U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Food and Nutrition Board; Committee to Review WIC Food Packages. Review of WIC Food Packages: Improving Balance and Choice: Final Report. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017 May 1.

Cover of Review of WIC Food Packages

Review of WIC Food Packages: Improving Balance and Choice: Final Report.

Show details

5Nutrient and Food Group Priorities for the WIC Food Packages

Informed by its evaluation of nutrient-related health priorities, food safety risks, and dietary intake (see Chapter 4), the committee identified nutrient and food group priorities for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food packages. These priorities were then considered along with the committee's charge, that is, to align the food packages with current dietary guidance, take into account the health and cultural needs of participants, support efficient program operations, and allow effective administration of the program. Collectively, this process led to development of a decision tree (see Figure 5-1) for determining potential revisions to the WIC food packages (see Tables 5-2 through 5-10).

FIGURE 5-1. Decision tree for determining potential food package changes given the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy or food group intake below recommended amounts among WIC-participating women and children.

FIGURE 5-1

Decision tree for determining potential food package changes given the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy or food group intake below recommended amounts among WIC-participating women and children. NOTES: CVV = cash value voucher; DGA = Dietary Guidelines (more...)

TABLE 5-2. Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package V for Pregnant Women.

TABLE 5-2

Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package V for Pregnant Women.

TABLE 5-10. Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package IV, Children Ages 2 to Less Than 5 Years.

TABLE 5-10

Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package IV, Children Ages 2 to Less Than 5 Years.

As was the case in the previous WIC report (IOM, 2006), overweight and obesity remain a prominent health concern for WIC participants. However, consistent with its charge, the committee did not directly address problems related to excess energy intake. Rather, these outcomes were considered within the context of alignment of WIC program goals with the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), which encourage the use of foods that are nutrient-dense, and limit the amounts of added sugars and saturated fat in WIC-approved foods.

IDENTIFYING NUTRIENT PRIORITIES

Among some subgroups of WIC-participating women and children, nutrient inadequacies were numerous (see Chapter 4). Here, we describe how the committee decided which of these inadequacies, as well as nutrient excesses, to prioritize when revising the food packages. As illustrated in Figure 5-1, nutrient inadequacies and excesses were determined to be higher-priority, middle-priority, or lower-priority.

Identifying Nutrient Priorities for Women and Children Ages 2 to Less Than 5 Years

Micronutrients with EARs

For nutrients with an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), the committee ranked nutrients for action by the proportion of each WIC subpopulation with inadequate intakes. Nutrients with the highest proportion of inadequacy (e.g., >50 percent) for a particular population were considered first, followed by nutrients with lower proportions of inadequate intakes. In addition, the committee considered whether a nutrient was linked to a known health consequence for the specific WIC-participating population under review (see Table 5-1 for a compilation of nutrients with known health consequences). Nutrients not linked to known health consequences were considered of lower priority, although all nutrients for which inadequacy was evident in 5 percent or more of a subgroup were considered to some degree.

TABLE 5-1. Nutrient Inadequacies and Excesses Linked to Adverse Health Consequences Relevant to WIC-Participating Population Subgroups, Based on the Dietary Guidelines, Literature Review, and Other Expert Guidance.

TABLE 5-1

Nutrient Inadequacies and Excesses Linked to Adverse Health Consequences Relevant to WIC-Participating Population Subgroups, Based on the Dietary Guidelines, Literature Review, and Other Expert Guidance.

Special Case: Vitamin E

As was the case with subgroups included in the committee's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) analyses (see Chapter 4), low vitamin E intake appears to be ubiquitous in the general U.S. population (USDA/HHS, 2016). However, because clinical vitamin E deficiency is uncommon (IOM, 2000a), the DGA do not include it as a nutrient of public health concern (USDA/HHS, 2016). Similarly, despite the very high prevalence of inadequacy across the WIC-participating population, vitamin E was not considered a priority in the food package revisions and was not carried through the decision tree.

