Jennifer Pomeranz
Jennifer L Pomeranz
Scroll
Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management
-
Professional overview
-
Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities.
Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016.
Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.
"Policy is so important because it is the most effective way to influence public health. I got into public health to change the world -- to improve health and address inequities.”
-
Education
-
BA, History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIJD, Juris Doctorate, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NYMPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
-
Areas of research and study
-
Diet-related diseaseProducts that cause harmPublic Health LawPublic Health PolicySocial injustices that create health disparities
-
Publications
Publications
Firearm Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws and Preemption: New Developments and Outstanding Issues, 50 States, 2020
Pomeranz, J. L., & Ochoa, G. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
61Issue
3Page(s)
455-460Governmental actions to address COVID-19 misinformation
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Schwid, A. R. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
Journal of Public Health PolicyVolume
42Issue
2Page(s)
201-210AbstractSince COVID-19 emerged, a plethora of misinformation has undermined the public’s ability to identify reliable sources of accurate information. To identify the range of methods governments used to address COVID-19 misinformation, we conducted a content analysis of international media and evaluated government actions in light of international law, which protects freedom of expression and calls on governments to guarantee this fundamental right even during a pandemic or other emergency. We identified five categories of government activities: (1) disseminating and increasing access to accurate information; (2) restricting access to accurate information; (3) disseminating disinformation, false information, and misinformation; (4) addressing commercial fraud; and (5) criminalizing expression. The goal of addressing COVID-19 misinformation is best served by protecting expression, disseminating factual information, ensuring strong protections for whistleblowers, and supporting an independent media environment. Conversely, governments undermine public health when they create a state of uncertainty and violate human rights.Identifying novel predictors of state legislative action to address obesity
AbstractArons, A., Pomeranz, J., & Hamad, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
Journal of Public Health Management and PracticeVolume
27Issue
1Page(s)
E9-E18AbstractObjective: There is wide variation in the number and types of obesity policies enacted across states, and prior studies suggest that partisan factors may not fully explain this variation. In this exploratory analysis, we examined the association of a broad array of state-level factors with the number and types of obesity policies across states. Design: We analyzed 32 predictor variables across 7 categories of state-level characteristics. We abstracted data from 1652 state obesity policies introduced during 2009-2014. We used multilevel regression models and principal component analysis to examine the association between state-level characteristics and policy outcomes. Main Outcome Measures: Our outcome measures included whether bills involved topics that were public health-oriented or business interest-oriented, whether bills were enacted into law, and the number of introduced bills and enacted laws per state. Results: Numerous state-level characteristics were associated with obesity-related bill introduction and law enactment, and different state characteristics were associated with public health-oriented versus business interest-oriented policies. For example, state-level demographics, economic factors, policy environment, public programs, and the prevalence of obesity's downstream consequences were associated with the number of public health laws whereas obesity prevalence and policy environment were associated with the number of business interest laws. Conclusions: Our results support the hypothesis that a variety of factors contribute to a complex state obesity policymaking environment, highlighting the need for future research to disentangle these key predictors.Misperceptions about added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in popular children's drinks: Experimental and cross-sectional study with U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years)
AbstractHarris, J. L., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
Pediatric ObesityVolume
16Issue
10AbstractBackground: Experts recommend against serving sugary drinks and non-nutritive sweeteners to young children, but misperceptions about drink ingredients may contribute to consumption. Objectives: Assess parents' ability to identify added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in children's drinks. Methods: Researchers recruited U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years) through an online survey panel (N = 1603). In a randomized experiment, participants indicated whether eight popular children's drink products contained added sugar or non-nutritive sweeteners and percentage of juice after viewing (a) front-of-package alone or (b) front-of-package plus nutrition/ingredient information. Participants also viewed common statements of identity on children's drinks to identify product ingredients. Results: When viewing front-of-packages alone, most participants accurately identified products with (83%-90%) and without (51%-65%) added sugar. Showing nutrition/ingredient information increased accuracy. However, the majority could not identify drinks with non-nutritive sweeteners (53%-58%), and many incorrectly believed that unsweetened juices contained added sugar (38%-43%), sweetened flavoured waters had no added sugar (24%-25%), and 100% juice contained less than 100% juice (37%). Furthermore, the majority could not identify product ingredients from statement of identity terms. Conclusions: Misperceptions about product ingredients under current labelling practices indicate that updated regulations are necessary, including clear disclosures of sweetener and juice content on package fronts.State Gun-Control, Gun-Rights, and Preemptive Firearm-Related Laws Across 50 US States for 2009–2018
