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
Governmental 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.Harnessing the Power of Food Labels for Public Health
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Lurie, P. G. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
56Issue
4Page(s)
622-625Abstract~Identifying novel predictors of state legislative action to address obesity
AbstractArons, A., Pomeranz, J. L., & 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.Implications of the supplemental nutrition assistance program tax exemption on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
105Issue
11Page(s)
2191-2193AbstractUS state and local governments are debating sugar-sweetened beverage excise taxes to support public health. A related issue is whether such taxes would apply to beverage purchases made by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. Federal law proscribes states from collecting excise taxes on SNAP purchases, but the law is confined to taxes at the point of sale. I provide legal analysis and recommendations for policymakers to enact taxes that are not subject to the SNAP tax exemption to potentially deter consumption by all consumers.Improving laws and legal authorities for obesity prevention and control
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Gostin, L. O. (n.d.).Publication year
2009Journal title
Journal of Law, Medicine and EthicsVolume
37Issue
SUPPL. 1Page(s)
62-75Abstract~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.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.Innovative legal approaches to address obesity
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Teret, S. P., Sugarman, S. D., Rutkow, L., & Brownell, K. D. (n.d.).Publication year
2009Journal title
Milbank QuarterlyVolume
87Issue
1Page(s)
185-213AbstractContext: The law is a powerful public health tool with considerable potential to address the obesity issue. Scientific advances, gaps in the current regulatory environment, and new ways of conceptualizing rights and responsibilities offer a foundation for legal innovation. Methods: This article connects developments in public health and nutrition with legal advances to define promising avenues for preventing obesity through the application of the law. Findings: Two sets of approaches are defined: (1) direct application of the law to factors known to contribute to obesity and (2) original and innovative legal solutions that address the weak regulatory stance of government and the ineffectiveness of existing policies used to control obesity. Specific legal strategies are discussed for limiting children's food marketing, confronting the potential addictive properties of food, compelling industry speech, increasing government speech, regulating conduct, using tort litigation, applying nuisance law as a litigation strategy, and considering performance-based regulation as an alternative to typical regulatory actions. Finally, preemption is an overriding issue and can play both a facilitative and a hindering role in obesity policy. Conclusions: Legal solutions are immediately available to the government to address obesity and should be considered at the federal, state, and local levels. New and innovative legal solutions represent opportunities to take the law in creative directions and to link legal, nutrition, and public health communities in constructive ways.Is that Hospital Food Pantry an Illegal Patient Inducement? Analysis of Health Care Fraud Laws as Barriers to Food and Nutrition Security Interventions
AbstractLandauer, R., Seligman, H., Pomeranz, J. L., Hager, K., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Journal title
Journal of Law, Medicine and EthicsVolume
51Issue
4Page(s)
889-899AbstractThe complex regulatory framework governing the U.S. health care system can be an obstacle to programming that address health-related social needs. In particular, health care fraud and abuse law is a pernicious barrier as health care organizations may minimize or forego programming altogether out of real and perceived concern for compliance. And because health care organizations have varying resources to navigate and resolve compliance concerns, as well as different levels of risk tolerance, fears related to the legal landscape may further entrench inequities in access to meaningful programs that improve health outcomes. This article uses food and nutrition programming as a case study to explore the complexities presented by this area of law and to highlight pathways forward.Key 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.Large-scale automated analysis of news media : A novel computational method for obesity policy research
AbstractHamad, R., Pomeranz, J. L., Siddiqi, A., & Basu, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
ObesityVolume
23Issue
2Page(s)
296-300AbstractObjective Analyzing news media allows obesity policy researchers to understand popular conceptions about obesity, which is important for targeting health education and policies. A persistent dilemma is that investigators have to read and manually classify thousands of individual news articles to identify how obesity and obesity-related policy proposals may be described to the public in the media. A machine learning method called "automated content analysis" that permits researchers to train computers to "read" and classify massive volumes of documents was demonstrated. Methods 14,302 newspaper articles that mentioned the word "obesity" during 2011-2012 were identified. Four states that vary in obesity prevalence and policy (Alabama, California, New Jersey, and North Carolina) were examined. The reliability of an automated program to categorize the media's framing of obesity as an individual-level problem (e.g., diet) and/or an environmental-level problem (e.g., obesogenic environment) was tested. Results The automated program performed similarly to human coders. The proportion of articles with individual-level framing (27.7-31.0%) was higher than the proportion with neutral (18.0-22.1%) or environmental-level framing (16.0-16.4%) across all states and over the entire study period (P-Legal and Administrative Feasibility of a Federal Junk Food and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Improve Diet