Nutrients with an AI

For nutrients with an Adequate Intake (AI) value, the committee first assessed whether mean intake of the nutrient was below the AI. If so, the committee then considered whether or not the nutrient was linked to a known health consequence for the specific WIC-participating population under review. Nutrients not linked to known health consequences were considered lower priority.

Energy from Carbohydrate, Protein, and Fat

Lowering or raising the proportion of energy from one dietary macronutrient affects the proportion of energy from the others. However, beyond recommending that intakes be within the acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR), the DGA (USDA/HHS, 2016) did not include recommendations for energy from total fat, carbohydrates, or protein. Therefore, the proportions of these macronutrients in the food packages were not considered in developing the revised food packages. (See below for the committee's consideration of saturated fat.)

Saturated Fat and Added Sugars

Saturated fat and added sugars were evaluated along with other nutrients, not food groups, because they may occur in several different foods. The current food packages already provide foods that are limited in saturated fat (e.g., only low-fat or nonfat milk and yogurt are allowed in packages for participants over 2 years of age) and added sugars (e.g., ready-to-eat cereals, yogurt, and vegetables and fruits purchased with the cash value voucher (CVV) are allowed in the packages only if they do not exceed required limits). Despite these current limitations, the WIC food packages do contribute some of each nutrient to the diet. Therefore, as described below, they were retained as macronutrients possibly linked to adverse health consequences (see Table 5-1).

Nutrients for Which Intakes Were Excessive

When micronutrient intakes were above the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) in more than 5 percent of a WIC subgroup, the approach applied was similar to what was used when intakes were below the EAR except that the upper ends of intake distributions were examined. For example, nutrients for which intakes exceeded the UL in greater than 50 percent of the subgroup were considered to be of higher priority.

For excess consumption of saturated fat and added sugars, the committee prioritized action according to the proportion of the WIC subpopulation exceeding 10 percent of energy from each (e.g., 5 to <10, 10 to <50, and ≥50 percent of the population).

Identifying Nutrient Priorities for Infants

Because of the known risks of low iron and zinc intakes for breastfed infants, these were the only micronutrient intakes (from complementary foods) that were evaluated (see Table 5-1). Vitamin D was not prioritized because information on the vitamin D status of infants is not available in NHANES. Macronutrient intakes were evaluated against the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), as available. The DGA do not apply to infants. Therefore, intake of added sugars or saturated fat was not evaluated.

Identifying Nutrient Priorities for Children 1 to Less Than 2 Years of Age

Micronutrients for children ages 1 to less than 2 years were evaluated in the same way as for women and for children ages 2 to less than 5 years. Although carbohydrate intakes were below the AMDR in more than 5 percent of this age group, very few children reported carbohydrate intakes below the EAR of 100 grams per day. Therefore, carbohydrate intakes were assumed to be adequate. As with infants, because the DGA do not apply to children 1 to less than 2 years of age, added sugars and saturated fat were not evaluated.

IDENTIFYING FOOD GROUP PRIORITIES

Inasmuch as recommended food group intakes are currently available only for individuals ages 2 years and older, the decision tree was applied to identify priority food groups and subgroups only for women and children ages 2 to less than 5 years. As illustrated in Figure 5-1, food group and subgroup intakes were evaluated separately from nutrient intakes.

Similar to what was done with nutrients, prioritization levels were defined by proportions of the population subgroup with intakes below those recommended in the DGA. Priority was given to food groups (or subgroups) for which intake was below the recommended amount in 75 percent or more of the population subgroup. A second level of priority was given to food groups (or subgroups) for which intake was below the recommended amount in 50 to less than 75 percent of the population subgroup. Although intake of oils fell below recommended amounts in more than 50 percent of some subgroups, this food group was not evaluated because oils do not contain nutrients of public health concern for the WIC-participating population.

