Dont Let Organic Milk Get Booted Out of WIC in Washington State

The FUTURE is ORGANIC

Compiled and presented by Chrys Ostrander

Don't Let Organic Milk Get Booted out of WIC in Washington State -
Expand Access and Choice

The Future is Organic - HOME Comment Period Closed and We Lost This One See my BLOG for an Update But you can always tell WSDOH what you think: wic@doh.wa.gov
We have to fight this. Eight years ago we fought to get organic milk allowed into the WA State Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and we won. Now the Washington State Department of Health WIC Program is proposing *not to allow* organic milk in the WIC program's new food rules for 2009. The reason given is cost. What about children's health? Non-organic milk is likely to contain antibiotic residues. What about the FACT that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic? What about supporting a sustainable economy like the Governor Gregoire's Sustainable Washington plan calls for by supporting organic farmers who steward the Earth? The FIRST item on the Governor's list is "Environmentally Preferable Purchasing". Tell Department of Health it should follow the direction of its boss. It's way more environmentally preferable to purchase milk and other foods from organic producers. Send Your Comment in favor of Keeping Organic Milk in the WIC Program Today	What's on this page? 1) How to Send Your Comment 2) My Comment to WSDOH (edited to read more like an opinion piece) 3) Why Science Says It's Wise to Include Organic Foods in the WIC program 4) The Comment Sent by the Washington Toxics Coalition 5) The Comment Sent by the Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network 6) A Proposal to Address the Cost of Organics 7) Oct. 16 Article in Capital Press on this Issue 7) Please consider donating to help support my activism

How to Send Your Comment Folks, The Washington State Dept. of Health is continuing to take comments (for several more weeks past the original Sept. 30 deadline) on the Proposed revision of the Washington State WIC program's 2009 approved foods list. To see what changes are being proposed, go to: http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/wic/materials/food/change-tables.pdf Please see my opinion piece (below). Maybe you'll find some points in it that you could include in your own comment to WSDOH. Your email comments can be sent to this email address: wic@doh.wa.gov with "New Food Choices 2009" in the subject line. Thank you for all your help in getting our perspective in to WSDOH. It's important for them to hear from us. Chrys Ostrander
Don't Let Organic Milk Get Booted out of WIC in Washington State By Chrys Ostrander
The Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) is proposing to eliminate organic milk from the Washington State WIC Nutrition Program’s “WIC Approved Food List” and restrict WIC recipients' ability to choose organic versions of approved foods. Nine years ago a WIC mother of six children who was committed to providing the best possible foods for her family and tired of embarrassment in the grocery check out line when clerks would tell her she could not purchase organic milk with her WIC coupons, started an energetic email campaign to change the policy that barred organic milk from being purchased by WIC recipients. The campaign succeeded by mobilizing dozens of WIC moms, enlisting the assistance of anti-hunger advocates, organic farmers, church groups and environmental and sustainable agriculture organizations. Organic milk was approved for WIC clients in 2000 and this was truly a millennial decision. Two years later, this same coalition, led by the Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network, succeeded in adding organic carrots, organic infant cereal, organic peas, organic beans and organic lentils to the Washington State WIC food package. This grassroots activism and the Department of Health's willingness to change made Washington a leader in a national effort to recognize and address children's special susceptibility to harm from pesticide residues present in non-organic foods. Now, eight years later, the Washington State Dept. of Health is proposing to set the clock back by removing organic milk from the list of approved foods. In addition, WSDOH is proposing to remove Earth's Best Organic Infant Cereal and include the qualifier "non-organic" for the following food types: Cheese, eggs, peanut butter, apple, cranberry, grape, pineapple, grapefruit, tomato and orange juices. This qualifier will restrict WIC recipients from obtaining organic versions of these approved food types. While recognizing that WSDOH is proposing to "add" one brand of organic bread, organic bulgur, organic brown rice, organic rolled oats and one brand of organic tofu, some advocates in Washington feel strongly that WIC recipients should be afforded *the right to choose an organic version of any approved food type. Anyone can see by looking at the steady growth of sales of organic foods over the past two decades that consumers are growing more and more concerned with the quality and, most importantly, the safety, of the foods they buy for their families. WIC moms are consumers too and are concerned no less with what foods are best for their families. WSDOH cites cost is the major factor in deciding whether an organic version of an approved food type will be included in the food package, but this must not* be the sole factor guiding the department's policy in this regard. We are, after all, talking about children's health and the health of pregnant and nursing mothers and their babies. Access to organic foods enhances the nutritional quality and the safety of foods consumed by these vulnerable populations. This isn't just idle talk or empty propaganda-- this is real. Data to substantiate this assertion that it is imperative that babies, children, pregnant and nursing mothers *always* be allowed, in fact encouraged, to