Abstract
Use of nutritional labels in choosing food is associated with healthier eating habits including lower fat intake. Current public health efforts are focusing on the revamping of nutritional labels to make them easier to read and use for the consumer. The study aims to assess the frequency of use of nutritional labels and awareness of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutritional programmes by low‐income women including those participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) as surveyed in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2006. Many low‐income women do not regularly use the nutrition facts panel information on the food label and less than half had heard of the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans (38.9%). In multivariate logistic regression, we found that WIC participation was associated with reduced use of the nutrition facts panel in choosing food products [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22–0.91], the health claims information (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.28) and the information on carbohydrates when deciding to buy a product (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.97) in comparison with WIC eligible non‐participants. Any intervention to improve use of nutritional labels and knowledge of the USDA's nutritional programmes needs to target low‐income women, including WIC participants. Future studies should evaluate possible reasons for the low use of nutrition labels among WIC participants in comparison with eligible non‐participants.
Keywords: nutritional interventions, nutrition, obesity, maternal public health, maternal nutrition, infant and child nutrition
Background
Nutritional labels in the United States
The introduction of uniform nutrition labels in the United States in 1994 was part of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The proposed benefits of providing increased nutritional information to consumers included the possibility that increased knowledge about the nutrition and fat content of food would be associated with a healthier overall dietary intake in adults and children. Previous studies with adults have found that increased label use is associated with lower fat intake (Neuhouser et al. 1999). The use of food labels has also been associated with fat reduction efforts in adults trying to make healthful dietary changes (Kristal et al. 1998), and the total percentage of calories from fat has been associated with reading nutrition labels (Huang et al. 2004). Recent data also suggest that the use of the nutrition facts panel has increased in recent years (from 32% in 2004 to 52% in 2008) (US Department of Health and Human Services & Food and Drug Administration 2010).
Despite the proposed positive association between reading nutrition labels and increased health benefits, there have been few studies that have assessed the frequency of label use, particularly in at‐risk populations such as lower‐income communities that are at highest risk for obesity (Wang & Beydoun 2007; Singh et al. 2010). Those studies that have been conducted have had disparate results, sample sizes have been small or they have not been population based. One study conducted among lower socio‐economic status, African Americans in North Carolina found that approximately 80% sometimes/always read nutritional labels (Satia et al. 2005), while another study with adults in food assistance programme found that approximately one third read food labels (Pérez‐Escamilla et al. 2010). A study of the use of nutritional labels by low‐income women in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in California, Ohio, Texas and Connecticut found a low percentage use of food labels regularly. Only 19.7% stated that they use them often or quite often, although a much higher 92.0% recognised the food label (McArthur et al. 2001).
In particular, studies need to be conducted that assess the relationship between participation in WIC and nutritional behaviour such as label reading prior to purchase. WIC provides nutritional education (in addition to supplemental nutrition) to at‐risk women and children, which ideally increases disadvantaged women's abilities to buy healthy and nutritious foods for themselves and their children. WIC educational programmes have been successful in improving healthy eating among participants including changing the consumption of key targeted foods (Ritchie et al. 2010). The nutrition education forms a core part of the WIC programme (Ritchie et al. 2010). However, WIC participants have not always been satisfied with the nutrition education that they receive (Nestor et al. 2001). As each WIC state and county offices provides different nutrition educational components with many nutrition areas targeted, it is possible that some women never receive nutrition label‐specific educational trainings and others receive more intensive ones. As examples of nutrition label‐specific educational sessions, the state of Missouri has an online training for WIC participants entitled, ‘Food Label Basics’ (Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services no date). The county of Riverside in California provides a ‘rethink your drink’ training programme which helps participants read nutrition labels in drinks and assess the amount of sugar in different drinks (County of Riverside no date).
In the last couple of years, there has also been renewed interest in reformatting the nutritional information on food and drink labels to make them easier to read and comprehend through federal policy initiatives (Barnes 2010). Additionally, there are ongoing efforts to place nutritional labels in restaurants as advocated by state and local health policymakers (Pomeranz 2011). The White House Task Force on Obesity Prevention states that one of the benchmarks for success for the nutritional labelling in the United States is ‘An increase in the number of parents who are better able to notice, understand, and use food labels’ (Barnes 2010). The Institute of Medicine is currently conducting an investigation and will issue a report on front of package food labelling, and the food industry has also proposed changes to the food labelling system suggesting the likely possibility of imminent changes to the said system (Brownwell & Koplan 2011).
