|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. D
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 291 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 291
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
D
EVALUATING POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS OF THE REVISED FOOD PACKAGES
Three of the six criteria guiding the development of the revised WIC food packages focused on nutrient and food intakes. Specifically, the committee aimed to develop WIC food packages that would (1) reduce the prevalence of inadequate nutrient intakes and of excessive nutrient intakes, (2) lead to dietary patterns that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for individuals two years and older,1 and (3) contribute to dietary patterns that are consistent with dietary guidance for infants and children younger than 2 years of age.
This appendix summarizes the results from an evaluation of the potential nutrient benefits and risks for the WIC target population associated with the revised WIC food packages. Potential benefits are characterized as reductions in the prevalence of inadequate nutrient intake and reductions in the prevalence of excessive nutrient intake. Potential risks are characterized as increases in the prevalence of inadequate intake, increases in the prevalence of excessive nutrient intake, and any departures from consistency with the Dietary Guidelines and dietary guidance for those younger than 2 years of age. Chapter 6—How the Revised Food Packages Meet the Criteria Specified—addresses ways in which the revised packages provide
1
Failure to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans was identified as a nutrition risk criteria for the WIC program (IOM, 1996).
OCR for page 292
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
potential benefits through improved consistency with the Dietary Guidelines and dietary guidance for those younger than 2 years of age.
This is not a complete assessment of risk and benefits in that it is not feasible to estimate what long-term health benefits and risks would be associated with a change in specific foods offered in the WIC program. Assuming that the recommendations in this report are adopted at the federal level, those benefits and risks would depend upon many factors, including the following:
The extent to which the WIC state agencies allow local agencies to prescribe the maximum amounts of food in the revised food packages;
The extent to which the WIC state agencies incorporate more allowed choices in the food package offerings;
The success of approaches to nutrition education that address the revised food packages;
The extent of redemption of the WIC food instruments for the revised packages;
Whether the entire amount of food in the package is consumed by the WIC participant; and
The association of consuming those foods with long-term health benefits.
Notably, the committee used current dietary guidance from the Dietary Guidelines and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) when redesigning the food packages, and these sources incorporate information on reduced risk of chronic diseases into their dietary guidance. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 “provide science-based advice [for people two years and older] to promote health and to reduce risk for chronic diseases through diet and physical activity” (DHHS/USDA, 2005, p. 1). The DRIs are intended to minimize the risk of nutrient inadequacy (including both classical deficiency states and the reduction of the risk of chronic disease and disorders) or nutrient excess and are intended to be applied to the healthy general population in the United States and Canada (IOM, 1997). Thus, the more closely that diets adhere to current dietary guidance, the greater the likelihood that they will result in long-term health benefits.
METHODS FOR EVALUATING NUTRITIONAL BENEFITS AND RISKS
The method for evaluating nutritional benefits and risks associated with changes in the WIC food packages is a modification of the risk assess-
OCR for page 293
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
ment method first outlined by the National Research Council in 1983 (NRC, 1983). In risk assessment, hazard identification is followed by dose-response assessment and exposure assessment before the results are combined in risk characterization.
In risk assessment, the term hazard identification refers to the characterization of potential adverse effects on human health and the conditions necessary to elicit those effects. Inadequate nutrition can be characterized for specific nutrients as either inadequate intake or excessive intake that increases the risk of poor health outcomes, i.e., the risk of hazards. Detailed discussions of the possible hazards associated with poor dietary choices and inadequate nutrient intake are available in the DRI reports (IOM, 1997, 1998, 2000b, 2001, 2002/2005, 2005a). Concerns about excessive intake of some nutrients (e.g., excessive preformed vitamin A intake and excessive intake of food energy) arise because of potential toxicity or potential for unhealthy body weight gain, respectively, in the examples given.
In risk assessment, dose-response assessment describes how changes in dose (in this case, changes in the intake of nutrients) influence the likelihood of a hazard being realized (that is, the likelihood of changes in health status). It is outside the scope of this report to discuss changes in health status. Therefore, for the analysis presented in this report, there is no formal assessment of changes in the number or severity of health effects due to changes in intake. That is, there is no formal dose-response assessment describing the likelihood of changes in health status. This report focuses on dietary inadequacy or excess as the hazard, rather than on changes in health status.
In risk assessment, exposure assessment seeks to predict the change in exposure. In this case, exposure assessment for each WIC population addresses the changes in usual nutrient intake distributions that result from changes in individual intakes that are based on the changes in the nutrients provided by the revised food packages.