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL ACTIONS FOR FOOD PACKAGE REVISIONS

Nutrients with a high proportion of inadequate intakes and food groups (or subgroups) with lower-than-recommended intakes were evaluated further through the systematic process detailed in Figure 5-1. For each nutrient consumed in inadequate amounts relative to its EAR or AI, or for each food group (or subgroup) consumed in lower-than-recommended amounts relative to the DGA, the committee evaluated whether or not WIC currently offers foods that provide what it considered a supplemental amount of that nutrient or food group (or subgroup).1

In cases where the amount of the nutrient or food group or subgroup in the food package is already more than what is considered supplemental, the committee considered reducing the amount and providing a more preferred form to promote intake. In cases where an appropriate (i.e., supplemental) amount is already included in the food packages and preferred and appropriate forms of the food could not be identified, the committee proposed either enhancing nutrition education or applying behavioral approaches to increase consumption of the currently available foods. Alternatively, if a preferred food could be identified, the committee considered adding that food.

Finally, in cases where WIC does not currently offer foods that provide supplemental amounts of the nutrient or food group (or subgroup) identified as being consumed in lower-than-recommended amounts, the committee considered whether intake of that nutrient or food group (or subgroup) could be improved by increasing the value of the CVV. If not, then the committee considered whether foods could be added to the packages to address this problem. If appropriate foods could not be identified, no further action was considered. If there were foods that could be added, the committee then evaluated whether adequate consumption of such foods was likely (e.g., whether they were commonly consumed) and also whether such foods were available in acceptable forms. Additionally, the committee made an effort to identify changes to the food packages that could address low intakes while also meeting cultural needs and food preferences.

The results of this process are presented in Tables 5-2 through 5-10. Chapter 6 describes how, given cost-neutral constraints, the outcomes presented in these tables were translated into final food package changes.

Strengths and Limitations of the Decision Tree

The decision tree afforded the committee a systematic way to pare down the large body of information into practical actions. Using the tree, each nutrient, food group (and subgroup), and population subgroup was treated with the same degree of attention. The decision tree was used only for nutrients with evidence of inadequate consumption and food groups with evidence of consumption of less-than-recommended amounts.

Additionally, although the committee conducted separate evaluations for partially breastfeeding and fully breastfeeding women, the evaluation was limited. Because there are no DRI values specifically for partially breastfeeding women, the contribution of the WIC food package for partially breastfeeding women to a set of DRIs could not be evaluated. Additionally, because the intensity of breastfeeding of women coded as “breastfeeding” in NHANES is unknown, the priority nutrients and food groups for these women are presented along with the contents of both food packages V (for partially breastfeeding women) and VII in Tables 5-3 (nutrients) and 5-8 (food groups).

TABLE 5-3. Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Packages for Breastfeeding Women.

TABLE 5-3

Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Packages for Breastfeeding Women.

TABLE 5-8. Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Breastfeeding Women.

TABLE 5-8

Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Breastfeeding Women.

Challenges with Translating the Decision Tree Outcomes into Potential Actions

Although the decision tree used by the committee provides transparency about how nutrient and food groups were prioritized, application of the decision tree outcomes to food package changes was less straightforward. Not only may a prioritized nutrient be provided by several different foods, but those foods may or may not belong to one of the prioritized food groups. In addition, the committee was unable to propose some actions suggested by the decision tree outcomes because of requirements set by the WIC program to provide specific nutrients, ensure that the revised set of food packages are of the same weighted average per-participant cost, ensure cultural suitability, and control administrative burden. The committee considered all of these factors in aggregate when translating the decision tree outcomes into final food package changes.

Nutrition Education as a Potential Action

The nutrition education tools developed by states are one strategy to improve the balance between what is provided in the food packages and participants' nutrient and food intake. As reviewed in Chapter 1, WIC is the only federal supplemental nutrition assistance program to have a nutrition education component required by law (USDA/FNS, 2007). The goals of WIC nutrition education are to

emphasize the relationship between nutrition, physical activity, and health with special emphasis on the nutritional needs of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants and children under five years of age; and 2) assist the individual who is at nutritional risk in achieving a positive change in dietary and physical activity habits, resulting in improved nutritional status and in the prevention of nutrition-related problems through optimal use of the WIC supplemental foods and other nutritious foods.2

One of the ways the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) provides state agencies with guidance and resources for nutrition education through WIC Works (USDA/FNS, 2016).