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Silver, D., & Lieff, S. A. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
111Issue
7Page(s)
1273-1280AbstractObjectives. To assess state policy environments and the relationship between state gun-control, gun-rights, and preemptive firearm-related laws in the United States. Methods. In 2019 through 2020, we evaluated substantive firearm laws and preemptive firearm laws across 50 US states for 2009 through 2018. For each state, we compared substantive measures with preemptive measures on the same policy topic for 2018. Results. The presence of state firearm-related laws varied across states, but with the exception of “punitive preemption” the number of gun-control, gun-rights, and preemptive measures remained unchanged in most states from 2009 through 2018. As of 2018, a majority of states had preemptive measures on almost all gun-control policy topics without enacting substantive gun-control measures. Several states had a combination of gun-control and preemptive measures. Only a small number of states had gun-control measures with few to no preemptive measures. Conclusions. Even where state legislators were unable to pass statewide gun-rights measures, they succeeded in passing preemption, preserving state authority over a wide range of gun-control and gun-rights policy topics. The majority of states used preemption as a tool to support policy frameworks favoring gun rights.State Preemption: An Emerging Threat to Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation
AbstractCrosbie, E., Pomeranz, J. L., Wright, K. E., Hoeper, S., & Schmidt, L. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
111Issue
4Page(s)
677-686AbstractWe sought to examine the strategies promoting and countering state preemption of local sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes in the United States. Using Crosbie and Schmidt's tobacco preemption framework, we analyzed key tactics used by the SSB industry to achieve state preemption of local taxes identified in news sources, industry Web sites, government reports, and public documents. Starting in 2017, 4 states rejected and 4 passed laws preempting local SSB taxes. The beverage industry attempted to secure state preemption through front groups and trade associations, lobbying key policymakers, inserting preemptive language into other legislation, and issuing legal threats and challenges. The public health community's response is in the early stages of engaging in media advocacy, educating policymakers, mobilizing national collaboration, and expanding legal networks. State preemption of local SSB taxes is in the early stages but will likely scale up as local tax proposals increase. The public health community has a substantial role in proactively working to prevent preemption concurrent with health policy activity and using additional strategies successfully used in tobacco control to stop preemption diffusion.Trends in Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods among US Youths Aged 2-19 Years, 1999-2018
AbstractWang, L., Martínez Steele, E., Du, M., Pomeranz, J. L., O’Connor, L. E., Herrick, K. A., Luo, H., Zhang, X., Mozaffarian, D., & Zhang, F. F. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
JAMA - Journal of the American Medical AssociationVolume
326Issue
6Page(s)
519-530AbstractImportance: The childhood obesity rate has been steadily rising among US youths during the past 2 decades. Increasing evidence links consumption of ultraprocessed foods to excessive calorie consumption and weight gain, but trends in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods among US youths have not been well characterized. Objective: To characterize trends in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods among US youths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional analysis using 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample of US youths aged 2-19 years (n = 33795) from 10 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. Exposures: Secular time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of total energy consumed from ultraprocessed foods as defined by NOVA, an established food classification system that categorizes food according to the degree of food processing. Results: Dietary intake from youths were analyzed (weighted mean age, 10.7 years; 49.1% were girls). From 1999 to 2018, the estimated percentage of total energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67.0% (difference, 5.6% [95% CI, 3.5% to 7.7%]; P <.001 for trend), whereas the percentage of total energy from consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5% (difference, -5.3% [95% CI, -7.5% to -3.2%]; P <.001 for trend). Among the subgroups of ultraprocessed foods, the estimated percentage of energy from consumption of ready-to-heat and -eat mixed dishes increased from 2.2% to 11.2% (difference, 