include organic foods in their diets is included below: On the question of pesticide residues present in non-organic foods, a well referenced Wikipedia article on the subject spells it out (available on the Internet at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food): A study published in 2002 showed that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods." ^[29]^[30] Monitoring of pesticide residues in the United States is carried out by the Pesticide Data Program (part of USDA, which was created in 1990. It has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides - with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent results found in 2005 that: “ These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent compound and metabolite(s) combined], 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. ” USDA, Pesticide Data Program ^[31] Several studies corroborate this finding by having found that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does. ^[32]^{[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]} A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet. ^[42] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet. ^[43] *Food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child's lifetime ingestion of each pesticide. [emphasis mine] ^[44] WSDOH cites consumer concern over the presence of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) in milk as one factor in previously allowing organic milk in the WIC food package. However, now WSDOH states, in their on-line question and answer document "New Food Choices 2009 -- Frequently Asked Questions" (http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/wic/materials/food/newfoodsfaq.pdf) that "all unflavored milk sold in Washington supermarkets has been produced from cows not treated with bovine growth hormone". First of all, WSDOH gives no reference to back up this assertion. With the routine intermingling of milk in non-organic milk processing facilities, WSDOH's assertion is somewhat unbelievable. Secondly, milk processors seeking to source rBGH free milk only require that dairy farms sign affidavits that they will not inject their cows with rBGH. rBGH is well known to increase levels [in cows] of another growth hormone, IGF-1, which is identical in cows and humans (Prosser, C.G., Lancet, Nov. 1988. See also Samuel S. Epstein MD, International Journal of Health Services, Vol 26, No. 1, 1996). At elevated levels, IGF-1 is known to increase of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer rates in humans (studies conducted by Edward Giovannucci and Jing Ma at Channing Laboratory in Boston, a joint facility of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and at the Harvard School of Public Health). Certified organic milk producers are prohibited by federal law from using the artificial hormone*. This is a far better standard of certainty that milk is rBGH-free than unsupported assertions and simple affidavits. Furthermore, the U.K.-based Soil Association, Britain's organic farming organization reviewed scientific literature and concluded: Several scientific studies have demonstrated the nutritional benefits of organic milk. They show that organic milk generally contains higher levels of beneficial nutrients and vitamins than milk from non-organic cows. The studies have found that organic milk contains higher levels of beneficial compounds in the milk fats, particularly short-chain omega-3 essential fatty acids, as well as vitamin E and the antioxidant beta-carotene (which the body converts to vitamin A). Higher levels of the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthine have also been found in milk from cows that eat a grass-based diet typical of organic farming [the studies cited include University of Liverpool (Ellis et al., 2006), Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Quality Low Input Food project (Nielsen et al., 2005 and Nielsen and Lund-Nielsen, 2005), National Research Council and Regional Agency for Environmental Protection, Italy (Bergamo et al., 2003), University of Aberdeen (Robertson and Fanning, 2004), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth (Dewhurst et al., 2003)] [Link to the study] Of special interest to WIC program administrators is the following: A European team lead by the Swiss scientist Lukas Rist has found that mothers consuming mostly organic milk and meat products have about 50 percent higher levels of rumenic acid in their breast milk (Risk et al., 2007). This Conjugated Linoleic Acid is responsible for most of the health benefits of CLAs in milk and meat. [Link to the study] Finally, another great concern many health advocates and mothers share involves whether or not non-organic milk might contain antibiotic residues or residues from other medications given to non-organic dairy cows. Residues from antibiotics are forbidden to be present in milk, but with current science and technology available, whether non-organic milk is in reality free from antibiotic residues cannot be assured. We are often told that all tanks of milk from dairy farms are routinely tested to ensure no antibiotic content. While it's true, in terms of routine testing, that the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO, the federal standard governing the production of pasteurized milk adopted by most states) calls for the testing of every milk pick-up tanker, it is inaccurate to assert such testing ensures no antibiotic content. This mandatory testing is only looking for residues of a family of antibiotics known as the "Beta lactam" antibiotics (the penicillin family including penicillin, ampicillin, cephapirin, hetacillin 2, and amoxicillin which are approved for treatment of mastitis in dairy animals). According to the FDA, as of 1996, six more non-Beta lactam antibiotics were approved for treatment of mastitis in dairy animals. These are not included in the routine testing of milk tankers so