Behavioral Approaches as a Potential Action

In addition to nutrition education, behavioral approaches are another option for addressing low consumption of nutrients or food groups. Challenges that prevent individuals from making choices that best align with the DGA include treating losses differently than gains, remaining within the status quo, and placing greater value on the present time as opposed to the future (Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; Loewenstein, 1988; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000; USDA/ERS, 2007). The phase I report (NASEM, 2016) included a brief review of behavioral economics approaches that may help individuals to overcome these challenges and that could be applied in WIC (see Appendix M for WIC-specific examples).

RESULTS FROM USE OF THE DECISION TREE

The committee's final proposed revisions to the food packages, which are presented in Chapter 6, are based on information in Chapters 1 through 4; considerations described above in the section titled “Challenges with Translating the Decision Tree Outcomes into Potential Actions”; and outcomes of this chapter's decision tree process, as detailed in Tables 5-2 through 5-10. The tables present all nutrient and food groups of lower, middle, and higher priority; a brief discussion of higher-priority nutrients and food groups and preliminary potential actions is provided here.

Evaluation of Priority Nutrients and Potential Actions

Priority Nutrients Across Subgroups of Women and Children

Across subgroups of women (see Tables 5-2 through 5-4) and children (see Table 5-5), fiber, potassium, sodium, and added sugars were considered to be higher priority, with intakes of sodium, and added sugars being excessive. For all women (except for postpartum women) and children, excessive saturated fat intake was also a higher-priority (saturated fat is a middle priority for postpartum women). For breastfeeding women (see Table 5-4) and children ages 1 to less than 5 years (see Table 5-5), there were no additional higher-priority nutrients. Proposed actions to address low fiber and potassium intakes include increasing the CVV or requiring an option for canned legumes as a means of adding convenience and, therefore, promoting intake. Added sugars and sodium are already limited in WIC foods, but the committee reviewed the specifications for WIC foods to identify possibilities for further limiting these nutrients. Additional priority nutrients and potential actions for pregnant and postpartum, nonbreastfeeding women are outlined below.

TABLE 5-4. Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package VI, Postpartum Women.

TABLE 5-4

Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package VI, Postpartum Women.

TABLE 5-5. Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package IV, Children Ages 1 to Less Than 5 Years of Age.

TABLE 5-5

Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package IV, Children Ages 1 to Less Than 5 Years of Age.

Pregnant women Higher-, middle-, and lower-priority nutrients for WIC-participating pregnant women are presented in Table 5-2. In addition to the higher-priority nutrients described above, iron and choline were also identified as higher-priority nutrients for pregnant women. Iron requirements during pregnancy are higher than can be met by diet alone. Low choline intakes could be improved by provision of additional eggs or by increasing consumption of the dairy products already provided by the WIC program.

Postpartum women For postpartum women who are not breastfeeding (food package VI), calcium was identified as another higher-priority nutrient in addition to the nutrients mentioned above (see Table 5-4). Women receiving food package VI currently receive a greater-than-supplemental amount of calcium in this package. Therefore, strategies to improve intake of the calcium that is already provided are needed.

Priority Nutrients for Infants

No priorities were identified for younger (0 to less than 6 months of age) infants or for formula-fed older infants because either human milk or formula meets the nutrient needs of these groups. Given that the protein concentrations of infant formulas are regulated and considered safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, excess intake of protein by formula-fed infants was not considered a priority. Both iron and zinc were considered priority nutrients for breastfeeding infants ages 6 to less than 12 months (see Table 5-6). However, because the amounts of these nutrients in the food package exceeded 100 percent of recommendations, the committee considered the need to decrease amounts of foods provided in the current infant packages and provide a more preferred form to promote intake.

TABLE 5-6. Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package II, Partially or Fully Breastfed Infants (Ages 6 to Less Than 12 Months).

TABLE 5-6

Nutrient Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package II, Partially or Fully Breastfed Infants (Ages 6 to Less Than 12 Months).