8.9% [95% CI, 7.7% to 10.2%]) and from consumption of sweet snacks and sweets increased from 10.7% to 12.9% (difference, 2.3% [95% CI, 1.0% to 3.6%]), but the estimated percentage of energy decreased for sugar-sweetened beverages from 10.8% to 5.3% (difference, -5.5% [95% CI, -6.5% to -4.5%]) and for processed fats and oils, condiments, and sauces from 7.1% to 4.0% (difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -3.7% to -2.6%]) (all P <.05 for trend). There was a significantly larger increase in the estimated percentage of energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods among non-Hispanic Black youths (from 62.2% to 72.5%; difference, 10.3% [95% CI, 6.8% to 13.8%]) and Mexican American youths (from 55.8% to 63.5%; difference, 7.6% [95% CI, 4.4% to 10.9%]) than the increase among non-Hispanic White youths (from 63.4% to 68.6%; difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 2.1% to 8.3%]) (P =.04 for trends). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on the NHANES cycles from 1999 to 2018, the estimated proportion of energy intake from consumption of ultraprocessed foods has increased among youths in the US and has consistently comprised the majority of their total energy intake..Anticipating and defeating preemption across public health
Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
110Issue
3Page(s)
268-270Child Social Media Influencers and Unhealthy Food Product Placement
AbstractAlruwaily, A., Mangold, C., Greene, T., Arshonsky, J., Cassidy, O., Pomeranz, J. L., & Bragg, M. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
PediatricsVolume
146Issue
5AbstractOBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the frequency with which kid influencers promote branded and unbranded food and drinks during their YouTube videos and assess the nutritional quality of food and drinks shown. METHODS: Researchers used Socialbakers data to identify the 5 most-watched kid influencers (ages 3 to 14 years) on YouTube in 2019. We searched for 50 of their most-watched videos and 50 of their videos that featured food and/or drinks on the thumbnail image of the video. We coded whether kid influencers consumed or played with food or toys, quantified the number of minutes food and/or drinks appeared, and recorded names of branded food and/or drinks. We assessed the nutritional quality of foods using the Nutrient Profile Model and identified the number of drinks with added sugar. RESULTS: A sample of 418 YouTube videos met the search criteria, and 179 of those videos featured food and/or drinks. Food and/or drinks were featured in those videos 291 times. Kid influencers’ YouTube videos were collectively viewed .48 billion times, and videos featuring food and/or drinks were viewed 1 billion times. Most food and/or drinks were unhealthy branded items (n = 263; 90.34%; eg, McDonald’s), followed by unhealthy unbranded items (n = 12; 4.1%; eg, hot dogs), healthy unbranded items (n = 9; 3.1%; eg, fruit), and healthy branded items (n = 7; 2.4%; eg, Yoplait yogurt). CONCLUSIONS: Kid influencers generate millions of impressions for unhealthy food and drink brands through product placement. The Federal Trade Commission should strengthen regulations regarding product placement on YouTube videos featuring young children.Children's Fruit "Juice" Drinks and FDA Regulations: Opportunities to Increase Transparency and Support Public Health
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
110Issue
6Page(s)
871-880AbstractObjectives. To compare children's drink products that contain or purport to contain juice and evaluate labels in light of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.Methods. In 2019, we analyzed federal law for drinks that contain or purport to contain juice by using LexisNexis and FDA's Web site, identified top-selling children's "juice" drinks in fruit punch flavors, gathered labels in store and online, and extracted data from the principal display and information panels.Results. FDA regulations permit a wide range of names, claims, and fruit vignettes on drinks that contain or purport to contain juice, reflecting the product's flavor and not necessarily its ingredients. We identified 39 brands of children's drinks, including 100% juice (n = 7), diluted juices (n = 11), juice drinks (n = 8), fruit-flavored drinks (n = 8), and flavored waters (n = 5), with nonuniform statements of identity; vitamin C and low-sugar claims; and fruit vignettes representing 19 fruits. Many products contained added sugar and nonnutritive sweeteners but little to no juice.Conclusions. Principal display panels rendered it difficult to differentiate among product types, identify those with added sweeteners, and distinguish healthier products. Revised labeling regulations are warranted to support public health.Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: A discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment
AbstractWilde, P., Pomeranz, J. L., Lizewski, L. J., & Zhang, F. F. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
Public Health NutritionVolume
23Issue
18Page(s)