As the final step in risk assessment, risk characterization reflects the integration of the previous three steps in order to help inform decision makers about quantitative levels of risk to human health status under different scenarios. This report contains a modified risk characterization because the committee was able to consider only dietary status (that is, the risk of inadequate intake and the risk of excessive intake), not health status.
In summary, this evaluation of nutritional benefits and risks brings together information from (1) the assessment of inadequate nutrition (hazard identification), (2) considerations of the influence of potential changes in nutrients provided in the food packages on either inadequate intake or
OCR for page 294
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
excessive intake (a modified dose-response assessment), and (3) prediction of changes in usual intakes of nutrients (exposure assessment) to provide a quantitative description (that is, a modified risk characterization) of the potential change in nutritional status of the WIC population as the result of the recommended changes in the WIC food packages.
Nutrient Intake
The committee conducted a detailed evaluation to compare potential benefits and risks for the WIC participant subpopulations resulting from proposed changes in the food packages.
Potential benefits are characterized as reductions in the prevalences of nutrient inadequacy or nutrient excess.
Potential risks are characterized as increases in the prevalences of nutrient inadequacy or increases in the risk of excessive nutrient intakes.
The committee’s analysis applied the framework proposed by the IOM Subcommittee on the Interpretation and Uses of the DRIs (IOM, 2003a). This framework considers improving the distribution of usual nutrient intakes as the ultimate goal of a group planning activity such as changing the WIC food packages. Specifically, the goal is to achieve usual nutrient intake distributions with an acceptably low prevalence of inadequate intakes and a low prevalence of excessive intakes.
Changes in the contents of a WIC food package alter the nutrient profile of the package and thus the amounts of nutrients offered to WIC participants. (See Tables C-5A through C-5C for comparison of current and revised food packages with regard to priority nutrients offered.) Increases in nutrient intakes that lead to reductions in the prevalence of inadequacy are considered as benefits of the revised WIC food packages, as are decreased intakes of nutrients of concern for excessive intake. In contrast, reductions in nutrient intakes that lead to increases in the prevalence of inadequate intake are considered as risks of the revised food package. In addition, increases in nutrient intakes that increase the prevalence of excessive intakes also are considered to be a risk of the revised food package. Because foods contain many different nutrient components and because package changes address many different attributes, a change in the types and amounts of foods in a package has the potential of having both positive effects (that is, benefits) and negative effects (that is, risks) on the nutrient profile.
Importantly, at this point, it is not possible to estimate the precise impact of any food package changes on nutrient intakes. The WIC program
OCR for page 295
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
can control only what is offered to participants, not what they actually consume. Some WIC participants consume a larger amount of a specific nutrient than is offered in their current food package. For example, such individuals consume the foods from the WIC food packages plus foods from the family resources, making their total intake of a nutrient greater than that offered in the food package. In contract, some WIC participants consume less of a specific nutrient than is provided by the maximum food package for their category. There are several reasons why estimated nutrient intakes may be less than nutrients offered through WIC food packages, including:
Less than the maximum allowance of food may be prescribed for a WIC participant, and less food may be redeemed than prescribed (e.g., a participant does not use all her food instruments in a month);
WIC foods may be shared with other people or discarded; and
Food intakes may be underreported or misreported.
With the revised WIC food packages, consumption patterns may change, leading to changes in both the shape and position of usual nutrient intake distributions. The major challenge in estimating the benefits and risks of changes in the WIC food packages is to predict what the usual nutrient intake distributions would be after the changes in the WIC food packages are implemented. Ultimately, evidence of the benefits and risks will come from data collection and analyses that occur after changes in the WIC food packages have been implemented. Nonetheless, the committee considered several approaches to predicting the changes in the usual intake distributions resulting from the change in the WIC food packages.
The Delta Approach
The first, and most straightforward, approach (the delta approach) was based on a starting assumption that any changes in the WIC food packages would be reflected solely in the nutrient intake by the individual WIC participant (i.e., infant, child, woman). Thus, the analysis of benefits and risks would start with the existing distribution of usual nutrient intake of WIC participants (which presumably reflects the existing intrahousehold allocation of WIC food packages). Then, for each package and each nutrient, the difference between the nutrient content of the revised WIC food package minus that of the corresponding current package is added to the previously estimated usual intakes of WIC participants.
A shortcoming of this approach is that it ignores the reality that individuals do not always consume what is offered to them. Indeed, much of
OCR for page 296
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
the nutrient inadequacy reported in Chapter 2—Nutrient and Food Priorities—results from the fact that individuals do not consume all of the food offered in the current WIC food packages. For example, the mean amount of calcium offered in the maximum allowance for the non-breastfeeding postpartum food package is 1,199 mg per day, but the mean calcium intake by these women is 668 mg per day. In fact, even the 90th percentile of usual calcium intake by non-breastfeeding postpartum women (930 mg/d) is less than the amount offered by the maximum allowance in the current food package. Given that the mean intake of calcium is less than the amount currently offered, it is not reasonable to assume that a change in the amount of calcium offered through a revised WIC food package will lead to the same quantitative change in mean intake.