there’s reason to suspect that residues of these antibiotics may, in fact, be in non-organic milk on grocery store shelves waiting for purchase and consumption. Unapproved antibiotics are also not routinely tested for. Furthermore, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in a report titled "Evaluation and Use of Milk Antimicrobial Drug Screening Tests" states: "There is no ideal screening test currently available for detecting antimicrobial drug residues in milk. None of the beta-lactam tests detect all the beta-lactam drugs." The FDA report goes on to say that approximately 40 animal drugs (other than antibiotics) are approved for use in lactating dairy cows in accordance with label directions but also notes that “additional animal drugs may be given to lactating cattle by veterinarians under the Center for Veterinary Medicine's Extra Label Drug Use Policy." In organic milk production, only those drugs that have been examined and approved for use in organic production are allowed and this is only a small fraction of the large arsenal of drugs used in non-organic milk production. The Washington Toxics Coalition, it its comment to WSDOH on this proposed rule states "Conventional dairies rely heavily on regular rounds of antibiotics, leading to the development of drug-resistant bacteria that may be transferred to people. This is an unnecessaryand potentially costlyhealth risk that can be avoided... [by keeping organic milk in the Washington State WIC Food Package]." The point of the WIC program is to ensure that mothers, babies and children have the most healthful foods available to them. In this day and age when food quality and food safety issues are in the news almost daily and we see mounting evidence that we cannot be assured that a globalized, industrial food production system can consistently provide safe, nutritious foods, we cannot allow the clock to be turned back in regards to organic foods and the Washington State WIC food package. We cannot allow WSDOH to turn its back on its ground-breaking and forward-thinking policy of allowing organic foods in the WIC Food Package. In fact, this is a time to expand WIC recipients' access to organic foods. It makes sense in terms of long-range health outcomes, nutrient content and food safety. It also makes sense economically. Healthier children grow up to be healthier adults who burden the health care system less and are more productive in society. Allowing organic foods to be purchased through the WIC program also fits well into the Washington State government's commitment to a sustainable economy: To be sustainable, the economy must support a high quality of life for all people in a way that protects our health, our limited natural resources, and our environment. Citizens, businesses, and government working together can create the political and economic systems that protect the natural systems on which all life depends. Environmental, economic, and social goals need to be engaged simultaneously in decision-making to maintain a high quality of life for current and future generations of Washingtonians. [From the Washington State Office of Financial Management Website "What is Sustainability"] WSDOH should be urged to retain organic milk and organic baby food in the Washington State WIC Food Package, expand the ability of WIC recipients to access organic versions of ALL approved food types in the package and extend the comment period on this proposed rule to allow for adequate public input. Chrys Ostrander Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy Organic Micro-permaculture 33495 Mill Canyon Rd. Davenport, WA 99122 509-725-0610 chrys@thefutureisorganic.net http://www.thefutureisorganic.net
Comments on the 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and WIC By Charles Benbrook, PhD (These comments were just submitted to the Federal Government by The Organic Center in reference to changes sought in the WIC program at the federal level, but the excellent points made pertain equally as well to our Washington State effort)
Comments on the Reauthorization of the WIC Program October 2008 Author(s): Charles Benbrook, PhD Chief Scientist The Organic Center October 13, 2008 Mr. Robert M. Eadie Chief, Policy and Development Branch Child Nutrition Division Food and Nutrition Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640 Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594 Comments on the 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and WIC These comments are submitted on behalf of The Organic Center, a nonprofit organization carrying out research on the consumer health benefits of organic food and farming. We strongly support reauthorization and strengthening of the Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These programs have met a vital need and will no doubt continue to provide essential assistance to some of the nation's most vulnerable, especially if the current recession proves deep and long-lasting. In the reauthorization process, we urge the Department to continue moving toward more flexibility and choice, as well as a more significant role for state and local agencies involved in program implementation. As our population diversifies into ever-more varied mixes of cultures, ethnic groups, educational backgrounds, occupations, and family structures, nutrition needs and challenges also grow more variable. Clearly, food and nutrition specialists living in local communities are going to have unique insights and experience to draw upon in delivering nutrition education information and the other nutrition program services that are so critical in achieving the broad goals of these programs. The general nutritional goals and requirements of WIC and other nutrition programs should be established at the federal level. We strongly support the already announced decision to include fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains in the 2009 WIC program. Many states are already working on how to incorporate these critical food groups in the WIC program in the most cost-effective way. We are aware that hundreds of mothers in many states have participated in focus groups discussing changes in the WIC program. We are told that somewhere between a quarter and two-thirds of the mothers at most focus groups expressed a need for, and support the opportunity to choose organic foods and beverages bearing the USDA National Organic Program seal, especially for dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables. Why Organic Food Belongs in the WIC Program In the 1980s concern emerged among toxicologists and pesticide regulatory scientists over the human developmental risks posed by pesticides. At that time, nearly all aspects of pesticide regulation were based on laboratory experiments carried out with healthy, adult rats and mice. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to carry out a thorough assessment of the risks posed by pesticide to pregnant women, infants, and children, and the adequacy of then-current pesticide regulatory policies. In 1993 the NAS released the widely acclaimed report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. The report explained that infants and children are not just little adults, and that they face unique risks when exposed to certain pesticides, especially during critical windows of development. The report also concluded that pesticide regulatory policy had to change in order to assure that these most vulnerable segments of the population are adequately protected. A sustained, wide-reaching effort has been underway since 1993 to amend federal law (accomplished in 1996) and implement new, infant and child-protective pesticide regulations (ongoing). This effort has triggered valuable new science deepening concerns over low-level pesticide exposures during critical windows of development, and triggered extensive media coverage of the underlying issues. Attention in the media over the last 15 years focused on pesticide risks to infants and children no doubt explains why so many new mothers understand that even very-low levels of pesticide exposure during pregnancy and the first months of their child's life can have adverse lifelong consequences. While most WIC mothers do not know which foods or pesticides pose the greatest risk, or why, their desire to avoid exposures for themselves and their families is easy to understand, as is their interest in purchasing organic food through the WIC program. Compelling research carried out by Dr. Chensheng (Alex) Lu and colleagues at the University of Washington and Emory University over the past six years shows that serving organic food and beverages to children, especially fruit and vegetable-based products, is the surest way to essentially eliminate risky dietary exposures. Their research has focused on the high-risk class of insecticides called the organophosphates, and their findings are published in three seminal research reports in Environmental Health Perspectives (Lu et al., "Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children," published online 1/15/2008; Lu, et al., "Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children's Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides," Vol. 114, No. 2, 2005; and Curl et al., "Organophosphorus pesticide exposure of urban and suburban preschool children with organic and conventional diets," Vol. 111, No. 3, March, 2003). In an analysis encompassing most major children's foods, we reached essentially the same conclusion by analyzing the impact of an organic diet on pesticide dietary risk levels. The analysis drew upon pesticide residue data collected by the USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP), and the EPA's data on pesticide toxicity. A Dietary Risk Index (DRI) was calculated for foods tested in the PDP – mostly fruits and vegetables. Switching to organic food reduces pesticide risks, as measured by the DRI, by over 95%. (For details on study methods and findings, see the March 2008 State of Science Review "Simplifying the Pesticide Risk Equation: The Organic Option," accessible at http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=125). Reducing pesticide dietary exposures, and other pesticide-related risks, is an important, widely accepted and thoroughly documented benefit of organic food, and is reason enough to include organic food products among WIC and other nutrition program options. Other reasons include the opportunity to serve infants and children food that tastes better, contains more nutrients per serving, and is free of nearly all synthetic food additives. We have issued reports in the last two years drawing on the growing number of published studies comparing organic and conventional foods that conclude that organic production systems, on average, produce food that is more nutrient and antioxidant-dense. The typically higher level of plant secondary metabolites and polyphenols in organic fruits and vegetables helps explain why organic produce is, on average, tastier than conventionally grown produce. Why is this generally the case? The marginally higher average yields on conventional farms contributes on many farms to what agronomists call the "dilution effect." In short, the typically much higher nitrogen fertilizer application rates on conventional farms, coupled with other management practices, pushes plants to grow faster and produce larger fruit that is relatively high in sugar and moisture content. But such produce also tends to contain lower concentrations of most vitamins and antioxidants per gram, serving, or calorie consumed. This reduction in nutrient density as crop yields increase is the signature impact of the "dilution effect." Benefits Linked to Organic Dairy Products The case for including organic milk and dairy products in the WIC and other nutrition programs is particularly compelling. Milk is obviously the most