3324-3331AbstractObjective: Using a legal standard for scrutinising the regulation of food label claims, this study assessed whether consumers are misled about wholegrain (WG) content and product healthfulness based on common product labels. Design: First, a discrete choice experiment used pairs of hypothetical products with different amounts of WG, sugar and salt to measure effects on assessment of healthfulness; and second, a WG content comprehension assessment used actual product labels to assess respondent understanding. Setting: Online national panel survey. Participants: For a representative sample of US adults (n 1030), survey responses were collected in 2018 and analysed in 2019. Results: First, 29-47 % of respondents incorrectly identified the healthier product from paired options, and respondents who self-identified as having difficulty in understanding labels were more likely to err. Second, for actual products composed primarily of refined grains, 43-51 % of respondents overstated the WG content, whereas for one product composed primarily of WG, 17 % of respondents understated the WG content. Conclusions: The frequency of consumer misunderstanding of grain product labels was high in both study components. Potential policies to address consumer confusion include requiring disclosure of WG content as a percentage of total grain content or requiring disclosure of the grams of WG v. refined grains per serving.Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: Reply
Wilde, P., Pomeranz, J. L., Lizewski, L. J., & Zhang, F. F. (n.d.). In Public Health Nutrition (1–).Publication year
2020Volume
23Issue
18Page(s)
3334-3335Geographic and Longitudinal Trends in Media Framing of Obesity in the United States
AbstractChiang, J., Arons, A., Pomeranz, J. L., Siddiqi, A., & Hamad, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
ObesityVolume
28Issue
7Page(s)
1351-1357AbstractObjective: The media’s framing of public health issues is closely linked to public opinion on these issues and support for interventions to address them. This study characterized geographic and temporal variation in the US media’s framing of obesity across states from 2006 to 2015. Methods: Newspaper articles that mentioned the term obesity were drawn from Access World News (NewsBank, Inc., Naples, Florida), a comprehensive online database (N = 364,288). This study employed automated content analysis, a machine learning technique, to categorize articles as (1) attributing obesity to individual-level causes (e.g., lifestyle behaviors), (2) attributing obesity to environmental/systemic causes (e.g., neighborhood walkability), (3) attributing obesity to both individual-level causes and environmental/systemic causes, or (4) articles without any such attribution framework. Results: Nationwide across all years, a higher proportion of articles focused on individual-level attribution of obesity than environmental-level attribution or both. Missouri and Idaho had the highest proportions of articles with an individual framework, and Nevada, Arkansas, and Wisconsin had the highest proportions of articles with an environmental framework. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that US media sources heavily focus on an individual framing of obesity, which may be informing public perceptions of obesity. By highlighting differences in obesity media portrayal, this study could inform research to understand why particular states represent outliers and how this may affect obesity policy making.Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children
AbstractRomo-Palafox, M. J., Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
Maternal and Child NutritionVolume
16Issue
3AbstractThe World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes prohibits claims and other marketing that may confuse caregivers about benefits of formula and other milk-based drinks for infants and toddlers, but such marketing is common in the United States. This study assessed caregivers' provision of milk-based products to their infants and toddlers and potential confusion about product benefits and appropriate use. Online survey of 1,645 U.S. caregivers of infants (6–11 months) and toddlers (12–36 months). Respondents identified infant formula and toddler milk products they served their child (ren) and provided relative agreement with common marketing claims. Logistic regression assessed relationships between agreement and serving these products, controlling for individual characteristics. Over one-half of caregivers of infants (52%) agreed that infant formula can be better for babies' digestion and brain development than breastmilk, and 62% agreed it can provide nutrition not present in breastmilk. Most caregivers of toddlers (60%) agreed that toddler milks provide nutrition toddlers do not get from other foods. Some caregivers of infants (11%) reported serving toddler milk to their child most often. Agreement with marketing claims increased the odds of serving infant formula and/or toddler milks. For caregivers of toddlers, odds were higher for college-educated and lower for non-Hispanic White caregivers. Common marketing messages promoting infant formula and toddler milks may mislead caregivers about benefits and appropriateness of serving to young children. These findings support calls for public health policies and increased regulation of infant formula and toddler milks.Infant formula and toddler milk marketing: Opportunities to address harmful practices and improve young children's diets
AbstractHarris, J. L., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
Nutrition ReviewsVolume
78Issue
10Page(s)