Results of analyses with this approach are reported in Tables D-1A through D-1C at the end of this appendix; because of the concerns in the application of the delta approach, the consideration of risks and benefits of the revised food packages will focus on results from the committee’s second approach to predicting changes in population intake of nutrients—the proportional approach.
The Proportional Approach
The committee adopted a second approach (the proportional approach), with the following steps.
For each usual intake, calculate the ratio of the intake to the amount offered in the current WIC food package. For example, at a usual calcium intake of 670 mg per day, the ratio is (670)/(1,200), or 0.56, indicating that at this intake, a non-breastfeeding postpartum woman would consume an average of 56 percent of the calcium offered in the WIC food package.
If usual intake is less than the amount offered, the change in the amount offered is multiplied by this ratio to predict changes in the intake. Continuing with the calcium example, if the amount offered is reduced by 200 mg per day, the reduction in usual intake above is assumed to be (0.56) × (200 mg/d) = 112 mg/d. In contrast, under the delta approach, the reduction would be 200 mg per day, regardless of current usual intake of calcium. (In fact, the delta approach could lead to prediction of negative intakes.)
If usual intake exceeds the amount offered, changes in the amount offered are simply added to usual intakes.
Several assumptions are associated with the proportional approach. First, it assumes that the ratio of intake to the amount offered is the same
OCR for page 297
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
before and after the change in the WIC food package. Since many of the changes proposed are expected to increase the consumption of WIC foods, this assumption is not likely to hold. On the other hand, this assumption appears to be better than the assumption that any difference in what is offered leads to a difference in what is consumed, even for those who are not consuming much of what is offered in the first place. In addition, until usual intake data are available after the change in WIC food package, using information on current consumption patterns provides a reasonable starting point.
A second key assumption is that individuals who consume more of a nutrient than is currently offered in the WIC food package will change their consumption by the extent of change in the amount offered by the revised food package relative to the current package. This approach does not account for certain food purchasing and consumption practices. For example, if more of a food is offered in the revised package, a participant may decrease the amount of that food (or of another food) that is bought with her own money but eat the same amount of the food. Similarly, if the amount of an offered food is reduced, the participant may buy more of that food and eat a similar amount. In the absence of data a priori on what changes in intake will result from changes in the food package, the assumption that consumption will change by a proportion of the difference between the current and revised package is a starting assumption.
APPLICATION OF METHODS
The WIC food packages are intended to supplement the diet of specific groups of low-income women, infants, and children. The potential risks and benefits of this intervention can be evaluated in several ways. As detailed in this report, the committee examined how the current and revised packages correspond with the Dietary Guidelines. The committee also evaluated the degree of inadequacy or excess nutrient intake predicted to occur in the participant subpopulations with the current and revised packages. Other benefits of the revised packages, such as the increased variety of foods available and the incentives for breastfeeding, are not quantified. Reliable data were not available to assess intakes of trans fatty acids; however, the amount of trans fatty acids in the current and proposed food packages were estimated and are included in the Appendix C—Nutrient Profiles. The current and revised WIC food packages contain insignificant amounts of industrial trans fats—the source of trans fat deemed to be of concern by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DHHS/USDA, 2004).
OCR for page 298
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Nutrient Intake Profiles
Changing the mix of foods offered in the WIC food packages leads to complex changes in the nutrients available to WIC participants. Efforts to address specific priority nutrients are challenging because foods contain many different components.
The committee characterized the effect of revised food packages in two ways. First, the change in nutrient content of packages was calculated. This measure can be estimated quite well; the only important assumptions are the choices of foods when options are presented (see Chapter 4—Revised Food Packages) (See details in Appendix D—Cost Calculations.). Next, predicted changes in nutrient intake were developed. The values of the predicted percentage inadequate or of the predicted changes in mean intake of a nutrient are subject to considerable uncertainty because of lack of knowledge of the consumption patterns and practices that will occur. Nonetheless, this approach provides useful insight into the possible benefits and risks of changes in the packages.