important single food in the diets of most infants and children. Organic dairy farmers are required by NOP regulations to provide access to pasture for their cows during the months of the year when weather supports pasture growth. Numerous studies have shown consistently and conclusively that cows consuming 30% or more of their daily dry matter intake from pasture produce milk that is higher in protein and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a heart-healthy fat that plays important roles in development. A recent study published in the biomedical literature found that mothers with a high proportion of dairy intake from an organic origin (>90 percent organic dairy) have higher levels of rumenic acid in their breast milk. Rumenic acid is responsible for most of the health benefits of CLA from pasture-produced milk. Another recent study in the British Journal of Nutrition reported that consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower risk of eczema in the first two years of life (Kummeling et al., Consumption of organic foods and risk of atopic disease during the first 2 years of life in the Netherlands," British Journal of Nutrition, 2007). It is true that some conventional dairy farms are heavily reliant on pasture and, as a result, are also likely to produce milk that contains elevated protein and CLA levels. It is also true that pasture is not available during part of the year on most organic dairy farms, for example during New England winters or a drought in the arid southwest. Still, Agricultural Resources Management (ARMS) survey data collected by the USDA in 2005 shows unequivocally that pasture and grass forages make up a significant share of the diet of most cows on organic farms during most of the year, compared to a much smaller portion on most conventional dairy farms. For these reasons, mothers are on solid ground in expecting over time a nutritional premium from the routine purchase of organic milk and dairy products. In addition to the nutrition premium associated with organic dairy products, cows on organic farms are not administered supplemental hormones to increase production. They are not given antibiotics to treat mastitis and other common infections, nor antimicrobial feed supplements to help them tolerate high-energy, high-grain rations deficient in fiber and forages (the "natural" feed of ruminant animals). They are not given reproductive hormones to increase the success rate when artificial insemination is used for breeding. These common health maintenance, reproductive, and production-enhancing technologies are necessary on many high-production conventional farms to keep cows producing despite suffering from a net loss in energy (they are using more energy to live and produce milk than they are getting from their feed). One result is that cows on conventional dairies are often difficult to rebreed and are culled after just two, and sometimes even one, lactation. Regulators lack the methods and data required to rigorously quantify the significance of these risks linked to drug and hormone use on conventional dairy farms and for this reason, controversy persists about them. Fortunately mothers who wish to avoid exposing their children to any such risks, while scientists sort out the true consequences of these and other production-enhancing technologies, have an option that allows them to do so. Avoiding exposures to food additives and artificial colors is another reason to provide WIC mothers the option to purchase certified organic food and beverages. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the artificial food dyes approved for use in food by the Food and Drug Administration are exacerbating behavioral problems, especially hyperactivity, among children and adolescents. The U.K. Food Standards Agency has asked food companies to voluntarily end use of the six artificial food colorings approved for use in the U.K., because of the evidence that removal of the colors reduces the severity of behavioral problems in many children. By choosing to serve children organic foods, mothers and school systems can dramatically reduce the daily intake of food additives, a clearly positive, preventive step that will help reduce the number of school-age children afflicted with hyperactivity and other behavioral problems. It turns out that teachers are right -- good nutrition is, in fact, a pillar of sound education policy. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that the USDA directs states to assure that organic food and beverages are among the choices offered through WIC and other nutrition programs, for at least some foods in all the food groups within these programs. The Organic Price Premium Given the goals of the WIC program and the reality that WIC funds are limited relative to need for the program, efforts have been made to seek out and approve those staple foods that deliver the most calories per dollar spent. The generally higher cost per serving of most of organic food will limit the quantity of a given food that a mother can purchase with a fixed WIC allotment. The same economic calculus applies to other USDA nutrition programs, although the premium tends to be smaller when organic foods are purchased in bulk. The generally higher nutrient density in organic foods, coupled with the near-absence of pesticide, hormone, and food additive risks, justify a higher price for organic food. But how much? No one can say with certainty because we lack the science and methods needed to estimate the magnitude of the economic benefits from consumption of organic food. Plus, such calculations will be highly circumstantial and variable, and require lifelong and indeed multi-generational health monitoring and data collection. Despite uncertainty about the magnitude of the benefits stemming from consumption of organic food, some mothers have decided that organic food is a worthwhile investment in their children's well-being. The