Key messages
-
•
Only close to half of the low‐income women surveyed regularly make use of the nutritional facts panel information, with less than half using the ingredient list or serving size information on the food label.
-
•
Participants in the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) were less likely than women who were eligible but did not participate in the programme to use the nutrition facts panel information including sections on calories from fat and total calories.
-
•
Future public health and nutrition intervention programmes need to take into consideration the low use of nutrition food label information by high‐risk women, specifically WIC participants, in designing obesity prevention programmes.
Awareness of federal nutrition programmes
Similarly, there have been recent changes to some of the US federal nutrition programmes including the Food Guide Pyramid being replaced by MyPlate in 2011, the government's primary food group symbol [2011a, 2011b]. The Obama administration has suggested that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) needs to communicate more ‘effective, actionable messages’ for its programmes including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Food Guide Pyramid, which could assist in changing behaviour, and possibly address the obesity epidemic (Barnes 2010). Past studies have shown that knowledge of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the USDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA 2010) and other educational programmes such as USDA's Food Guide Pyramid has been associated with healthier eating behaviour including an increased likelihood of meeting requirements for fruit, dairy and protein (Kolodinsky et al. 2007).
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans provides dietary recommendations and was compiled by the USDA and HHS in 2010 (US Department of Health and Human Services 2010). The USDA also designed the Food Guide Pyramid, which outlines a plan for daily food choices using the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and was recently changed to MyPlate [USDA‐NAL 2011b]. Another federal nutrition programme is the 5‐a‐Day for Better Health Program, renamed the Fruits and Veggie‐More Matters [developed by the National Cancer Institute in collaboration with the Produce for Better Health Foundation and managed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) since 2005], which was designed to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption (CDC no date).
In this study, we sought to assess the frequency of use of nutritional package information and awareness of nutritional programmes by low‐income women in the United States and whether participation in the WIC programme was associated with differences in use and awareness in comparison with eligible non‐participants (those women and girls who are eligible for participation based on criteria described in the Methods section but do not participate in the WIC programme).
Methods
In 2005–2006, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a nationally based nutrition and health survey, added specific questions to assess diet behaviour and nutritional awareness including questions on the use of food nutrition labels. Specifically, adolescents older than 15 years and adults were asked questions on diet behaviour including questions on the frequency of use of the nutrition facts panel, the ingredient list, serving size information, health claims, and then whether they check calories on a food product or calories from fat, calories from total fat, trans fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, fibre and sugars. Respondents could answer that they use the information or check the nutrient always, most of the time, sometimes, rarely or never. Specifically, participants were shown a nutrition facts panel and then asked, ‘How often do you use the nutrition facts panel (or another part of the nutrition label based on the line of questioning) when deciding to buy a food product? Would you say always, most of the time, some of the time, rarely or never?’ Participants were subsequently asked, ‘When you use the food label to decide about a food product, how often do you look for information about calories (or saturated fats, fats or cholesterol, etc.). Would you say always, most of the time, sometimes, rarely or never?’
Survey respondents were only asked additional questions about nutrition information use (e.g. if they check calories on a food product or check other nutrient information on the product) if they responded affirmatively that they used the nutrition facts panel, the ingredient list, serving size information or health claims on a package. Questioning on nutrition information use was terminated if survey participants responded that they never use nutrition information on a food package.
Additionally, questions on nutritional awareness of USDA programmes were assessed including awareness of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, My Pyramid and the CDC's 5‐a‐Day For Better Health Program. Respondent could answer either yes or no whether they had heard of certain programmes or not. The specific questions were, ‘Have you heard of dietary guidelines? Have you heard of food guide pyramid? Have you heard about 5‐a‐Day program?’