The committee characterized changes in nutrients available in each package and estimated how these changes would influence predicted nutrient intake. Tables detailing changes in predicted intake of more than 30 micro- and macronutrients plus cholesterol and food energy for each of the current and revised WIC food packages are in Appendix C—Nutrient Profiles. Here in Appendix D the focus is on the specific food components identified as priorities in Chapter 2—Nutrient and Food Priorities—because of concern about either inadequate or excessive intakes. For priority nutrients with inadequate intakes for WIC subpopulations (e.g., calcium, vitamin E, fiber), Table D-1A presents current and predicted mean intakes, and current and predicted percentages with inadequate intakes, if applicable. Similar information is presented in Table D-1B for nutrients of concern with regard to excessive intake (e.g., sodium, preformed vitamin A, food energy), but this table shows current and predicted percentages with intakes greater than the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) or Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR). Comparisons for nutrients to limit in the diet (i.e., saturated fat and cholesterol) are shown in Table D-1C.
Formula-Fed Infants Younger Than One Year of Age
For formula-fed infants younger than one year of age, the committee identified nutrients of concern with regard to excessive intake, and the proposed changes to Food Packages I and II address these nutrients. The only nutrient with a change in intake in the non-desired direction is pre-
OCR for page 299
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
formed vitamin A in Food Package I; for this nutrient, the percentage of infants 4 through 5 months of age with intakes greater than the UL (600 mcg retinol/d) is predicted to increase by approximately 10 percentage points (Table D-1B). The committee increased the maximum allowance of formula for formula-fed infants in this age range to address their increased nutritional needs. The composition of formula makes it impossible to increase formula intake without increasing the intake of preformed vitamin A. In Food Package II-FF, for formula-fed infants ages 6 through 11 months, the percentage of the population above the UL for preformed vitamin A is predicted to decrease by 13.6 percentage points (Table D-1B).
Children 1 Year of Age
Children one year of age (12–23 mo of age), served by Food Package IV-A, are predicted to show improvement in almost all food components. The substantial increase in predicted intake of fiber (Table D-1A), decreases in the predicted percentage of the population with inadequate intake of vitamin E (Table D-1A), and the predicted reductions in intakes of sodium and food energy are all benefits of the revised food package (Table D-1B).
The only priority nutrients with predicted changes in the non-desired direction are potassium, with an estimated 8 percent decrease in mean intake (Table D-1A), and zinc, with an increase in the percentage of the population above the 7 mg UL (Table D-1B). The committee has minimal concern regarding excessive intake of zinc because of the basis for setting the UL (IOM, 2001). The method used to set the ULs for zinc resulted in relatively narrow margins between the UL and the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA); the ULs are approximately 2.4 times the RDAs for children (IOM, 2001). There has been no evidence of adverse effects from ingestion of zinc as naturally occurring in food (IOM, 2001; Brown et al., 2004a). However, zinc is used as a fortificant in some foods that are commonly consumed by children (e.g., breakfast cereal). Further study is needed of the contribution of the zinc in such food products to possible overconsumption of zinc.
Children 2 Through 4 Years of Age
The revised Food Package IV-B serves children 2 through 4 years of age. The revised food package has many predicted benefits including sharp increases in intake of vitamin E and fiber (Table D-1A) and reductions in the consumption of sodium, food energy, saturated fat, and cholesterol (Tables D-1B and D-1C). Two nutrients have predicted changes in intake in the non-desired direction; mean predicted intake of potassium decreases by
OCR for page 300
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
7 percent (Table D-1A) and the fraction of the population with predicted zinc intakes greater than the zinc UL increases (Table D-1B).
Adolescent and Adult Women
A major aim of the WIC program is supporting the nutrition of pregnant, lactating and non-breastfeeding postpartum women. Chapter 2—Nutrient and Food Priorities—and Appendix A—Nutrient Intake of WIC Subgroups—detail the many apparent nutrient intake inadequacies and excesses in these subpopulations. The committee proposed substantial revisions to Food Packages V through VII to address this situation.
Food Package V—Pregnant Women and Partially Breastfeeding Women—The revised Food Package V leads to decreases in the predicted percentages of the population with inadequate intake for most of the priority nutrients, with particularly large benefits for magnesium, vitamin E, vitamin B6, and folate (Table D-1A). Other benefits include predicted increases in the intake of fiber and potassium (Table D-1A) and decreases in sodium, total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol (Tables D-1B and D-1C). Two nutrients have changes in the non-desired direction; the predicted mean intake of calcium decreases slightly because of a reduction in the amount of milk and milk products in the package, and the predicted percentage of the population with inadequate intake of vitamin C increases by 11 percentage points (Table D-1A). The amount of calcium offered in the food package, however, exceeds the Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium.