866-883AbstractChildren's diets in their first 1000 days influence dietary preferences, eating habits, and long-term health. Yet the diets of most infants and toddlers in the United States do not conform to recommendations for optimal child nutrition. This narrative review examines whether marketing for infant formula and other commercial baby/toddler foods plays a role. The World Health Organization's International Code of Marketing Breast-milk Substitutes strongly encourages countries and manufacturers to prohibit marketing practices that discourage initiation of, and continued, breastfeeding. However, in the United States, widespread infant formula marketing negatively impacts breastfeeding. Research has also identified questionable marketing of toddler milks (formula/milk-based drinks for children aged 12-36mo). The United States has relied exclusively on industry self-regulation, but US federal agencies and state and local governments could regulate problematic marketing of infant formula and toddler milks. Health providers and public health organizations should also provide guidance. However, further research is needed to better understand how marketing influences what and how caregivers feed their young children and inform potential interventions and regulatory solutions.Legal Feasibility and Implementation of Federal Strategies for a National Retail-Based Fruit and Vegetable Subsidy Program in the United States
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Huang, Y., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
Milbank QuarterlyVolume
98Issue
3Page(s)
775-801AbstractPolicy Points Suboptimal intake of fruit and vegetables is associated with increased risk of diet-related diseases. A national retail-based fruit and vegetable subsidy program could broadly benefit the health of the entire population. Existing fruit and vegetable subsidy programs can inform potential implementation mechanisms; Congress's powers to tax, spend, and regulate interstate commerce can be leveraged to create a federal program. Legal and administrative feasibility considerations support a conditional funding program or a federal-state cooperative program combining regulation, licensing, and state or local options for flexible implementation strategies. Strategies to engage key stakeholders would enable the program to utilize lessons learned from existing programs. Context: Suboptimal intake of fruit and vegetables (F&Vs) is associated with increased risk of diet-related diseases. Yet, there are no US government programs to support increased F&V consumption nationally for the whole population, most of whom purchase food at retail establishments. To inform policy discussion and implementation, we identified mechanisms to effectuate a national retail-based F&V subsidy program. Methods: We conducted legal and policy research using LexisNexis, the UConn Rudd Center Legislation Database, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Disease State Policy Tracking System, the US Department of Agriculture's website, Congress.gov, gray literature, and government reports. First, we identified existing federal, state, local, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) policies and programs that subsidize F&Vs. Second, we evaluated Congress's power to implement a national retail-based F&V subsidy program. Findings: We found five federal programs, three federal bills, four state laws, and 17 state (including the District of Columbia [DC]) bills to appropriate money to supplement federal food assistance programs with F&Vs; 74 programs (six multistate, 22 state [including DC], and 46 local) administered by state and local governments and NGOs that incentivize the purchase of F&Vs for various subpopulations; and two state laws and 11 state bills to provide tax exemptions for F&Vs. To create a national F&V subsidy program, Congress could use its Commerce Clause powers or its powers to tax or spend, through direct regulation, licensing, taxation, tax incentives, and conditional funding. Legal and administrative feasibility considerations support a voluntary conditional funding program or, as a second option, a mandatory federal-state cooperative program combining regulation and licensing. Conclusions: Multiple existing programs provide an important foundation to inform potential implementation mechanisms for a national F&V subsidy program. Results also highlight the value of state and local participation to leverage existing networks and stakeholder knowledge.Marketing to children in supermarkets: An opportunity for public policy to improve children’s diets
AbstractHarris, J. L., Webb, V., Sacco, S. J., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
International journal of environmental research and public healthVolume
17Issue
4AbstractPublic health experts worldwide are calling for a reduction of the marketing of nutrient-poor food and beverages to children. However, industry self-regulation and most government policies do not address in-store marketing, including shelf placement and retail promotions. This paper reports two U.S.-based studies examining the prevalence and potential impact of in-store marketing for nutrient-poor child-targeted products. Study 1 compares the in-store marketing of children’s breakfast cereals with the marketing of other (family/adult) cereals, including shelf space allocation and placement, special displays and promotions, using a national audit of U.S. supermarkets. Child-targeted cereals received more shelf space, middle-and lower-shelf placements, special displays, and promotions compared with other cereals. Study 2 compares the proportion of product sales associated with in-store displays and promotions for child-targeted versus other fruit drinks/juices, using syndicated sales data. A higher proportion of child-targeted drink sales were associated with displays and promotions than sales of other drinks. In both categories, the results were due primarily to major company products. Although in-store marketing of child-targeted products likely appeals to both children and parents, these practices encourage children’s consumption of nutrient-poor food and drinks. If companies will not voluntarily address in-store marketing to children, government policy options are available to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods in the supermarket.State Legislative Strategies to Pass, Enhance, and Obscure Preemption of Local Public Health Policy-Making
