Jennifer Pomeranz

Jennifer L. Pomeranz
Jennifer Pomeranz

Assistant 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, MI
JD, Juris Doctorate, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY
MPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA

Areas of research and study

Diet-related disease
Products that cause harm
Public Health Law
Public Health Policy
Social injustices that create health disparities

Publications

Publications

Anticipating and defeating preemption across public health

Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

110

Issue

3

Page(s)

268-270

Children's Fruit "Juice" Drinks and FDA Regulations: Opportunities to Increase Transparency and Support Public Health

Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

110

Issue

6

Page(s)

871-880
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives. 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.

Geographic and Longitudinal Trends in Media Framing of Obesity in the United States

Chiang, J., Arons, A., Pomeranz, J. L., Siddiqi, A., & Hamad, R.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

Obesity

Volume

28

Issue

7

Page(s)

1351-1357
Abstract
Abstract
Objective: 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

Romo-Palafox, M. J., Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

Maternal and Child Nutrition

Volume

16

Issue

3
Abstract
Abstract
The 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

Harris, J. L., & Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

Nutrition Reviews

Volume

78

Issue

10

Page(s)

866-883
Abstract
Abstract
Children'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 12-36 mo). 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

Pomeranz, J. L., Huang, Y., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

Milbank Quarterly

Volume

98

Issue

3

Page(s)

775-801
Abstract
Abstract
Policy 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

Harris, J. L., Webb, V., Sacco, S. J., & Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

International journal of environmental research and public health

Volume

17

Issue

4
Abstract
Abstract
Public 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

Pomeranz, J. L., & Silver, D.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

American journal of preventive medicine

Volume

59

Issue

3

Page(s)

333-342
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: 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

Pomeranz, J. L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.

Publication year

2020

Journal title

American journal of preventive medicine

Volume

58

Issue

6

Page(s)

783-788
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: 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

Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

109

Issue

3

Page(s)

412-418
Abstract
Abstract
In 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.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

Volume

25

Issue

2

Page(s)

101-103

Federal Regulation of Infant and Toddler Food and Drink Marketing and Labeling

Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of law & medicine

Volume

45

Issue

1

Page(s)

32-56

Harnessing the Power of Food Labels for Public Health

Pomeranz, J. L., & Lurie, P. G.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of preventive medicine

Volume

56

Issue

4

Page(s)

622-625

Identifying Novel Predictors of State Legislative Action to Address Obesity

Arons, A., Pomeranz, J., & Hamad, R.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
Abstract
Abstract
Objective: 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.

Key Drivers of State Preemption of Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy: A Thematic Content Analysis of Public Testimony

Pomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American Journal of Health Promotion

Volume

33

Issue

6

Page(s)

894-902
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose: 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

Wilde, P., Pomeranz, J. L., Lizewski, L. J., Ruan, M., Mozaffarian, D., & Zhang, F. F.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

Milbank Quarterly

Volume

97

Issue

2

Page(s)

420-448
Abstract
Abstract
Policy 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.

Local policymakers’ new role: Preventing preemption

Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

109

Issue

8

Page(s)

1069-1070

Mandating front-of-package food labels in the U.S. – What are the First Amendment obstacles?

Pomeranz, J. L., Wilde, P., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

Food Policy

Volume

86
Abstract
Abstract
Front-of-package (FOP) food labels are symbols, schemes, or systems designed to communicate concise and useful nutrition-related information to consumers to facilitate healthier food choices. FOP label policies have been implemented internationally that could serve as policy models for the U.S. However, the First Amendment poses a potential obstacle to U.S. government-mandated FOP requirements. We systematically reviewed existing international and major U.S.-based nutrition-related FOP labels to consider potential U.S. policy options and conducted legal research to evaluate the feasibility of mandating a FOP label in the U.S. We identified 24 international and 6 U.S.-based FOP labeling schemes. FOP labels which only disclosed nutrient-specific data would likely meet First Amendment requirements. Certain interpretive FOP labels which provide factual information with colors or designs to assist consumers interpret the information could similarly withstand First Amendment scrutiny, but questions remain regarding whether certain colors or shapes would qualify as controversial and not constitutional. Labels that provide no nutrient information and only an image or icon to characterize the entire product would not likely withstand First Amendment scrutiny.

State Preemption of Food and Nutrition Policies and Litigation: Undermining Government's Role in Public Health

Pomeranz, J. L., Zellers, L., Bare, M., & Pertschuk, M.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of preventive medicine

Volume

56

Issue

1

Page(s)

47-57
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: In the U.S., federal, state, and local governments have various legal tools to support public health and prevent diet-related disease, including enacting policy and bringing lawsuits against businesses that produce harm-causing products. Yet, states preempt, or limit, government's authority to enact public health policies or initiate litigation. Methods: In 2018, research was conducted to find state laws enacted through March 16, 2018, using state legislatures’ websites, LexisNexis, UConn Rudd Center's Legislative Database, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Disease State Policy Tracking System, and the Internet, that preempt local food and nutrition policies including their legislative histories; and preempt lawsuits related to food consumption and chronic disease (e.g., Commonsense Consumption Acts), including explicitly preempting government activity. Results: Between 2008 and March 16, 2018, 12 states enacted 13 preemptive laws on nutrition labeling, content or “criteria”; consumer incentive items; “food-based health disparities”; sale, distribution, or serving of food and beverages; portion size; food safety; menus; taxes; and “marketing.” Between 2003 and 2013, 26 states enacted laws preempting lawsuits claiming long-term food consumption causes obesity and diet-related disease; of these, ten states explicitly preempt such litigation by the government and five explicitly preempt laws providing litigation as a remedy. Conclusions: State preemption may hinder public health progress by impeding local food and nutrition policies and government-initiated litigation. Local governments are in a prime position to address fundamental concerns, such as reduction of health disparities, the provision of nutrition information, access to healthy food, and the cost of unhealthy food. Government-initiated litigation could potentially support broader policy changes.