Food Package VI—Non-Breastfeeding Postpartum Women—Other than a predicted decrease in calcium and a predicted increase in the percentage with inadequate vitamin C intake, the revised Food Package VI makes progress toward addressing the priority nutrients identified by the committee (Table D-1A). For example, there is a reduction in the percentage with inadequate intake of iron, magnesium, vitamin E, vitamin A, fiber, potassium, vitamin B6 and folate (Table D-1A). Intake of sodium, food energy, total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol all decrease, as intended (Tables D-1B and D-1C).
Food Package VII—Fully Breastfeeding Women—The revised Food Package VII is intended both to enhance maternal nutrition in support of breastfeeding and (combined with changes in other packages) to provide an incentive for breastfeeding. The package addresses very well the priority nutrients for this group, with increased predicted mean intakes of calcium,
OCR for page 301
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
potassium, and fiber, and predicted decreases in the percentages with inadequate intakes of iron, magnesium, vitamin E, vitamin B6, and folate (Table D-1A). Again, intakes of sodium, food energy, total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are all predicted to decrease (Tables D-1B and D-1C). There is a small increase in the percentage of the population predicted to have an inadequate intake of vitamin A (Table D-1A). For vitamin C, the analysis predicts an increase in the percentage of the population with inadequate intake (Table D-1A).
CAVEATS AND OTHER POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS
Because of the uncertainties and assumptions associated with predicting the usual intake distributions that would result from changes in the WIC food package, the estimates of changes in the prevalence of inadequacy and in the risk of excessive intakes are uncertain. Although the quantitative predictions are uncertain, the direction of the change is likely to be robust. The committee urges that the quantitative results of the benefit and risk analysis be interpreted with caution.
In addition, given the importance of assessing the benefits and risks of the revised WIC food packages, the committee recommends that USDA conduct pilot studies and randomized, controlled trials to estimate the changes in the usual nutrient intake distribution and the resulting changes in the prevalence of inadequacy and excessive intakes (see Chapter 7—Recommendations for Implementation and Evaluation).
Non-Quantified Benefits and Risks
Among the benefits and risks that are not amenable to quantification are the following. The first two benefits listed and the first risk listed would affect the accuracy of the predictions of the prevalence of inadequate or excess nutrient intake presented in Tables D-1A and D-1B.
Benefits
Increased choice of foods, if adopted, may increase the consumption of WIC foods by the participants in whole or in part. Participants who choose the additional options might consume all or consume somewhat more of the food in the package (possibly sharing the remainder with other household members). More food instruments may be redeemed, and less food may be discarded (or possibly given away). In these cases, the estimated prevalence of inadequacy may decrease and mean intakes of certain nutrients having an AI may increase more than predicted in Table D-1A.
OCR for page 303
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
SUMMARY
