WIC--the federal program that provides extra nutrition for low-income pregnant and nursing women and for children up to age 5--is a splendid idea. That`s not the issue. The program is already getting more than $1.5 billion this year and serves 3.1 million people every month. Both chambers of Congress have passed measures to extend it and the legislation is now in conference committee.
What is in question is just how much the program is accomplishing. Researchers who spent five years and $5 million collecting extensive data are charging that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) censored their glowing report and deleted an enthusiastic executive summary. Several congressmen angrily have accused the Reagan administration of trying to ``prevent the public from learning how much good WIC is doing`` so it could be cut back or ended.
USDA officials claim they merely cut out conclusions that were more sweeping and cheery than could be justified by the research data, which were mixed and ``not as clear cut as we had expected.`` John W. Bode, assistant secretary for food and consumer services, notes that the report does contain a compilation of findings that is ``rigorously factual`` and that the USDA is
``pleased at the indication that WIC has a positive effect on those who receive its benefits.``
It`s unfortunate that this study has been smeared with partisan politics. Measuring the value of WIC is difficult under ideal scientific circumstances for several reasons. Proving the relationship between nutrition during pregnancy and the health and intelligence of children is almost impossible;
too many variables and other factors are involved. It`s hard to find big control groups for comparison; the WIC study used both historic data and contemporary mothers and children and results often were not consistent.
The study does show that WIC made some improvements in the diets of pregnant women and young children in the program. It increased the use of formula instead of cows` milk for infants. It may have lengthened pregnancy by one day and reduced the chances of premature birth and fetal death among the poorest, least educated mothers, although data are not consistent. It brought more women into prenatal care earlier in pregnancy. It may have helped to increase the head size of infants and may have found some evidence of higher scores in one or two preschool tests. It increased the likelihood that children would be better immunized.
But evidence that WIC increased the birthweight of infants wasn`t consistent. And no conclusive results turned up in several other important measures.
Of course, WIC should be reauthorized, as Congress now clearly intends to do. Even if findings are still ``mixed,`` WIC is making some improvement in the diets and lives of high-risk mothers and children. Research also should continue to try to pinpoint the precise relationship between diet and the outcome of pregnancy--with a clear, nonpartisan understanding of the limits of such data.