conscious choice to seek out organic food, even when it costs more, reflects a commitment by mothers to provide their children with the highest quality food possible and the safest path through the critical early years of development. Given the breadth of evidence in support of a range of benefits from consumption of organic food, the Department would need compelling reasons to prohibit mothers from purchasing organic foods through the WIC program. In particular, the Department would need to explain why mothers should not be free to choose a somewhat smaller quantity of what they regard as higher-quality food. We believe the USDA should work to cultivate in Americans an appreciation of and desire for high quality food, coupled with the need for a more balanced diet. The WIC and other nutrition programs can do both through its educational activities and outreach services and by providing freedom to choose organic products for those who wish to purchase them. Thank you for this opportunity to share our views. Sincerely, Dr. Charles Benbrook Chief Scientist
Washington Toxics Coalition Comment to WSDOH
The Washington Toxics Coalition greatly appreciated the Washington State Department of Health's decision a number of years ago to include organic milk and vegetables in the WIC program. This policy supports the health of Washington WIC recipients, farmers, and farm workers. Thus, we are concerned that the department is considering withdrawing its support for organic milk purchasing for families utilizing the WIC program. We urge the department to retain milk as a choice for WIC recipients. Conventional milk may be less expensive than organic at the check-out, but the costs of drinking conventional milk are greater in the long run. Conventional dairies rely heavily on regular rounds of antibiotics, leading to the development of drug-resistant bacteria that may be transferred to people. This is an unnecessary—and potentially costly—that can be avoided by curbing regular exposure to antibiotics (i.e., providing organic milk). We are also concerned about the potential health risks concerning the artificial hormones rBGH and rBST. Many parents are very concerned about exposure to these hormones, and organic milk is the only certified option for hormone-free dairy products. Parents of all income levels should be allowed to make healthy choices for their children. We urge the Department of Health to allow parents utilizing WIC to continue to choose organic milk and produce for the sake of their children. We should extend, rather than cancel, the organic options available to WIC recipients. Healthy children become healthy adults, and healthy choices now set health patterns for a lifetime. Thank you for protecting the health of Washington families. Sincerely, Kathy Pryor Sustainable Communities Advocate Washington Toxics Coalition 4649 Sunnyside Ave. N. #540 Seattle, WA 98103 206-632-1545 ext. 117 kpryor@watoxics.org www.watoxics.org
Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network Comment to WSDOH
To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network I would like to submit this comment letter opposing the WA State Department of Health’s (DOH) proposal to eliminate organic milk from the Washington State WIC Nutrition Program’s “WIC Approved Food List” and to restrict WIC recipients' ability to choose organic versions of approved foods. As a long time stakeholder in these issues we were disappointed that the Network never received any notice from the Department of Health about their proposal. We received notice of the DOH proposal from a citizen on Sept 26, 2008. I am requesting that the comment period for DOH’s proposed rule be extended for an additional 30 days to allow adequate time for stakeholder review and input. The Network is a non-profit organization that formed in 1997 to provide a unified, statewide voice to advocate for sustainable agriculture programs and policies. Our mission is to “engage with our partners to keep farmers farming and to ensure that all Washingtonians have access to good food. We advocate bringing food from the farm to the table in ways that are economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially equitable.” We are an activist-based network that includes organic and sustainable farmers; environmental organizations, faith-based groups, farmers’ markets, anti-hunger and nutrition advocates, the natural foods industry, educators and others. Years ago The Network strongly advocated for the WA State Department of Health to include the purchasing of organic milk and vegetables within the WIC program. We applauded DOH’s decision to allow WIC coupons to be used for organic milk and vegetables purchases. This decision lauded Washington State a “leader” in the national effort to recognize and address children's special susceptibility to harm from pesticide residues present in non-organic foods. We are extremely concerned that the department is considering withdrawing its support for the purchase of organic milk through the WIC program. We urge the department to retain organic milk as a choice for WIC recipients as well as Earth's Best Organic Infant Cereal. In addition we do not support including the qualifier "non-organic" for the following food types: Cheese, eggs, peanut butter, apple, cranberry, grape, pineapple, grapefruit, tomato and orange juices. This qualifier will restrict WIC recipients from obtaining organic versions of these approved food types. We urge the Department of Health to allow parents utilizing WIC to continue to choose organic milk and produce for the sake of their children. We should extend, rather than cancel, the organic options available to WIC recipients. Please add us to the parties of record and notify us if the comment period is extended. Sincerely, Ellen Gray Executive Director Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network P.O. Box 762 Mount Vernon, WA. 98273-0762 egray@wsffn.net #360-336-6878 www.wsffn.org