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses included means, standard deviations and percentages for univariate analyses, chi‐square, t‐tests of significance and multivariate logistic regressions for multivariate analyses. Ninety‐five per cent confidence intervals (CIs) were provided for percentage estimates for total frequencies, as to provide information on the precision of the estimate. Bivariate results that were significant at P < 0.05 were further analysed in multivariate models. Multivariate models were adjusted for age, WIC participation status, race/ethnicity, education level, poverty‐to‐income ratio (PIR) and maternal body mass index (BMI) category. The primary outcome of interest was awareness of nutritional programmes (yes or no) and use of nutrition label information (defined as using sometimes, most of the time or always) from the nutrition facts panel, ingredient list, serving or specific nutrient information (e.g. calories, calories from fat, saturated fats, trans fats, etc.). We dichotomised use of nutrition label information into the aforementioned two categories based on the goal to understand predictors of frequent or occasional use in comparison with infrequent use. Our primary predictor of interest was participation in the WIC Program. All analyses adjusted for the complex survey design using NHANES supplied sampling weights and variance estimates for the years 2005–2006. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 11.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
We only included WIC eligible women and girls in our analyses as defined by those women and girls who were 185% at or below the federal poverty income level (a poverty income ratio ≤1.85) 23 (US Department of Agriculture – Food Nutrition Services no date). All women in the analysis met the low‐income threshold as set by the WIC programme. The poverty threshold is set by the US government and a poverty income ratio of 1.0 or below is defined as being in poverty (US Census Bureau 2011). WIC eligible women must also either have a child under 5 years of age or be currently pregnant or breastfeeding.
Ethical review
This study did not need human subjects approval as it involved only de‐identified data according to the University of California San Francisco's Committee on Human Research. The NHANES 2005–2006 surveys received approval from the National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board (Protocol # 2005–2006) (National Center for Health Statistics 2011).
Results
There were 643 pregnant women or women with children under the age of 5 (the population that WIC serves). Among the 643 women, there were 304 WIC eligible, with 195 participating in the WIC programme and 109 eligible but not participating. Using the weights provided by NHANES, this sample size corresponds to a population size of 6 193 613. The mean age of the group was 28.1 years (95% CI 27.1–29.1) (Table 1). Almost half (49.5%) were married and 69.6% were US born, with the majority living in poverty (53.2%) and 71.3% having a high school degree or less. The majority of the group was overweight (41.9%), with 23.7% being obese (Table 1). The frequencies of demographic and health characteristics were similar between WIC participants and eligible non‐participants with the exception of maternal age, the percentage living in poverty and maternal education level. The mean maternal age was 29.5 years among WIC participants and 27.0 years for eligible non‐participants. A higher percentage of WIC participants were living in poverty (53.2% vs. 44.9%) and a lower percentage had an educational level higher than a high school degree (22.7% with some college vs. 36.8% of eligible non‐participants) (Table 1). The frequency of white race was also higher among eligible non‐participants (44.5% vs. 33.4%) although the differences in race/ethnicity breakdown were not statistically significant (Table 1).
Table 1.
Socio‐demographics of WIC participants and WIC eligible non‐participant mothers in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2006 (n = 304)
| Variable | Total mean or % (95% CI) | WIC only | Non‐WIC | P‐value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean or % | Mean or % | |||
| Age | 28.1 (27.1–29.1) | 29.5 | 27.0 | <0.01 |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||||
| Mexican American | 26.2 (18.8–35.2) | 30.1 | 20.9 | 0.70 |
| Other Hispanic | 8.1 (4.8–13.2) | 8.8 | 7.1 | |
| White | 38.1 (27.3–50.2) | 33.4 | 44.5 | |
| Black | 22.0 (13.5–33.6) | 23.1 | 20.5 | |
| Other race | 5.7 (2.4–12.9) | 4.7 | 7.1 | |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 49.5 (41.8–57.2) | 41.2 | 60.8 | 0.1 |
| Living with partner | 16.9 (12.0–23.3) | 19.8 | 13.0 | |
| Never married | 24.9 (17.6–34.1) | 29.3 | 19.0 | |
| Divorced | 4.2 (2.8–6.3) | 5.6 | 2.4 | |
| Separated | 4.4 (2.0–9.5) | 4.1 | 4.8 | |
| US born | 69.6 (58.2–79.0) | 68.4 | 71.2 | 0.48 |
| Living in poverty (PIR <1.3) | 53.2 (44.5–61.8) | 59.3 | 44.9 | 0.03 |
| Education level | ||||
| College (any) | 28.7 (20.5–38.5) | 22.7 | 36.8 | 0.03 |
| High school degree or fewer years | 71.3 (61.5–79.5) | 77.3 | 63.2 | |
| Maternal BMI category | ||||
| Normal (<25) | 34.4 (27.3–42.3) | 37.7 | 29.9 | 0.68 |
| Overweight ≥25 & <30 | 41.9 (34.8–49.4) | 22.3 | 25.5 | |
| Obese ≥30 | 23.7 (18.7–29.6) | 40.0 | 44.6 | |
| Participating in WIC programme | 57.7 (48.2–66.6) | |||
BMI, body mass index; PIR, poverty‐to‐income ratio; WIC, Women, Infants and Children.