In summary, the revised food packages lead to improvements in nutritional adequacy in almost all cases under the assumptions used in these analyses. In addition, food components identified as priorities because of possible excess consumption are almost always reduced. The committee anticipates that the set of revised food packages will provide a clear net benefit to WIC participants.
The following is a list of tables presented in this appendix.
Table D-1
Comparison of Current and Revised Food Packages
A
Nutrients of Concern with Regard to Inadequate Intake,
304
B
Nutrients of Concern with Regard to Excessive Intake,
308
C
Nutrients of Concern to Limit in the Diet,
312
OCR for page 304
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
TABLE D-1A Comparison of Current and Revised Food Packages: Nutrients of Concern with Regard to Inadequate Intake
Current Food Package, Usual Intakea
Participant Category and Priority Nutrient
EAR or AI*
Mean
Infants, 6–11.9 mo, breast-fed
Food Package No. Current II
Iron, mg/d
6.9
10.0
Zinc, mg/d
2.5
2.5
WIC Children, 1–1.9 y
Food Package No. Current IV
Iron, mg/d
3.0
11.9
Potassium, mg/d
3,000*
2,029
Vitamin E, mg ATE/dc
5.0
5.3
Fiber, g/d
19*
8.0
WIC Children, 2–4.9 yd
Food Package No. Current IV
Iron, mg/d
3.0 / 4.1
13.6
Potassium, mg/d
3,000* / 3,800*
2,211
Vitamin E, mg ATE/dc
5.0 / 6.0
6.0
Fiber, g/d
19* / 25*
10.9
Pregnant women and lactating women, 14–44 ye
Food Package No. Current V
Calcium, mg/d
1,000* – 1,300*
956
Iron, mg/d
6.5–23.0
16.5
Magnesium, mg/d
255–335
291
Potassium, mg/d
4,700* – 5,100*
2,909
Vitamin E, mg ATE/dc
12 / 16
8.3
Fiber, g/d
28* – 29*
17.7
Vitamin A, mcg RAE/d
530–900
902
Vitamin C, mg/d
66–100
134
Vitamin D, mcg/d
5.0*
N/A
Vitamin B6, mg/d
1.6–1.7
2.0
Folate, mcg DFE/d)
450–520
570
OCR for page 305
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Revised Food Package, Predicted Usual Intakeb
Current Food Packagea
Revised Food Packageb
Mean
25th Percentile
Median
75th Predicted
%Inadequate
Percentile %Inadequate
Revised II-BF
Current II
Revised II-BF
10.9
5.5
9.5
14.7
39.5
34.0
4.0
2.5
3.9
5.2
60.3
25.4
Revised IV-A
Current IV
Revised IV-A
13.2
9.4
12.4
16.2
1.6
0.9
1,885
1,506
1,827
2,195
—
—
8.0
5.5
7.2
9.7
55.3
18.5
12.3
10.3
12.3
14.4
—
—
Revised IV-B
Current IV
Revised IV-B
15.0
11.9
14.6
17.6
0.4
0.1
2,078
1,651
2,022
2,438
—
—
8.7
6.4
8.1
10.5
47.0
11.4
15.4
12.9
15.1
17.6
—
—
Revised V
Current V
Revised V
934
721
902
1,113
—
—
19.3
15.6
18.5
22.2
7.5
3.4
349
292
341
398
49.4
20.3
3,052
2,548
3,005
3,506
—
—
14.3
11.2
14.4
16.9
94.4
43.6
25.6
21.0
24.8
29.2
—
—
1,041
741
987
1,277
31.2
20.2
119
63
97
154
32.7
43.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.4
1.9
2.3
2.8
34.0
11.9
633
469
606
761
41.5
29.2
OCR for page 306
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Current Food Package, Usual Intakea
Participant Category and Priority Nutrient
EAR or AI*
Mean
Non-breastfeeding postpartum women, 14–44 y
Food Package No. Current VI
Calcium, mg/d
1,000* – 1,300*
668
Iron, mg/d
7.9–8.1
13.7
Magnesium, mg/d
255–300
213
Potassium, mg/d
4,700*
2,086
Vitamin E, mg ATE/dc
12
6.9
Fiber, g/d
25* – 26*
12.2
Vitamin A, mcg RAE/d
485–500
556
Vitamin C, mg/d
56–60
79
Vitamin D, mcg/d
5.0*
N/A
Vitamin B6, mg/d
1.0–1.1
1.4
Folate, mcg DFE/dc
320–330
482
Lactating women, 14–44 ye
Food Package No.
Current VII
Revised VII
Calcium, mg/d
1,000* – 1,300*
956
Iron, mg/d
6.5–7.0
16.5
Magnesium, mg/d
255–300
291
Potassium, mg/d
5,100*
2,909
Vitamin E, mg ATE/dc
16.0
8.3
Fiber, g/d
29*
17.7
Vitamin A, mcg RAE/d
885–900
902
Vitamin C, mg/d
96–100
134
Vitamin D, mcg/d
5.0*
N/A
Vitamin B6, mg/d
1.7
2.0
Folate, mcg DFE/dc
450
570
See notes for Tables D-1A through D-1C following Table D-1C.