WIC could nix organic milk Advocate says: Let recipients pay price difference Cookson Beecher Capital Press
10/16/2008 A proposal to eliminate organic milk from Washington state's WIC program has sparked anger and concern among organic advocates, organic dairy farmers, WIC recipients, and environmental groups. A supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, WIC provides coupons that participants can use to buy nutritious foods such as milk, cheese, cereal and produce. Organic milk has been on the state's list of approved WIC foods since 2002. But under a proposal from the state's Health Department, it will not be included in the WIC program's new food rules for 2009. The proposed changes also include the qualifier "non-organic" on certain foods on the list, among them cheese, fruit juices and peanut butter. However, based on competitive-cost considerations and availability, the department is proposing to approve organic fresh fruits and vegetables, a brand of organic bread, organic bulgur, organic brown rice, organic rolled oats and a brand of organic tofu. Washington is the only state at this time that is approving any organic food other than fresh fruits and vegetables for WIC. Comments Although the comment period on this is is closed, the Department of Health accepts comments year round on the WIC program. It will also be gathering and considering comments on this issue even if they come in after the deadline. A final list of approved foods will be released by the end of October. Why organic milk? The overriding reason for the proposed changes comes down to cost. Cathy Franklin, nutrition coordinator for the state's WIC Program, said that when organic milk was added to the list of approved foods in 2000, there wasn't that much of a price difference between organic and conventional milk. But now, she said, organic milk is almost twice the cost of non-organic milk. Another consideration is that many clients choose organic milk as a way to avoid milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone, or rBST. But according to the department, all unflavored milk sold in Washington supermarkets has been produced from cows that haven't been treated with the hormone. Franklin said that although there are studies that say organic milk is safer and healthier than non-organic milk, federal commenters on this issue such as the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Dairy Council, all say there's no difference between organic and non-organic milk. "We're a USDA program, and we have to go along with those conclusions," Franklin said, adding that until the opposing views on this topic come through official channels, the department's hands are tied. 'Mom' power Washington state is the only state in the nation that had included organic milk on its WIC list. That came about when a WIC mother of six children triggered an e-mail campaign to change the policy that barred organic milk from being purchased by WIC recipients. Dozens of WIC moms joined forces and enlisted the help of organic farmers, church groups, anti-hunger advocates, and environmental and sustainable ag organizations. In 2000, organic milk was approved for WIC clients in Washington state, which organic advocates refer to as a "millennial decision." Two years later, the same coalition succeeded in getting organic carrots, organic infant cereal, organic peas, organic beans and organic lentils added to the state's WIC food package. Eastern Washington organic farmer and sustainable ag advocate Chrys Ostrander said the Health Department's willingness to make those changes puts Washington state in a leadership position in a national effort "to recognize and address children's special susceptibility to harm from pesticide residues present in non-organic foods." Now he's disappointed that the department is backtracking on its previous policy. "For us in the organic and sustainable agriculture movement, it's a matter of a level playing field for the low-income consumers who share the same concerns about healthy food and environmental responsibility as other consumers who seek out organic foods," he said. "They shouldn't be frozen out of the ability to choose what they believe is best for their families and the environment because government agencies are trying to pinch pennies." Ostrander said the challenge now is how to make sure low-income people have the same choices as other consumers with similar concerns. One of his ideas is to allow WIC recipients who want to buy organic milk to pay the price difference between organic and non-organic milk. Franklin, meanwhile, said the department is very willing to have organic products on the list. But again, cost is the overriding consideration. Availability is also part of the equation. According to federal requirements, organic foods on the WIC list must be widely available and within 10 percent of the cost of conventional food proposed to be approved. Sidebar: The USDA says there’s no rBST in all unflavored milk — organic or not — sold in Washington supermarkets. More information For more information about the state's WIC proposal, go to www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/WIC/newfoods.htm. For questions and answers about the state's WIC proposal, go to www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/WIC/materials/food/newfoodsfaq.pdf. To see the department's proposed food list for WIC, including which foods would be eliminated and which ones would be added, go to www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/WIC/materials/food/change-tables.pdf. To comment To comment on the state's proposed changes to WIC, send an e-mail to wic@doh.wa.gov with "New Food Choices 2009" in the subject line. Comments can also be sent to New Food Choices Comment, PO Box 47886, Olympia, WA 98504-7886. Wash. Staff writer Cookson Beecher is based in Sedro-Woolley, Wash. E-mail: cbeecher@capitalpress.com.