For the questions on nutrition awareness, there was little statistically significant difference between WIC participants and non‐participants although non‐participants tended to have slightly higher awareness of all programmes. Of note, while 75.2% of women had heard of the Food Pyramid programme, only 36.6% had heard of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and 47.7% had heard of the 5‐a‐Day programme (Table 2).
Table 2.
Nutrition awareness and behaviours by WIC participation status (n = 304)
| Variable | All women* | WIC | Non‐WIC | P‐value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | (N/total) % | |||
| Nutrition awareness | ||||
| Heard of Dietary Guidelines | 38.9 (31.1–47.4) | 36.6 | 42.2 | 0.36 |
| Heard of Food Pyramid | 79.7 (69.9–86.8) | 75.2 | 85.8 | 0.34 |
| Heard of 5‐a‐Day | ||||
| Health programme | 48.4 (41.6–55.2) | 47.7 | 49.4 | 0.42 |
| Diet behaviours | ||||
| Use nutrition facts panel on food label | 55.1 (45.0–64.8) | 45.2 | 68.7 | <0.01 |
| Use ingredient list on food label | 43.3 (34.4–52.6) | 37.1 | 51.7 | 0.02 |
| Use serving size on food label | 44.5 (36.9–52.4) | 40.5 | 50.0 | 0.28 |
| Use health claims on food packages | 47.5 (37.2–58.0) | 39.7 | 58.0 | <0.01 |
| Check calories on food label | 63.0 (55.8–69.6) | 50.1 | 77.7 | 0.046 |
| Check calories from fat on food label | 58.0 (49.0–66.5) | 47.2 | 70.4 | 0.02 |
| Check total fat on food label | 58.3 (49.6–66.5) | 52.2 | 65.2 | 0.12 |
| Check trans fat on food label | 43.8 (35.2–52.7) | 36.1 | 52.6 | 0.10 |
| Check cholesterol on food label | 48.6 (39.2–58.2) | 48.0 | 49.4 | 0.88 |
| Check saturated fat on food label | 51.2 (43.4–58.9) | 44.0 | 59.4 | 0.058 |
| Check carbohydrates on food label | 52.7 (45.2–60.0) | 42.4 | 64.5 | 0.02 |
| Check fiber on food label | 55.4 (48.2–62.3) | 49.7 | 61.8 | 0.18 |
| Check sugar on food label | 66.9 (58.2–74.7) | 58.0 | 77.3 | 0.01 |
| Check sodium on food label | 55.7 (47.0–64.0) | 46.7 | 66.0 | 0.02 |
All WIC‐eligible women. This includes participating and eligible non‐participating women. WIC, Women, Infants and Children.
For the questions concerning dietary behaviours, WIC participants were less likely to use the nutrition facts panel on the food label (45.2% vs. 68.7%, P < 0.01) (Table 2). WIC participants were also much less likely to use the ingredient list on the food label (37.1% vs. 51.7%, P = 0.02) or much less likely to use health claims on the food label (39.7% vs. 58.0%, P < 0.01) (Table 2). WIC mothers were also less likely to check calories on the food label (50.1% vs. 77.7%, P = 0.046), check calories from fat (47.2% vs. 70.4%, P = 0.02), check carbohydrates on the food label (42.4% vs. 64.5%, P < 0.01), check sugar (58.0% vs. 77.3%, P = 0.01) and check sodium on the food label (46.7% vs. 66.0%, P = 0.02) (Table 2).