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Silver, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
59Issue
3Page(s)
333-342AbstractIntroduction: Local governments are often innovators of public health policy-making, yet states are increasingly preempting or prohibiting local control over public health issues. Previous research identified examples of strategies used by state legislatures to pass preemption in ways that may obscure public discussion about preemption or the topics preempted or enhance the strength of a previously passed preemptive law. Methods: To systematically identify strategies to pass, obscure, or enhance preemption, in 2019, the authors conducted a content analysis of the full text of the bills from which preemptive laws in 5 policy areas (tobacco control, firearms, paid sick leave, food and nutrition, and civil rights) passed over a 5-year period (2014–2018) for preemptive laws that remained in effect as of January 2019. Results: This research identified 5 methods state legislators used during the 5-year period to pass and support preemption: (1) pass preemptive bills quickly (11 laws); (2) obscure preemption by adding it to pre-existing bills on nonrelevant substantive topics (4 bills), bundling preemption of multiple nonrelated topics (4 bills), or titling bills in a way that does not reflect the substance of the bill (1 bill); (3) repeal and replace preemption (2 laws); (4) preempt litigation (1 law); and (5) enact punitive preemption (7 laws). Conclusions: Strategies employed to pass preemption obscure public debate about preemption and the underlying public health and social justice issues at stake while minimizing the ability of local governments to protect their populations and the nation to learn from local policy successes.Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Policies in the Broader Legal Context: Health and Safety Warning Laws and the First Amendment
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
58Issue
6Page(s)
783-788AbstractIntroduction: Health and safety warnings are a regular part of the consumer protection landscape. However, the only sugar-sweetened beverage policy passed to date was found unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This paper evaluates sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies in light of existing health and safety warnings on consumer products and the First Amendment. Methods: In 2019, using LexisNexis, existing federal, state, and local health and safety warning laws for consumer products were identified. Then, bills proposed and laws passed through July 2019 that required sugar-sweetened beverage warnings were examined. Finally, First Amendment case law related to warning and disclosure requirements was analyzed to identify outstanding questions about the constitutionality of sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies. Results: Warnings on consumer products provide key examples of long-established health and safety warning language, rationales for passage, and formatting requirements. Between 2011 and 2019, a total of 9 jurisdictions proposed 28 bills (including 1 law by San Francisco) requiring sugar-sweetened beverage warnings on labels, advertisements, and at point of sale. This analysis highlighted outstanding First Amendment questions on permissible wording and formatting requirements and the need for evidence and rationales that focus on specific health harms of sugar-sweetened beverages. Warnings on labels and at point of sale may pose fewer First Amendment concerns than on advertisements. Conclusions: Sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies that mirror health and safety warnings long established as permissible on other consumer products should be considered constitutional; however, evolving First Amendment jurisprudence leaves outstanding questions, especially on the interpretation of controversy, formatting requirements, and levels of required specificity for warning language.Abortion disclosure laws and the first amendment: The broader public health implications of the supreme Court's becerra decision
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
3Page(s)
412-418AbstractIn 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzedaCalifornia staterequirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices-1 for licensedclinics about theavailability of state health services including abortion and 1 for unlicensed clinics, notifying potential clients that the clinics are not licensed medical facilities and have no licensed medical professionals on-site. The Supreme Court found that both notices violated the First Amendment rights of the clinics. The Supreme Court's opinion elicits new uncertainties about the government's ability to require the disclosure of factual information in the context of reproductive health services and more broadly in the commercial context. However, the Supreme Court's silence on 1 of the state's purposes for theunlicensed clinic notice,which was to address deceptive speech by the clinics, highlights a potential avenue for future regulation. Policymakers can require the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context specifically to prevent consumer deception consistent with the First Amendment. Public health researchers can generate evidence to support such disclosure requirements intended to protect health and safety.Combatting and Preventing Preemption: A Strategic Action Model
Bare, M., Zellers, L., Sullivan, P. A., Pomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
Journal of Public Health Management and PracticeVolume
