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
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.Local policymakers’ new role: Preventing preemption
Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
8Page(s)
1069-1070Mandating 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.State Preemption of Food and Nutrition Policies and Litigation: Undermining Government's Role in Public Health
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Zellers, L., Bare, M., & Pertschuk, M. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
56Issue
1Page(s)
47-57AbstractIntroduction: 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. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
2Page(s)
251-252Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in the USA, state preemption of local efforts
Pomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M. (n.d.). In Public Health Nutrition (1–).Publication year
2019Volume
22Issue
1Page(s)
190Supplemental nutrition assistance program data: Why disclosure is needed
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
12Page(s)
1659-1663AbstractThe 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
AbstractHuang, Y., Pomeranz, J., Wilde, P., Capewell, S., Gaziano, T., O’Flaherty, M., Kersh, R., Whitsel, L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
Current atherosclerosis reportsVolume
20Issue
5AbstractPurpose 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. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
JAMAVolume
319Issue
3Page(s)
227-228Challenging and preventing policies that prohibit local civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
108Issue
1Page(s)
67-72AbstractDiscrimination 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.Effective National Menu Labeling Requires Accuracy and Enforcement
Huang, Y., Pomeranz, J. L., & Cash, S. B. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and DieteticsVolume
118Issue
6Page(s)
989-993Legal 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.Pomeranz et al. respond
Pomeranz, J. L., Micha, R., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.). In American journal of public health (1–).Publication year
2018Volume
108Issue
7Page(s)
e18-e19Reductions in national cardiometabolic mortality achievable by food price changes according to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility and participation
AbstractWilde, P. E., Conrad, Z., Rehm, C. D., Pomeranz, J. L., Penalvo, J. L., Cudhea, F., Pearson-Stuttard, J., O’Flaherty, M., Micha, R., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
Journal of Epidemiology and Community HealthVolume
72Issue
9Page(s)
817-824AbstractBackground Suboptimal diets are a major contributor to cardiometabolic disease (CMD) mortality, and substantial disparities exist for both dietary quality and mortality risk across income groups in the USA. Research is needed to quantify how food pricing policies to subsidise healthy foods and tax unhealthy foods could affect the US CMD mortality, overall and by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility and participation. Methods Comparative risk analysis based on national data on diet (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2012) and mortality (mortality-linked National Health Interview Survey) and meta-analyses of policy-diet and diet-disease relationships. Results A national 10% price reduction on fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains was estimated to prevent 19 600 CMD deaths/year, including 2.6% (95% UI 2.4% to 2.8%) of all CMD deaths among SNAP participants, 2.7% (95% UI 2.4% to 3.0%) among SNAP-eligible non-participants and 2.6% (95% UI 2.4% to 2.8%) among SNAP-ineligible non-participants. Adding a national 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and processed meats would prevent a total of 33 700 CMD deaths/year, including 5.9% (95% UI 5.4% to 7.4%) of all CMD deaths among SNAP participants, 4.8% (95% UI 4.4% to 5.2%) among SNAP-eligible non-participants and 4.1% (95% UI 3.8% to 4.5%) among SNAP-ineligible non-participants. Adding a SNAP-targeted 30% subsidy for the same healthy foods would offer the largest reductions in both CMD mortality and disparities. Conclusion National subsidies for healthy foods and taxes on SSBs and processed meats would each reduce CMD mortality; taxes would also reduce CMD mortality more steeply for SNAP participants than for non-participants.Toddler drinks, formulas, and milks: Labeling practices and policy implications
AbstractPomeranz, J., Romo Palafox, M., & Harris, J. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
Preventive MedicineVolume
109Page(s)
11-16AbstractToddler drinks are a growing category of drinks marketed for young children 9–36 months old. Medical experts do not recommend them, and public health experts raise concerns about misleading labeling practices. In the U.S., the toddler drink category includes two types of products: transition formulas, marketed for infants and toddlers 9–24 months; and toddler milks, for children 12–36 months old. The objective of this study was to evaluate toddler drink labeling practices in light of U.S. food labeling policy and international labeling recommendations. In January 2017, we conducted legal research on U.S. food label laws and regulations; collected and evaluated toddler drink packages, including nutrition labels and claims; and compared toddler drink labels with the same brand's infant formula labels. We found that the U.S. has a regulatory structure for food labels and distinct policies for infant formula, but no laws specific to toddler drinks. Toddler drink labels utilized various terms and images to identify products and intended users; made multiple health and nutrition claims; and some stated there was scientific or expert support for the product. Compared to the same manufacturer's infant formula labels, most toddler drink labels utilized similar colors, branding, logos, and graphics. Toddler drink labels may confuse consumers about their nutrition and health benefits and the appropriateness of these products for young children. To support healthy toddler diets and well-informed decision-making by caregivers, the FDA can provide guidance or propose regulations clarifying permissible toddler drink labels and manufacturers should end inappropriate labeling practices.Consolidated state political party control and the enactment of obesity-related policies in the United States
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Siddiqi, A., Bolanos, G. J., Shor, J. A., & Hamad, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
Preventive MedicineVolume
105Page(s)