Adjusting for race/ethnicity, education level, WIC participation status, maternal age at interview, PIR and maternal BMI category in multivariate regressions, WIC mothers were less likely to use the nutrition facts panel [odds ratio (OR) 0.45 95% CI 0.22–0.91], use the health claims on a package when deciding to buy a food product (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.92) and check calories from carbohydrates (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.22–0.97) (3, 4). Higher maternal age was also associated with greater likelihood to check calories from fat (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.12) (Table 4) and women with an educational level of high school or less were less likely to check carbohydrates (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15–0.56) and sodium (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14–0.66) (4, 5).
Table 3.
Use of nutrition facts panel, ingredient list and health claims on a package when deciding to buy a food product: results of multivariate analysis
| Variable | Nutrition fact panel | Ingredient list | Health claims |
|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||
| Mexican‐American | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Other Hispanic | 1.71 (0.49–6.00) | 1.94 (0.46–8.18) | 0.91 (0.13–6.45) |
| White | 0.88 (0.33–2.38) | 1.27 (0.62–2.61) | 1.38 (0.67–2.84) |
| African American | 1.05 (0.36–3.03) | 0.89 (0.34–2.32) | 0.94 (0.34–2.54) |
| Other race | 0.40 (0.10–1.70) | 3.86 (1.58–9.42) | 4.12 (0.54–31.32) |
| Education | |||
| Some college or more | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| High school or less | 0.45 (0.18–1.12) | 1.92 (0.78–4.76) | 0.60 (0.27–1.33) |
| Socio‐economics | |||
| WIC participation | 0.45 (0.22–0.91) | 0.58 (0.32–1.07) | 0.54 (0.32–0.92) |
| Age at interview | 1.02 (0.96–1.08) | 1.04 (0.99–1.11) | 1.03 (0.97–1.09) |
| Maternal BMI category | |||
| Normal | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 1.57 (0.58–4.29) | 1.11 (0.44–2.78) | 0.91 (0.44–1.86) |
| Obese | 1.16 (0.53–2.52) | 0.82 (0.45–1.49) | 1.22 (0.57–2.61) |
| Poverty income ratio | 1.16 (0.65–2.04) | 1.23 (0.57–2.64) | 0.81 (0.44–1.48) |
BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; WIC, Women, Infants and Children.
Table 4.
Use of calories from fat, total calories and carbohydrates on food label when deciding to buy a food product: results of multivariate analysis
| Variable | Calories from fat | Total calories | Carbohydrates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||
| Mexican American | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Other Hispanic | 4.31 (0.89–20.83) | 2.93 (0.74–11.64) | 1.71 (0.49–6.00) |
| White | 0.58 (0.20–1.69) | 0.80 (0.32–2.00) | 0.88 (0.33–2.38) |
| African American | 0.81 (0.22–3.03) | 0.50 (0.15–1.67) | 1.05 (0.36–3.03) |
| Other race | 2.62 (0.45–15.29) | 2.06 (0.35–12.18) | 0.40 (0.10–1.70) |
| Education | |||
| Some college or more | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| High school or less | 0.98 (0.34–2.81) | 0.88 (0.40–1.92) | 0.29 (0.15–0.56) |
| Socio‐economics | |||
| WIC participation | 0.35 (0.19–1.01) | 0.29 (0.07–1.12) | 0.44 (0.20–0.97) |
| Poverty income ratio | 0.68 (0.34–1.36) | 0.68 (0.31–1.49) | 0.87 (0.49–1.55) |
| Age at interview | 1.06 (1.01–1.12) | 1.04 (0.97–1.12) | 1.03 (0.97–1.09) |
| Maternal BMI category | |||
| Normal | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 0.62 (0.19–2.03) | 1.18 (0.23–6.17) | 1.96 (0.62–6.17) |
| Obese | 1.47 (0.50–4.35) | 1.89 (0.76–4.67) | 1.42 (0.67–3.00) |
BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; WIC, Women, Infants and Children.
Table 5.
