the grounds that it is

safe, but did not require the companies to establish that DHA makes any

difference to infant health after the first year. Because of its marketing

advantage, virtually all infant formulas now contain DHA. Surprise! They also

cost more.

Companies now want to add other ingredients, such as prebiotics, probiotics,

lutein, lycopene, and betacarotene, which also can be marketed as healthier and

at higher prices.

In response, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has issued a

report (PDF) on the lack of evidence for the benefits of functional ingredients

and the substantial harm they will cause to the economic viability of the WIC

program, the USDA's assistance program for low-income mothers and children.

WIC buys about half the infant formula sold in the United States each year. WIC

is not an entitlement program, meaning that the number of participants is

limited by available funding (a GAO report explains how this works—click here

for a PDF).

The CBPP report says:

As pressure mounts to limit federal discretionary spending, it is critical

to ensure that WIC not spend funds on foods with functional ingredients that do

not deliver clinically significant benefits. WIC spent approximately $850

million on infant formula last year, and a recent USDA study found that more

than ten percent of that spending ($91 million annually) is attributable to

higher-priced formulas with functional ingredients. Under current law, the

additional cost to WIC of providing foods with these ingredients is likely to

grow substantially as such foods proliferate.

As the report explains, formula companies do not have to demonstrate that the

added—and more expensive—ingredients do any good:

There is no mechanism within the national WIC program that requires USDA to

review the research evidence on the claimed benefits of these functional

ingredients or to base decisions about whether to offer foods containing such

ingredients on their benefits and the specific needs of WIC participants.

Currently, instead, infant formula manufacturers themselves decide whether WIC

offers infant formulas with new functional ingredients, while state WIC programs

decide whether WIC should offer other foods with such ingredients.

As I keep saying, functional foods (and ingredients) are about marketing, not

health. If companies are going to add functional ingredients—and charge higher

prices—they need to have some convincing scientific evidence to back up their

claims.

Postscript: Laurie True of the California WIC program writes:

Congressman , chair of the House Education and Labor Committee,

is writing the bill that reauthorizes the WIC Program this week. He should

include a provision requiring independent scientific review of the efficacy of

these " functional ingredients " before USDA allows them in WIC foods and infant

formula.

Note: Lori Dorfman sends a Berkeley Media Studies Group issue paper (PDF) on how

to advocate for hospitals and workplaces to make it easier for moms to

breastfeed.