Evaluation of Priority Food Groups and Potential Actions

The evaluation of priority food groups was based on DGA food patterns associated with particular calorie levels. Energy levels were selected based on calculated EERs for NHANES subgroups of pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, and for children as detailed in Appendix J. Inasmuch as the DGA are targeted to individuals ages 2 years and older, the committee provides an evaluation of food priorities for children ages 1 to less than 2 years and infants based on available AAP guidance (as described in Chapter 3). Gap analyses were conducted for nutrients (see Tables 5-2 through 5-6), but not for food groups. This was because food pattern recommendations are set to meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) values, which are set to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all healthy individuals (IOM, 2000b). Therefore a gap analysis would result in food group intake gaps that are unnecessarily high relative to the goal to reduce the prevalence of nutrient inadequacies within a population (i.e., measured as intakes below the EAR).

Priority Food Groups Across Subgroups of Women

Across subgroups of women (see Tables 5-7 through 5-9), food groups of higher priority (75 percent or more of women consumed less than the recommended amount) included: dark green vegetables, total red and orange vegetables, beans and peas, other vegetables, whole grains, seafood, as well as nuts, seeds, and soy. The committee considered increasing the value of the CVV as a possible approach to addressing intakes of vegetables, including subgroups of vegetables.3 Inasmuch as legumes and peanut butter are already provided in greater-than-supplemental amounts in most food packages, the quantities of these foods were a target for reduction along with nutrition education or behavioral approaches to improve intakes. The committee also considered increasing the amounts or types of whole grains and adding fish to food packages where it is not currently provided as possible approaches to addressing lower-than-recommended intakes of these food groups. There were no additional higher-priority food groups identified for pregnant women. Additional higher-priority food groups for partially breastfeeding, fully breastfeeding, and postpartum subgroups of women are described below.

TABLE 5-7. Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package V, Pregnant Women.

TABLE 5-7

Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package V, Pregnant Women.

TABLE 5-9. Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package VI, Postpartum Women.

TABLE 5-9

Food Group Priorities and Preliminary Actions, Food Package VI, Postpartum Women.

Breastfeeding Women

Additional higher-priority food groups for breastfeeding women included total fruits, total starchy vegetables, total grains, and total protein foods (see Table 5-8). The committee considered increasing the value of the CVV as a means to increase intakes of fruits and providing a greater quantity and wider variety of grain options to increase intake of grains. For partially breastfeeding women, protein intake could be addressed by providing canned fish. For fully breastfeeding women, low total protein foods intakes could be addressed by including more preferred options or through nutrition education or behavioral approaches to improving intake of protein foods currently provided.

Postpartum Women

For postpartum women, the committee also considered total fruit, total vegetable, and total starchy vegetable intakes to be higher-priority food groups (see Table 5-9). Increasing the value of the CVV would likely lead to improved intakes of these food groups. Dairy intakes were also below recommended amounts, which may be addressed by allowing options for more preferred forms of dairy in place of milk.

Children Ages 2 to Less Than 5 Years

Food groups and subgroups for which intakes were below recommended levels in more than 75 percent of children ages 2 to less than 5 years included total vegetables, dark green vegetables, total red and orange vegetables, whole grains, seafood, as well as nuts, seeds, and soy (see Table 5-10). The potential actions to address consumption of foods in these food groups were the same as those identified for subgroups of women.

Children Less Than 2 Years of Age and Infants

Although the DGA do not cover individuals ages 2 years and younger, the committee evaluated foods in the packages for these participants in Chapter 3. The amount of juice provided in food package IV-A (which is provided to children ages 1 to 2 years) exceeds the lower end of the AAP recommended limit 4 to 6 ounces per day (see Table 3-10), and a reduction could be considered. Food package II for fully breastfed infants ages 6 to less than 12 months provides 150 percent of the AAP recommended amount of infant cereal, and 130 percent of the recommended amount of jarred infant food meat. This information suggests that reductions in juice, infant cereal, and jarred infant food meat could be considered.