Use of sugar and sodium on nutrition label when deciding to buy a food product: results of multivariate analysis
| Variable | Sugar | Sodium |
|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||
| Mexican American | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Other Hispanic | 0.73 (0.19–2.88) | 1.89 (0.46–7.67) |
| White | 1.27 (0.55–2.95) | 1.06 (0.41–2.73) |
| African American | 0.72 (0.34–1.51) | 1.22 (0.43–3.50) |
| Other race | 0.54 (0.13–2.19) | 2.24 (0.12–40.78) |
| Education | ||
| Some college or more | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| High school or less | 0.41 (0.11–1.56) | 0.30 (0.14–0.66) |
| Socio‐economics | ||
| Eligible non‐participants | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| WIC participation | 0.51 (0.20–1.29) | 0.54 (0.25–1.15) |
| Maternal age at interview | 1.03 (0.97–1.10) | 1.05 (0.97–1.13) |
| Maternal body mass index | ||
| Normal | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 1.43 (0.53–3.83) | 1.75 (0.46–6.70) |
| Obese | 1.11 (0.40–3.07) | 1.27 (0.44–3.64) |
| Poverty income ratio | 1.47 (0.65–3.33) | 0.98 (0.48–2.02) |
CI, confidence interval; WIC, Women, Infants and Children.
Discussion
We found important differences in the use of the nutritional facts panel information and other product nutritional information by WIC participants in comparison with eligible non‐WIC participants even after adjusting for race/ethnicity, PIR, educational level, maternal age and BMI category. We did not find any statistically significant differences in the awareness of nutrition programmes based on WIC participation status for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Food Pyramid and 5‐a‐Day Programmes.
For the overall group of WIC eligible women, we found that near half regularly (always, most of the time or sometimes) make use of the nutritional facts panel information (55.1%), with a slightly lower percentage using the ingredient list (43.3%) or the serving size on the food label (44.4%). The relatively low use of nutritional labels is concerning in this population group given the high risk for obesity and should be taken into consideration given ongoing efforts to revamp nutritional labels and potentially place them on the front of packages or in a manner that is easier to read and understand by the consumer (Brownwell & Koplan 2011). The differences that we found between WIC participants and non‐participants are additionally disconcerting given the nutritional educational component of the WIC programme and federal funds spent in this area. Specifically, the more limited use of the nutritional facts panel and the ingredient list by WIC participants in comparison with the eligible non‐participants should be investigated in future quantitative and qualitative studies.
As not all food items can be purchased under the WIC programme, it is possible that participants develop a routine where they only purchase certain items. As the routine develops and participants select only certain items, they may no longer look at nutrition facts panel or other nutrition label information and develop complacency when shopping. If this is the pattern of purchase for WIC participants, then future interventions should target these types of behaviors, which ultimately will not serve the WIC population. As WIC is a supplemental food programme, it is not meant to satisfy all the nutritional needs of participants, and participants still need to make food purchasing choices. Additionally, within the WIC food package, there are a variety of options available to participants, who ideally should be evaluating the nutritional content of different food items. Future studies need to be conducted to verify the possibility that WIC participants stop reading nutrition labels when they make WIC‐supported purchases and/or other food purchases.
We also had a relatively low percentage of women surveyed who had heard of the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans (38.9%) and the CDC's 5‐a‐Day program (48.4%). A higher percentage had heard of the Food Pyramid (79.76%), but this was lower than the 92.2% of WIC participants who were aware of the Food Pyramid in the study by Pérez‐Escamilla et al. (2010). Our results also differed from those by Pérez‐Escamilla et al. (2010) in the frequency of food label use; they had a much higher percentage of WIC participants (19.7%) who stated that they often or quite often use food labels and 80.3% saying they only rarely or sometimes use them. The differences in results could be explained by the differences in population surveyed. In contrast with our study which was drawn from a population‐based survey, the study by Pérez‐Escamilla et al. (2010) was based on an exclusively Latina sample and was drawn from populations in Connecticut, Ohio, Texas and California. Low‐income Latinas may have a higher use of nutrition information in comparison with other population groups captured by the NHANES.