OCR for page 307
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Revised Food Package, Predicted Usual Intakeb
Current Food Packagea
Revised Food Packageb
Mean
25th Percentile
Median
75th Percentile
%Inadequate
Predicted %Inadequate
Revised VI
Current VI
Revised VI
593
466
570
694
—
—
16.0
14.6
16.0
17.4
9.5
4.6
246
216
243
273
87.5
66.0
2,156
1,859
2,129
2,424
—
—
12.5
11.0
12.6
14.1
99.8
40.4
18.6
15.6
18.0
21.0
—
—
655
488
633
797
44.1
26.9
77
47
69
98
42.2
47.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.7
1.5
1.7
2.0
17.1
2.4
543
434
530
633
12.0
5.0
Current VII
Revised VII
984
760
952
1,173
—
—
18.7
14.8
18.0
21.6
7.5
4.2
330
273
322
379
49.4
29.1
2,909
2,404
2,861
3,361
—
—
13.4
10.2
13.0
16.4
94.4
54.3
22.9
18.4
22.1
26.6
—
—
881
589
812
1,098
31.2
35.7
107
55
85
137
32.7
51.9
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.3
1.8
2.2
2.7
34.0
15.8
601
438
570
726
41.5
35.5
OCR for page 308
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
TABLE D-1B Comparison of Current and Revised Food Packages: Nutrients of Concern with Regard to Excessive Intake
Current Food Package, Usual Intakea
Participant Category and Priority Nutrient
UL, Mean EER, or AMDR†
Mean
WIC Infants, 0–3.9 mo, formula-fed
Food Package No. CurrentI
Zinc, mg/d
4.0
6.1
Preformed vitamin A, mcg/d
600
581
Food energy, kcal/d
555f
673
WIC Infants, 4–5.9 mo, formula-fed
Food Package No. Current II
Zinc, mg/d
4.0
7.0
Preformed vitamin A, mcg/d
600
626
Food energy, kcal/d
623f
802
WIC Infants, 6–11.9 mo, formula-fed
Food Package No. Current II
Zinc, mg/d
5.0
7.2
Preformed vitamin A, mcg/d
600
618
Food energy, kcal/d
754f
992
WIC Children, 1–1.9 y
Food Package No. Current IV
Zinc, mg/d
7.0
7.8
Sodium, mg/d
1,500
1,816
Preformed vitamin A, mcg/d
600
495
Food energy, kcal/d
942f
1,288
WIC Children, 2–4.9 yd
Food Package No. Current IV
Zinc, mg/d
7.0 / 12.0
9.1
Sodium, mg/d
1,500 / 1,900
2,519
Preformed vitamin A, mcg/d
600 / 900
513
Food energy, kcal/d
1,282f
1,585
Pregnant women and lactating women, 14–44 ye
Food Package No. Current V
Sodium, mg/d
2,300
3,330
Food energy, kcal/d
2,46f
2,115
Total fat, g/d
na
76.7
Total fat, % of food energy
25–35†, <19 y
20–35†, ≥ 19 y`
} 32.3
OCR for page 309
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Revised Food Package, Predicted Usual Intakeb
Current Food Packagea
Revised Food Packageb
Mean
25th Percentile
Median
75th Percentile
%>UL or %>AMDR
Predicted %>UL or %>AMDR
Revised I-FF-A
Current I
Revised I-FF-A
6.1
4.6
5.8
7.2
86.0
86.0
581
445
547
677
38.3
38.3
673
523
635
778
—
—
Revised I-FF-B
Current II
Revised I-FF-B
6.1
4.9
5.9
7.1
96.8
91.5
666
573
660
752
56.3
68.0
721
602
704
820
—
—
Revised II-FF
Current II
Revised II-FF
6.2
4.9
6.0
7.4
87.6
72.3
530
358
470
644
42.7
29.5
877
705
853
1,021
—
—
Revised IV-A
Current IV
Revised IV-A
8.7
6.6
8.3
10.3
55.7
68.8
1,733
1,217
1,641
2,145
63.5
58.4
304
207
270
350
25.0
5.1
1,248
1,026
1,222
1,441
—
—
Revised IV-B
Current IV
Revised IV-B
10.3
8.3
10.0
11.9
58.1
72.6
2,440
1,949
2,363
2,851
92.8
90.1
405
291
358
449
16.1
7.2
1,460
1,188
1,429
1,697
—
—
Revised V
Current V
Revised V
3,241
2,850
3,218
3,606
97.2
95.8
2,082
1,762
2,054
2,372
—
—
68.8
56.6
67.7
79.9
—
—
27.2
24.6
27.1
29.6
24.5
1.4
OCR for page 310
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Current Food Package, Usual Intakea
Participant Category and Priority Nutrient
UL, Mean EER, or AMDR†
Mean
Non-breastfeeding postpartum women, 14–44 y
Food Package No.
Current VI
Sodium, mg/d
2,300
2,912
Food energy, kcal/d
2,163f
1,774
Total fat, g/d
na
66.1
Total fat, % of food energy
25–35†, <19 y
20–35†, ≥ 19 y
} 33.1
Lactating women, 14–44 ye
Food Package No.
Current VII
Sodium, mg/d
2,300
3,330
Food energy, kcal/d
2,465f
2,115
Total fat, g/d
na
76.7
Total fat, % of food energy
25–35†, <19 y
20–35†, ≥ 19 y
} 32.3
See notes for Tables D-1A through D-1C following Table D-1C.