A Proposal to Address the Cost of Organics in Food Assistance Programs
The WIC program in Washington State is proposing to cut organic milk and organic baby cereal (that have been part of the package for eight years) from the WIC food package and include the restrictive qualifier "non-organic" for the following food types: Cheese, eggs, peanut butter, apple, cranberry, grape, pineapple, grapefruit, tomato and orange juices. This qualifier will restrict WIC recipients from obtaining organic versions of these approved food types for clients the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC - the grocery store WIC program not to be confused with the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program). Washington State is far ahead of most states in allowing WIC families to choose some organic foods when they use their WIC coupons at grocery stores. The Washington State Dept. of Health that administers WIC in the state cites the growing cost difference between non-organic foods and organic foods. For more information on this, see above. (WSDOH has extended the comment period "for several more weeks" past their original deadline of Sept. 30) What follows is a Proposal that addresses the concerns of WSDOH regarding the cost differential between organic and non-organic foods. We in the organics community could make this into a reality if enough of us are willing to push hard for it. It's a proposal that could possibly save some organic farmers and processors from going out of business. It's a proposal that would make sure that participants in federal food assistance programs are not frozen out of the ability to choose organic foods. The Proposal: In Partnership with USDA Food and Nutrition Services, as a benefit for clients of the Food Stamps (EBT) Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC - the grocery store WIC program not to be confused with the Farmers Market Nutrition Program), Organic foods purveyors would be authorized to offer a 20% discount exclusively to consumers who utilize these federal food assistance programs. Companies that participate in the discount program could be eligible for federal tax deductions for the value of the discount given if we can also get legislation allowing this passed in Congress. This tax incentive would be similar to the deductions already available to individuals, small businesses and corporations who make donations under the Internal Revenue Code Section 170(e)(3). The mechanics: The Food Stamp program currently uses and in the near future, the WIC program will use Electronic Benefit Transfer cards. The cards are similar to debit cards and are issued to recipients of federal assistance programs. Because of the fact that these cards use information technology software that executes and records the transactions, it would only be a matter of special programming to automatically include the 20% discount for specified organic products. I don't have a lot of time right now to devote to this. I have alfalfa to buy and firewood to cut before the weather changes and I need to have time to do the work that I get paid for (my organizing work is all strictly volunteer). I am a single parent raising my 10 year-old daughter and I'm on Food Stamps myself. I need your help. I need other folks who think this is an important issue to step up and devote some time and energy. This would need a strong grassroots network of activists to be in constant contact with folks in the organic foods economy. Look, I don't want Washington State's experiment in allowing WIC clients to choose organics to fail. While recognizing that WIC limits available program foods to approved foods that have the required nutritional content, it's not fair to clients of the WIC program to have their food choices dictated to them when it comes to purchasing organics. I believe what we have here is an opportunity to set up a pilot program in Washington State that could be replicated nationwide that will actually expand WIC recipients' ability to choose organics. An added benefit would be to improve access to organic foods by participants in the Food Stamps program. I believe we are facing a crisis in the organic food and farming economy that will be caused by the current crisis in the global economy. I believe we are already seeing organic farms and organic food processors going out of business as consumers' incomes plummet and folks are forced to choose cheaper, non-organic, industrial food system foods. This will hurt these organic businesses and the customers who will lose their access to the benefits of organic foods. These are hard times economically. More folks are seeking assistance from the WIC and Food Stamps programs. The ability of low-income folks to provide their families with organic foods is getting further and further out of their reach, but the reasons many low-income folks prefer organic foods are the same reasons everyone else has - namely food safety, nutritional quality, ecological responsibility and taste. Low-income folks need some extra help to be able to make the organic choice for themselves and their loved ones. Organic food producers have a special responsibility to low income consumers since in most cases, their asking price is deliberately uncompetitive, from the consumers point of view, with non-organic counterpart products. Now, I have some experience with how government food assistance programs can help farmers. I'm a founder and current board member of the Spokane Farmers' Market (celebrating our 10th season this year). I'm a former board member of the Washington State Farmers Market Association. I have seen how the WIC and Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Programs (FMNP) and the Food Stamps program have funneled millions of dollars of federal and state hunger abatement dollars right into the pockets of small-scale family and organic farmers. I've seen the farmers at the end of a market day processing stacks of their $2 FMNP coupons readying them to take to their banks for deposit. This is a win-win-win partnership: The government fulfills its programmatic obligations, the consumer enjoys access to healthful foods and the farmer gets paid for the effort growing and bringing the foods to market. I know some farms where their existence hinges on their ability to serve their Senior and WIC FMNP customers. I don't think it will be long before organic farms that supply organic processors and the processors themselves find themselves in a similar position where income derived from dollars coming in from federal food assistance programs may figure into their continued viability as businesses. If anyone else feels like this proposal sounds like something worth supporting, I would very much like to network with you. Please contact me: Chrys Ostrander Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy Organic Micro-permaculture 33495 Mill Canyon Rd. Davenport, WA 99122 509-725-0610 chrys@thefutureisorganic.net http://www.thefutureisorganic.net I would also be very grateful for any financial contributions you might be able to make to help me survive financially as I devote many hours of volunteer time to sustainable agriculture organizing in my region. I have a way for folks to use PayPal to contribute to my efforts.