Limitations
Our data analysis was based on data collected by NHANES in 2005–2006, which is approximately 6 years ago from the time period of doing the analysis for this article. It is possible that there have been recent changes in public awareness of federal programmes and nutrition label reading behaviours because of policy changes that have added labels to restaurants and ongoing public discourse in the media concerning nutrition issues (US Department of Agriculture, Learning Center (USDA‐LC) 2011; USDA‐NAL 2011a). These potential changes in awareness and behaviours would not have been picked up by the NHANES 2005–2006.
Another limitation of our study is that while we adjusted for WIC participation status and income levels using the PIR, statistical adjustment may have not fully accounted for differences between WIC participants and non‐participants. There likely was selection bias in terms of unobservable differences between WIC participants and non‐participants that drive enrollment in the WIC programme that may not have been accounted by the statistical methods used in this analysis. Previous researchers have suggested that the costs and benefits associated with enrolling in the WIC programme are associated with significant maternal differences that could impact health outcomes and erroneously be associated with the WIC programme (Ludwig and Miller 2005; Gueorguieva et al. 2009). Meanwhile, the results of our study, which indicate significant differences between WIC participants and eligible non‐participants in use of nutritional labels, should be the impetus for future studies to systematically investigate diet‐related behaviours and attitudes in low‐income women.
Future directions
Future studies need to be conducted, specifically qualitative studies or focus groups to assess why WIC participants may be less inclined to use the information on the nutrition facts panel. Previous reviews of the WIC programme have cited its effectiveness in reducing the prevalence of iron deficiency anaemia among toddlers and preschool children and a slightly higher birthweight and a higher mean gestational age among participants (Owen and Owen 1997). The content of the educational component of the WIC programme is something that varies by site, with each WIC state agency responsible for developing nutritional programmes that comply with WIC's overarching aims (Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services no date; USDA‐LC 2011), which may make it difficult to assess comprehensively.
With the current administration's recommendations to revamp the nutritional labelling programme, make the USDA's nutrition programmes more accessible, and the more widespread availability of nutrition labelling in restaurants and fast food locations (Elbel 2011), studies need to be conducted to assess the impact of these changes on WIC women, a high‐risk group, in addition to low‐income women in general. If women in WIC programme tend to use nutrition labels less, in spite of additional educational counselling on reading nutrition labels, because their purchases are limited to WIC purchases with WIC dollars, additional studies are needed to assess whether these behaviours translate to other food purchases.
We also suggest that further larger‐scale studies be conducted to investigate possible differences found in this study between WIC participants and eligible non‐participants. Future studies should use statistical techniques that include the use of instrumental variables (Bitler and Currie 2005) or other techniques such as propensity function methods to control for selection bias in the enrollment in the WIC programme (Gueorguieva et al. 2009). The current sample size was too small to include an instrumental variable or to use other methods and could have resulted in additional statistical adjustments to the study (Martens et al. 2006).
Source of funding
The authors thank USDA Economic Research Service RIDGE Small Grant in Nutrition (UC Davis), NIH NIDDK K01 080825 and NIH DK060617 (MH).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Contributions
JMW conceived of the idea for the study, did the analysis and wrote up the manuscript, and MBH conceived of the study and assisted with the writing of the manuscript.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Lucia Kaiser for her assistance.
References
- Barnes M. (2010) Solving the problem of childhood obesity in one generation. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity to the President. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Bitler M.P. & Currie J. (2005) Does WIC work? The effects of WIC on pregnancy and birth outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24, 73–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brownwell K.D. & Koplan J.P. (2011) Front‐of‐package nutrition labeling – An abuse of trust by the food industry. New England Journal of Medicine 364, 2373–2375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Center for Disease Control (CDC) (no date) Fruits and Veggies Matter Available at: http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/ (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- County of Riverside (no date) First Five Riverside (County of Riverside Children & Families Commission) Available at: http://www.rccfc.org/Drink%20Parent%20Resources.html (Accessed 6 October 2011).