397-403AbstractStates play a key role in addressing obesity and its risk factors through policymaking, but there is variation in state activity nationally. The goal of this study was to examine whether the presence of a consolidated Democratic or Republican “trifecta” – when a state's governorship and both houses of the legislature are dominated by the same political party – or divided government (i.e., without a trifecta) is associated with obesity-related policy content and enactment. In 2016 and 2017, we gathered state bills and laws utilizing the CDC Chronic Disease State Policy Tracking System, and examined the association between state-level political party control and the enactment of state-level obesity-related policies in all states during 2009–2015. The three areas of interest included: policies specifically addressing obesity, nutrition, or physical activity in communities, schools, or workplaces using a public health framework; neutral policies, such as creating government task forces; and policies that employed a business-interest framework (e.g., Commonsense Consumption Acts that prohibit consumer lawsuits against restaurant establishments). Using divided governments as the reference group, we found that states with Democratic trifectas enacted significantly more laws, and more laws with a public health framework. Republican trifecta states enacted more laws related to physical activity, and in some states like Texas, Republican trifectas were exceptionally active in passing policies with a public health framework. States with Republican trifectas enacted a statistically similar amount of laws as states with divided governments. These findings suggest promise across states for obesity-related public health policymaking under a variety of political regimes.State preemption: A significant and quiet threat to public health in the United States
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
107Issue
6Page(s)
900-902AbstractState and local governments traditionally protect the health and safety of their populations more strenuously than does the federal government. Preemption, when a higher level of government restricts or withdraws the authority of a lower level of government to act on a particular issue, was historically used as a point of negotiation in the legislative process. More recently, however, 3 new preemption-related issues have emerged that have direct implications for public health. First, multiple industries are working on a 50-state strategy to enact state laws preempting local regulation. Second, legislators supporting preemptive state legislation often do not support adopting meaningful state health protections and enact preemptive legislation to weaken protections or halt progress. Third, states have begun adopting enhanced punishments for localities and individual local officials for acting outside the confines of preemption. These actions have direct implications for health and cover such topics as increased minimum wages, paid family and sick leave, firearm safety, and nutrition policies. Stakeholders across public health fields and disciplines should join together in advocacy, action, research, and education to support and maintain local public health infrastructures and protections.Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Reform:: Retail Requirements, Eligible Foods
Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
52Issue
1Page(s)
130-133The Potential for Federal Preemption of State and Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes
Pomeranz, J. L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
53Issue
5Page(s)
740-743Food law for public health
Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.). (1–).Publication year
2016Valuing Federal Taxation Policies to Prevent Disease and Raise Revenue
Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
51Issue
4Page(s)
518-521Variability and limits of US state laws regulating workplace wellness programs
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Garcia, A. M., Vesprey, R., & Davey, A. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
106Issue
6Page(s)
1028-1031AbstractWe examined variability in state laws related to workplace wellness programs for public and private employers. We conducted legal research using LexisNexis and Westlaw to create a master list of US state laws that existed in 2014 dedicated to workplace wellness programs. The master list was then divided into laws focusing on public employers and private employers. We created 2 codebooks to describe the variables used to examine the laws. Coders used LawAtlasSM Workbench tocodethe laws related to workplace wellness programs. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia had laws related to workplace wellness programs in 2014.Sixteen states and the District of Columbia had laws dedicated to public employers, and16stateshad laws dedicated to private employers. Nine states and the District of Columbia had laws that did not specify employer type. State laws varied greatly in their methods of encouraging or shaping wellness program requirements. Few states have comprehensive requirements or incentives to support evidence-based workplace wellness programs.BMI and Healthcare Cost Impact of Eliminating Tax Subsidy for Advertising Unhealthy Food to Youth
AbstractSonneville, K. R., Long, M. W., Ward, Z. J., Resch, S. C., Wang, Y. C., Pomeranz, J. L., Moodie, M. L., Carter, R., Sacks, G., Swinburn, B. A., & Gortmaker, S. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
49Issue
1Page(s)
124-134AbstractIntroduction: Food and beverage TV advertising contributes to childhood obesity. The current tax treatment of advertising as an ordinary business expense in the U.S. subsidizes marketing of nutritionally poor foods and beverages to children. This study models the effect of a national intervention that eliminates the tax subsidy of advertising nutritionally poor foods and beverages on TV to children aged 2-19 years. Methods: We adapted and modified the Assessing Cost Effectiveness framework and methods to create the Childhood Obesity Intervention Cost Effectiveness Study model to simulate the impact of the intervention over the 2015-2025 period for the U.S. population, including short-term effects on BMI and 10-year healthcare expenditures. We simulated uncertainty intervals (UIs) using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and discounted outcomes at 3% annually. Data were analyzed in 2014. Results: We estimated the intervention would reduce an aggregate 2.13 million (95% UI=0.83 million, 3.52 million) BMI units in the population and would cost $1.16 per BMI unit reduced (95% UI=$0.51, $2.63). From 2015 to 2025, the intervention would result in $352 million (95% UI=$138 million, $581 million) in healthcare cost savings and gain 4,538 (95% UI=1,752, 7,489) quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusions: Eliminating the tax subsidy of TV advertising costs for nutritionally poor foods and beverages advertised to children and adolescents would likely be a cost-saving strategy to reduce childhood obesity and related healthcare expenditures.Defining Commercial Speech in the Context of Food Marketing
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Adler, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
Journal of Law, Medicine and EthicsVolume
43Page(s)
40-43AbstractThe regulation of food marketing is a strategy to address obesity. Marketers engage in both commercial speech, which receives some First Amendment protection, and non-speech activities that fall outside of the First Amendment's realm; no marketing practice constitutes fully protected speech. We explore these distinctions in the public health context.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.