State Preemption: Threat to Democracy, Essential Regulation, and Public Health

Pomeranz, J. L., Zellers, L., Bare, M., Sullivan, P. A., & Pertschuk, M.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

109

Issue

2

Page(s)

251-252

Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in the USA, state preemption of local efforts

Pomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M. In Public Health Nutrition.

Publication year

2019

Volume

22

Issue

1

Supplemental nutrition assistance program data: Why disclosure is needed

Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2019

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

109

Issue

12

Page(s)

1659-1663
Abstract
Abstract
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP)provides funding to low-income households to purchase food at participating stores. The goals of the program include reducing hunger, improving nutrition, and strengthening the US food system. These are interrelated, as food access and choice depend on availability. SNAP generates data that could be useful for program evaluation and evidence-based policymaking to reach public health goals. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not collect or disclose all SNAPrelated data. In particular, the USDA does not systematically collect food expenditure data, and although it does collect transaction (sales) and redemption data (the amount retailers are reimbursed through SNAP), it does not release these data at the store level. In 2018, Congress quietly changed the law to prohibit the USDA from disclosing storelevel transaction and redemption data, and in 2019, the US Supreme Court blocked disclosure of these data. These federal proceedings can informthe outcome of additional efforts to disclose SNAP-related data, as well as future research and policy evaluation to support improved public health outcomes for SNAP beneficiaries.

Adoption and Design of Emerging Dietary Policies to Improve Cardiometabolic Health in the US

Huang, Y., Pomeranz, J., Wilde, P., Capewell, S., Gaziano, T., O’Flaherty, M., Kersh, R., Whitsel, L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.

Publication year

2018

Journal title

Current atherosclerosis reports

Volume

20

Issue

5
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose of Review: Suboptimal diet is a leading cause of cardiometabolic disease and economic burdens. Evidence-based dietary policies within 5 domains—food prices, reformulation, marketing, labeling, and government food assistance programs—appear promising at improving cardiometabolic health. Yet, the extent of new dietary policy adoption in the US and key elements crucial to define in designing such policies are not well established. We created an inventory of recent US dietary policy cases aiming to improve cardiometabolic health and assessed the extent of their proposal and adoption at federal, state, local, and tribal levels; and categorized and characterized the key elements in their policy design. Recent Findings: Recent federal dietary policies adopted to improve cardiometabolic health include reformulation (trans-fat elimination), marketing (mass-media campaigns to increase fruits and vegetables), labeling (Nutrition Facts Panel updates, menu calorie labeling), and food assistance programs (financial incentives for fruits and vegetables in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program). Federal voluntary guidelines have been proposed for sodium reformulation and food marketing to children. Recent state proposals included sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes, marketing restrictions, and SNAP restrictions, but few were enacted. Local efforts varied significantly, with certain localities consistently leading in the proposal or adoption of relevant policies. Across all jurisdictions, most commonly selected dietary targets included fruits and vegetables, SSBs, trans-fat, added sugar, sodium, and calories; other healthy (e.g., nuts) or unhealthy (e.g., processed meats) factors were largely not addressed. Key policy elements to define in designing these policies included those common across domains (e.g., level of government, target population, dietary target, dietary definition, implementation mechanism), and domain-specific (e.g., media channels for food marketing domain) or policy-specific (e.g., earmarking for taxes) elements. Characteristics of certain elements were similarly defined (e.g., fruit and vegetable definition, warning language used in SSB warning labels), while others varied across cases within a policy (e.g., tax base for SSB taxes). Several key elements were not always sufficiently characterized in government documents, and dietary target selections and definitions did not consistently align with the evidence-base. Summary: These findings highlight recent action on dietary policies to improve cardiometabolic health in the US; and key elements necessary to design such policies.

Can the Government Require Health Warnings on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Advertisements?

Pomeranz, J., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.

Publication year

2018

Journal title

JAMA

Volume

319

Issue

3

Page(s)

227-228

Challenging and preventing policies that prohibit local civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people

Pomeranz, J. L.

Publication year

2018

Journal title

American journal of public health

Volume

108

Issue

1

Page(s)

67-72
Abstract
Abstract
Discrimination causes health inequities for stigmatized groups. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals, in particular, are at significantly increased risk for disparate health outcomes when they reside in states that fail to extend equal protections to them or that actively deprive equal rights to them. Several states and the federal government have proposed or enacted laws that permit residents to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. One such law, Arkansas's Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act of 2015, preempts or prohibits local governments from enacting civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals that are also lacking at the state level. State laws such as Arkansas's undermine local control, damage the economy, and create injustices that harm LGBTQ people. I set forth 2 constitutional arguments to challenge such laws, and I provide information to help advocates support evidence-based policymaking and prevent the passage of similar laws in their states.

Contact

jlp284@nyu.edu 715/719 Broadway New York, NY 10003