- Elbel B. (2011) Consumer estimation of recommended and actual calories at fast food restaurants. Obesity (Silver Spring) 19, 1971–1978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gueorguieva R., Morse S.B. & Roth J. (2009) Length of prenatal participation in WIC and risk of delivering a small for gestational age infant: Florida 1996–2004. Maternal Child Health Journal 13, 479–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huang T.T., Kaur H., McCarter K.S., Nazir N., Choi W.S. & Ahluwalia J.S. (2004) Reading nutrition labels and fat consumption in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 35, 399–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kolodinsky J., Harvey‐Berino J.R., Berlin L., Johnson R.K. & Reynolds T.W. (2007) Knowledge of current dietary guidelines and food choice by college students: better eaters have higher knowledge of dietary guidance. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107, 1409–1413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kristal A.R., Levy L., Patterson R.E., Li S.S. & White E. (1998) Trends in food label use associated with new nutrition labeling regulations. American Journal of Public Health 88, 1212–1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ludwig J. & Miller M. (2005) Interpreting the WIC Debate. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24, 691–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martens E.P., Pestman W.R., De Boer A., Belister S.V. & Klunger O.H. (2006) Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology 17, 260–267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McArthur L., Chamberlain V. & Howard A.B. (2001) Behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge of low‐income consumers regarding nutrition labels. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 12, 415–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (no date) State of Missouri WIC program. Food Label Basics Available at: http://health.mo.gov/living/families/wic/wicfamilies/education/foodlabels.php (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- National Center for Health Statistics (2011) National Nutrition Health and Examination Survey. NCHS Research Ethics Review Board (ERB) Approval Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/irba98.htm (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- Nestor B., McKenzie J., Hasan N. & AbuSabha Rand C. (2001) Achterberg, Client satisfaction with the nutrition education component of the California WIC program. Journal of Nutrition Education 33, 83–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neuhouser M.L., Kristal A.R. & Patterson R.E. (1999) Use of food nutrition labels is associated with lower fat intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 99, 45–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Owen A.L. & Owen G.M. (1997) Twenty years of WIC: a review of some effects of the program. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97, 777–782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pérez‐Escamilla R., Song D.S., Taylor C.A., Mejia A., Melgar‐Quinonez H., Balcazar H.G. et al (2010) Place of residence modifies the association between acculturation and dietary tools knowledge among Latina WIC participants: a multi‐state study. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 13, 299–308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pomeranz J.L. (2011) The unique authority of state and local health departments to address obesity. American Journal of Public Health 101, 1192–1197. Epub 2011 May 12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ritchie L.D., Whaley S.E., Spector P., Gomez J. & Crawford P.B. (2010) Favorable impact of nutrition education on California WIC families. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 42 (Suppl.), S2–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Satia J.A., Galanko J.A. & Neuhouser M.L. (2005) Food nutrition label use is associated with demographic, behavioral and psychosocial factors and dietary intake among African Americans in North Carolina. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105, 392–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Singh G.K., Siahpush M. & Kogan M.D. (2010) Risk social inequalities in US Childhood Obesity, 2003–7. Annals of Epidemiology 20, 40–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- US Census Bureau (2011)Definition: Ratio of Income to Poverty Available at: https://ask.census.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/319/~/definition%3A‐ratio‐of‐income‐to‐poverty (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Dietary Guideline for Americans 2010. 7th edn. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
- US Department of Agriculture – Food Nutrition Services (USDA‐FNS) (no date) WIC Income Eligibility Guidelines 2011–2012. How to Apply – USDA Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines.htm (Accessed 29 July 2011).
- US Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Library (USDA‐NAL) (2011a) The Food Guide Pyramid Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap.htm (Accessed 29 July 2011).
- US Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Library (USDA‐NAL) (2011b) MyPlate Available at: http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=4&tax_level=3&tax_subject=256&topic_id=1348&level3_id=5715 (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- US Department of Agriculture, Learning Center (USDA‐LC) (2011) WIC Program Nutrition Education Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/wicworks/Learning_Center/ntredguidance.pdf (Accessed 15 February 2011).
- US Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 Available at: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/default.htm (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- US Department of Health and Human Services & Food and Drug Administration (2010) Key Findings from 2002 and 2008 US Food and Drug Administration's Health and Diet Survey Available at: http://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm202780.htm (Accessed 7 October 2011).
- Wang Y. & Beydoun M.A. (2007) The obesity epidemic in the United States – gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: a systematic reivew and metaanalysis. Epidemiol Reviews 29, 6–28. Epub 2007 May 17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]