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Wilde, P., Huang, Y., Micha, R., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
108Issue
2Page(s)
203-209AbstractObjectives. To evaluate legal and administrative feasibility of a federal “junk” food (including sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs]) tax to improve diet. Methods. To assess food definitions and administration models, we systematically searched (1) PubMed (through May 15, 2017) for articles defining foods subject to taxes, and legal and legislative databases as well as online for (2) US federal, state, and tribal junk food tax bills and laws (January 1, 2012–February 28, 2017); SSB taxes (January 1, 2014–February 28, 2017); and international junk food tax laws (as of February 28, 2017); and (3) federal taxing mechanisms and administrative methods (as of February 28, 2017). Results. Articles recommend taxing foods by product category, broad nutrient criteria, specific nutrients or calories, or a combination. US junk food tax bills (n = 6) and laws (n = 3), international junk food laws (n = 2), and US SSB taxes (n = 10) support taxing foods using category-based (n = 8), nutrient-based (n = 1), or combination (n = 12) approaches. Federal taxing mechanisms (particularly manufacturer excise taxes on alcohol) and administrative methods provide informative models. Conclusions. From legal and administrative perspectives, a federal junk food tax appears feasible based on product categories or combination category-plus-nutrient approaches, using a manufacturer excise tax, with additional support for sugar and graduated tax strategies.Legal and Policy Challenges for Intervention.
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Abstract~Legal and public health considerations affecting the success, reach, and impact of menu-labeling laws
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (n.d.).Publication year
2008Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
98Issue
9Page(s)
1578-1583AbstractBecause the rate of consumption of away-from-home meals has increased dramatically, the distinction between requiring nutrition information for packaged but not restaurant products is no longer reasonable. Public health necessitates that nutrition labels must be included with restaurant menus as a strategy to educate consumers and address the escalation of obesity.Menu- labeling laws are being considered at the local, state, and federal levels, but the restaurant industry opposes such action. We discuss the public health rationale and set forth the government's legal authority for the enactment of menu-labeling laws. We further aim to educate the public health community of the potential legal challenges to such laws, and we set forth methods for governments to survive these challenges by drafting laws according to current legal standards.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.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.Legal Implications: Regulating Sales and Marketing
AbstractBrownell, K. D., Gold, M. S., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.). (1st ed.).Publication year
2012Page(s)
406-410Abstract~Legal strategies to address America’s processed food problem: from public health prevention to state and local preemption
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
Duke Forum for Law & Social ChangeAbstract~Litigation to Address Misleading Food Label Claims and the Role of the State Attorneys General
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2014Journal title
Regent University Law ReviewPage(s)
421-455Abstract~Local governments and the food system: innovative approaches to public health law and policy
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2013Journal title
Annals of Health LawVolume
39Issue
4Page(s)
355-372Abstract~Local policymakers’ new role : Preventing preemption
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
8Page(s)
1069-1070Abstract~Making the workplace a more effective site for prevention of noncommunicable diseases in adults
AbstractTryon, K., Bolnick, H., Pomeranz, J. L., Pronk, N., & Yach, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2014Journal title
Journal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineVolume
56Issue
11Page(s)
1137-1144AbstractObjective: Efforts to realize the potential of disease prevention in the United States have fallen behind those of peer countries, and workplace disease prevention is a major gap. This article investigates the reasons for this gap.Methods: Literature review and expert discussions.Results: Obstacles to effective use of workplace disease prevention include limited leadership and advocacy, poor alignment of financial incentives, limitations in research quality and investment, regulation that does not support evidence-based practice, and a dearth of community-employer partnerships.Conclusions: We make recommendations to address these obstacles, such as the inclusion of health metrics in corporate reporting, making the workplace a central component of the strategy to combat the effect of noncommunicable diseases, and linking prevention directly benefit businesses' bottom lines.Mandating front-of-package food labels in the U.S. – What are the First Amendment obstacles?
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Wilde, P., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
Food PolicyVolume
86AbstractFront-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.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.