OCR for page 311
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Revised Food Package, Predicted Usual Intakeb
Current Food Packagea
Revised Food Packageb
Mean
25th Percentile
Median
75th Percentile
%>UL or %>AMDR
Predicted %>UL or %>AMDR
Revised VI
Current VI
Revised VI
2,646
2,319
2,623
2,948
90.7
76.4
1,674
1,442
1,654
1,885
—
—
57.4
51.4
57.0
62.9
—
—
24.6
23.8
24.6
25.4
4.9
<0.1
Revised VII
Current VII
Revised VII
3,267
2,877
3,245
3,633
97.2
96.3
2,037
1,717
2,009
2,327
—
—
67.4
55.1
66.3
78.4
—
—
27.6
25.3
27.5
29.8
24.5
1.6
OCR for page 312
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
TABLE D-1C Comparison of Current and Revised Food Packages: Nutrients of Concern to Limit in the Diet
Current Food Package, Usual Intakea
Participant Category and Priority Nutrient
Dietary Guidance
Mean
WIC Children, 2–4.9 y
Food Package No.
Current IV
Saturated fat, g/d
na
22.2
Saturated fat, % of food energy
<10
12.5
Cholesterol, mg/d
<300
216
Pregnant women and lactating women, 14–44 ye
Food Package No.
Current V
Saturated fat, g/d
na
27.5
Saturated fat, % of food energy
<10
11.7
Cholesterol, mg/d
<300
271
Non-breastfeeding postpartum women, 14–44 y
Food Package No.
Current VI
Saturated fat, g/d
na
22.9
Saturated fat, % of food energy
<10
11.3
Cholesterol, mg/d
<300
219
Lactating women, 14–44 ye
Food Package No.
Current VII
Saturated fat, g/d
na
27.5
Saturated fat, % of food energy
<10
11.7
Cholesterol, mg/d
<300
271
NOTES FOR TABLES D-1A THROUGH D-1C: AI = Adequate Intake, used when necessary, indicated by an asterisk (*); AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range, indicated by a dagger (†); AT = (alpha)-tocopherol; ATE = (alpha)-tocopherol equivalents; DFE = dietary folate equivalents; EAR = Estimated Average Requirement, used when available; EER = Estimated Energy Requirement; kcal = kilocalories; na = not applicable; N/A = not available, intake data were not available for vitamin D; RAE = retinol activity equivalents; UL = Tolerable Upper Intake Level; %Inadequate = percentage with inadequate intakes as estimated from percentage with usual intake less than EAR; %>AMDR = percentage with usual intake greater than AMDR; %>UL = percentage with usual intake greater than UL.
aObserved usual intakes were calculated using 1994–1996 and 1998 CSFII data.
bMean intakes were predicted from the observed mean intakes by adding the difference between the current food package and the revised food package as appropriate for the individual’s age and life stage, using the proportional method described in the text.
cFor discussion of important issues regarding differences between the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) and dietary intake data in the units used for vitamin E and folate, please see the section Data Set—Nutrients Examined in Appendix A—Nutrient Intake of WIC Subgroups.
OCR for page 313
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change
Revised Food Package, Predicted Usual Intakeb
Current Food Packagea
Revised Food Packageb
Mean
25th Percentile
Median
75th Percentile
% Following Dietary Guidance
Predicted % Following Dietary Guidance
Revised IV-B
Current IV
Revised IV-B
14.7
10.3
14.1
18.4
—
—
6.8
6.0
6.7
7.4
9.0
99.0
93
67
84
104
87.8
99.6
Revised V
Current V
Revised V
20.4
15.4
19.9
24.8
—
—
6.4
5.7
6.4
7.1
19.1
99.8
127
86
107
152
67.6
97.5
Revised VI
Current VI
Revised VI
15.8
12.4
15.5
18.9
—
—
6.0
5.7
6.0
6.3
3.8
>99.9
89
71
84
100
92.0
>99.9
Revised VII
Current VII
Revised VII
20.6
15.6
20.0
25.0
—
—
8.0
7.1
7.9
8.8
19.1
94.2
207
156
193
242
67.6
88.9
dValues are for children ages 2–3.9 y and children age 4 y, respectively.
eBecause of sample size limitations, the analysis sample combined all pregnant women and all lactating women. Thus, the current mean intakes and current prevalence values (i.e., %Inadequate; %>AMDR; %>UL) are identical for any categories containing pregnant women or lactating women (i.e., recipients of current Food Packages V and VII).
fMean EER (kcal/d) (Table D-1B) was calculated based on CSFII data (FSRG, 2000) using the method described in the DRI report (IOM, 2002/2005). For additional detail, see Appendix C—Nutrient Intakes of WIC Subgroups.
DATA SOURCES: Intake data are from 1994–1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) (FSRG, 2000). EARs, AIs, ULs, and AMDRs are from the DRI reports (IOM, 1997, 1998, 2000b, 2001, 2002/2005, 2005a). Dietary guidance in Table D-1C is from the American Heart Association (AHA, 2004) and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 (DHHS/USDA, 2005).
Representative terms from entire chapter:
amdr amdr amdr