25Issue
2Page(s)
101-103Federal Regulation of Infant and Toddler Food and Drink Marketing and Labeling
Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of law & medicineVolume
45Issue
1Page(s)
32-56Harnessing the Power of Food Labels for Public Health
Pomeranz, J. L., & Lurie, P. G. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
56Issue
4Page(s)
622-625Key Drivers of State Preemption of Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy: A Thematic Content Analysis of Public Testimony
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American Journal of Health PromotionVolume
33Issue
6Page(s)
894-902AbstractPurpose: Local communities are often active public health policy makers, so state preemption—when the state withdraws authority from local governments—can hinder public health progress. Kansas enacted the most sweeping law in the nation preempting food, nutrition, and agricultural policy. Design: Qualitative thematic content analysis was used on public comments to identify and evaluate common and key arguments. A codebook was developed using an iterative process. Open coding was applied to all comments. Setting: All testimony and comments submitted by individuals and organizations to the Kansas State Legislature on the preemptive bill. Participants: Eight types of commentators submitted 34 written and 12 oral comments. Measures: The data were evaluated on a latent level to examine underlying drivers of preemption. Results: Comments addressed 18 themes, referenced 366 times; 68% in opposition. Common themes included local control, food labeling, public health, need for statewide standards, and debate over food regulation. Key themes included the need for state and federal uniformity to support businesses and consumers, debate over topics not in the bill, the value of local control, confusion over bill coverage, and outside influences. Conclusion: Confusion about bill language and coverage, the combination of food and agricultural issues, and backing by multinational corporations helped propel preemption forward in Kansas. Food policy stakeholders nationally can anticipate similar arguments and strategies in their state.Legal Feasibility of US Government Policies to Reduce Cancer Risk by Reducing Intake of Processed Meat
AbstractWilde, P., Pomeranz, J. L., Lizewski, L. J., Ruan, M., Mozaffarian, D., & Zhang, F. F. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
Milbank QuarterlyVolume
97Issue
2Page(s)
420-448AbstractPolicy Points High-profile international evidence reviews by the World Health Organization, the World Cancer Research Fund, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Cancer Society concluded that processed meat consumption increases the risk of cancer. The red meat and processed meat industries are influential in the United States and in several other nations. The US federal government supports public-private partnerships for commodity meat promotion and advertising. Four potential policy options to affect consumption of processed meat are taxation, reduced processed meat quantities in school meal standards, public service announcements, and warning labels. Feasibility of these options would be enhanced by an explicit and science-based statement on processed meat in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Context: The World Health Organization, the World Cancer Research Fund, and the American Cancer Society have each in recent years concluded that processed meats are probable carcinogens. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans did not separately evaluate health effects of processed meat, although it mentioned lower processed meat intakes among characteristics of healthy diets. Methods: We summarized the international scientific literature on meat intake and cancer risk; described the scientific and political processes behind the periodic Dietary Guidelines for Americans; described the US red meat and processed meat industries and the economic structure of government-supported industry initiatives for advertising and promotion; and reviewed and analyzed specific factors and precedents that influence the feasibility of four potential policy approaches to reduce processed meat intake. Findings: Based on a review of 800 epidemiological studies, the World Health Organization found sufficient evidence in humans that processed meat is carcinogenic, estimating that each 50-gram increase in daily intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Among the four policy responses we studied, legal feasibility is highest in the US for three policy options: reducing processed meat in school meals and other specific government-sponsored nutrition programs; a local, state, or federal tax on processed meat; and public service announcements on health harms of processed meats by either the government or private sector entities. Legal feasibility is moderate for a fourth policy option, mandatory warning labels, due to outstanding legal questions about the minimum evidence required to support this policy. Political feasibility is influenced by the economic and political power of the meat industries and also depends on decisions in the next round of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans about how to assess and describe the link between processed meat consumption and cancer risk. Conclusions: Public policy initiatives to reduce processed meat intake have a strong scientific and public health justification and are legally feasible, but political feasibility is influenced by the economic and political power of meat industries and also by uncertainty about the likely treatment of processed meat in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.