SUMMARY

This chapter describes the committee's decision tree (see Figure 5-1) and how it was used to identify potential changes to and actions for WIC food package revisions based on the committee's findings related to nutrition-related health risks, food safety, and nutrient and food intake among WIC participants. The current food packages were evaluated against the DRIs and the DGA. Packages for individuals less than 2 years of age were evaluated against the DRIs and guidance from AAP and other authorities. In many cases, the current food packages provide more than a supplemental amount of a nutrient or food group or even provide more than 100 percent of recommended intakes of a nutrient or food group. As a result of the diversity of nutrients that can be provided through the CVV, the committee considered it important to increase this component of the food packages in cases of nutrient intake shortfalls. In other cases, the committee considered that an alternative form of a food (e.g., yogurt as a substitute for milk, canned legumes instead of dry legumes) could be a useful means of promoting consumption of foods already included in the packages. The committee considered fish as a possible addition to the food packages, both because seafood intakes are below recommended amounts and because fish is currently provided in only one food package. These priorities were considered simultaneously with costs and administrative factors to produce actionable revisions to the food packages. For this reason, not all of the proposed actions identified in this chapter resulted in a corresponding change to a food package. In the next chapter, the committee used the potential actions outlined in Tables 5-2 through 5-10 to develop its recommended revisions to the WIC food packages. Proposed changes and the rationale for each are described in detail.

REFERENCES

  • AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). Pediatric nutrition. 7th ed. Kleinman RE, Greer FR, editors. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2014.
  • AAPD (American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry). Policy on dietary recommendations for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatric Dentistry. 2012;30(7 Suppl):47–48. [PubMed: 19216383]
  • Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research. 2000;37(1):60–71.
  • IOM (Institute of Medicine). Dietary Reference Intakes for thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin B12, pantothenic acid, biotin, and choline. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. [PubMed: 23193625]
  • IOM. Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000a. [PubMed: 25077263]
  • IOM. Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in dietary assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000b.
  • IOM. Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [PubMed: 25057538]
  • IOM. Dietary Reference Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein and amino acids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2002/2005. [PubMed: 12449285]
  • IOM. Dietary Reference Intakes for water, potassium, sodium, chloride, and sulfate. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
  • IOM. WIC food packages: Time for a change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.
  • IOM. Dietary Reference Intakes for calcium and vitamin D. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [PubMed: 21796828]
  • Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist. 1984;39(4):341–350.
  • Loewenstein GF. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science. 1988;34(2):200–214.
  • NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). Review of WIC food packages: Proposed framework for revisions: Interim report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. [PubMed: 27512745] [CrossRef]
  • USDA/ARS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service). What we eat in America, NHANES 2005-2012. Beltsville, MD: USDA/ARS; 2005-2012. [December 21, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/wweia.htm.
  • USDA/ARS. What we eat in America, NHANES 2011-2012. Beltsville, MD: USDA/ARS; 2011-2012. [December 21, 2016]. http://www​.ars.usda.gov/services/docs​.htm?docid=13793.
  • USDA/ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service). Could behavioral economics help improve diet quality for nutrition assistance program participants? Beltsville, MD: USDA/ERS; 2007. [December 21, 2016]. http://ben​.cornell.edu/pdfs/USDA-BeEcon​.pdf.
  • USDA/FNS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Food and Nutrition Research Service). Interim Rule, 7 C.F.R. § 246. 2007. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC food packages.
  • USDA/FNS. WIC works resource system: Nutrition education. 2016. [August 30, 2016]. https://wicworks​.fns​.usda.gov/nutrition-education.
  • USDA/HHS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2016. [August 29, 2016]. https://health​.gov/dietaryguidelines​/2015.

Footnotes

1

The committee's application of the term supplemental is described in Chapter 6. The committee also evaluated the nutrients provided by the food packages considering the quantities of foods that WIC participants actually redeem (see Appendix R for detail on redemption rates).

2

Section 246.11(b) of the federal WIC regulations p. 392.

3

As described in Appendix U, it was not considered administratively feasible to provide a separate voucher for vegetables and for fruits.

Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Bookshelf ID: NBK435918

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (79M)

Related information

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...