Nayga (2018) conducted a study aimed at examining the effectiveness of the WIC program. This federal project addresses the nutritional needs of women, infants, and children. The author states that WIC has a positive influence on the participants’ dietary habits, but certain gaps and limitations are also outlined. This critique highlights the primary findings of the study and compares them to the results of other inquiries.
We will write a custom Critical Writing on WIC Household Food Purchases Quality specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Nayga (2018) concludes that the program is rather effective as it has a positive impact on people’s nutritional choices. The author provides some statistics supporting this claim and showing the benefits of the project, and special attention is paid to health outcomes for children. This information is consistent with other studies that investigate the influence of the program on different groups. For instance, Fingar et al. (2016) stress that WIC is associated with a reduced risk of preterm birth. Sekhobo (2017) concentrates on children diagnosed with obesity and points at the favourable effects of the project.
At the same time, Nayga (2018) highlights some challenges related to the research validity. As an illustration of these concerns, the author admits that the changes in people’s views can be due to the project’s influence on retailers rather than its training component. Nayga (2018) claims that retailers involved in the program are bound to sell healthier foods, which limits people’s access to undesirable products (sweetened drinks or fatty foods).
Another important contribution of the author is the analysis of geographical aspects. Nayga (2018) states that the proximity of the retailer participating in WIC did not affect people’s dietary patterns. The selection bias is mentioned as people participating in such programs as WIC are often conscious about their health and are more committed to the project’s goals. This type of bias is discussed by other researchers as well (Sekhobo 2017; Fingar et al. 2016). The researchers draw readers’ attention to the fact that the participants may have positive attitudes towards health and nutrition.
Nevertheless, the author failed to address other important limitations of the program and the associated study. Sekhobo (2017) and Fingar et al. (2016) argue that it is possible to question any results due to people’s participation in multiple nutritional projects. Therefore, it is impossible to assume that WIC is responsible for the shifts in people’s behaviour. It can be one of the factors contributing to the change, or it can also be irrelevant for people’s dietary views.
These assumptions are of paramount importance since they question the effectiveness of some WIC elements. Nayga (2018) mentions this in the seminar claiming that the project’s training effort is regarded as an inefficient model. The author suggests that policymakers should reconsider this portion of the program or distribute the funds allocated to support the effort in a different way.
To sum up, the seminar contains valuable data regarding the effectiveness of the WIC program. The author identifies its positive outcomes and reveals some limitations. Although the possibility of other projects interference is not highlighted, the seminar raises awareness on the matter. The author makes a recommendation concerning the improvement of the project. It is emphasised that the training interventions involved in the program are not effective and should be reshaped or abandoned.
Fingar, KR, Lob, SH, Dove, MS, Gradziel, P & Curtis, MP 2016, ‘Reassessing the association between WIC and birth outcomes using a fetuses-at-risk approach’, Maternal and Child Health Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 825-835.
Nayga, R 2018, WIC participation and relative quality of household food purchases, Mita Campus, Keio University. Web.
Sekhobo, JP 2017, ‘Estimation of WIC effects in multilevel, cross-sector obesity prevention interventions’, Obesity, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1157-1158.