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
The Potential for Federal Preemption of State and Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
53Issue
5Page(s)
740-743Abstract~The Role of United States Law to Prevent and Control Childhood Obesity
AbstractAbstractIn the United States, 32% of children are overweight, 16% of children are obese, and 11% are extremely obese. Since 1980, the prevalence of childhood obesity has tripled, making this generation the first expected to have a shorter life expectancy than that of their parents. Serious action is needed on multiple levels and across various sectors to address this public health crisis. Public health experts, including those at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), recommend policy changes at the environmental level to address obesity in the United States. Change is required in several settings, including communities, schools, childcare, worksites, and healthcare facilities. The government can facilitate and support such changes by enacting legislation and regulation at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. There is an emerging understanding that health needs to be considered in all policies in order to address health disparities in general and the significant public health issue of obesity. Government agencies whose primary mission does not necessarily include health can positively influence public health by considering the impact their policy making has on health. The federal government has concrete opportunities to do this in the upcoming years.The Role of United States Law to Prevent and Control Childhood Obesity
AbstractAbstractIn the United States, 32% of children are overweight, 16% of children are obese, and 11% are extremely obese. Since 1980, the prevalence of childhood obesity has tripled, making this generation the first expected to have a shorter life expectancy than that of their parents. Serious action is needed on multiple levels and across various sectors to address this public health crisis. Public health experts, including those at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), recommend policy changes at the environmental level to address obesity in the United States. Change is required in several settings, including communities, schools, childcare, worksites, and healthcare facilities. The government can facilitate and support such changes by enacting legislation and regulation at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. There is an emerging understanding that health needs to be considered in all policies in order to address health disparities in general and the significant public health issue of obesity. Government agencies whose primary mission does not necessarily include health can positively influence public health by considering the impact their policy making has on health. The federal government has concrete opportunities to do this in the upcoming years.The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program : Analysis of Program Administration and Food Law Definitions
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Chriqui, J. F. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
49Issue
3Page(s)
428-436AbstractUnder the current version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), participants can purchase virtually any food or beverage (collectively, food). Research indicates that SNAP recipients may have worse dietary quality than income-eligible nonparticipants. Policymakers have urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pilot SNAP purchasing restrictions intended to support a healthier diet, and state legislators have proposed similar bills. The USDA rejected these invitations, stating that it would be administratively and logistically difficult to differentiate among products, amid other concerns. However, the USDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) do just that. Further, state governments define and differentiate among foods and beverages for tax purposes. This paper reviews several factors intended to inform future policy decisions: the science indicating that SNAP recipients have poorer diet quality than income-eligible nonparticipants; the public's support for revising the SNAP program; federal, state, and city legislators' formal proposals to amend SNAP based on nutrition criteria and the USDA's public position in opposition to these proposals; state bills to amend eligible foods purchasable with SNAP benefits; state retail food tax laws; and the retail administration and program requirements for both WIC and SNAP. The paper finds that the government has a clear ability to align SNAP benefits with nutrition science and operationalize this into law.The trans-fat ban - Food regulation and long-term health
AbstractBrownell, K. D., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2014Journal title
New England Journal of MedicineVolume
370Issue
19Page(s)
1773-1775Abstract~The unique authority of state and local health departments to address obesity
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2011Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
101Issue
7Page(s)
1192-1197AbstractThe United States has 51 state health departments and thousands of local health agencies. Their size, structure, and authority differ, but they all possess unique abilities to address obesity. Because they are responsible for public health, they can take various steps themselves and can coordinate efforts with other agencies to further health in all policy domains. I describe the value of health agencies' rule-making authority and clarify this process through 2 case studies involving menu-labeling regulations. I detail rule-making procedures and examine the legal and practical limitations on agency activity. Health departments have many options to effect change in the incidence of obesity but need the support of other government entities and officials.The wheels on the bus go "buy buy buy" : School bus advertising laws
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
102Issue
9Page(s)
1638-1643AbstractSchool buses, a practical necessity for millions of children, are at the center of new efforts to raise revenue. School bus advertising laws bring public health and commercialization concerns to the school setting. In doing so, they potentially expose school districts to First Amendment lawsuits. I examined various school bus advertising bills and laws. I reviewed First Amendment "forum analysis" as applied in the transit and school settings to clarify how this legal test may affect school districts subject to such laws. I have made recommendations for school districts to enact appropriate policies to ensure that such advertising does not undermine public health and to enable the districts to maintain control over their property.Toddler drinks, formulas, and milks: Labeling practices and policy implications
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., 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.Trends in Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods among US Youths Aged 2-19 Years, 1999-2018
AbstractWang, L., Martínez Steele, E., Du, M., Pomeranz, J. L., O'Connor, L. E., Herrick, K. A., Luo, H., Zhang, X., Mozaffarian, D., & Zhang, F. F. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
JAMA - Journal of the American Medical AssociationVolume
326Issue
6Page(s)
519-530AbstractImportance: The childhood obesity rate has been steadily rising among US youths during the past 2 decades. Increasing evidence links consumption of ultraprocessed foods to excessive calorie consumption and weight gain, but trends in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods among US youths have not been well characterized. Objective: To characterize trends in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods among US youths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional analysis using 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample of US youths aged 2-19 years (n = 33795) from 10 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. Exposures: Secular time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of total energy consumed from ultraprocessed foods as defined by NOVA, an established food classification system that categorizes food according to the degree of food processing. Results: Dietary intake from youths were analyzed (weighted mean age, 10.7 years; 49.1% were girls). From 1999 to 2018, the estimated percentage of total energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67.0% (difference, 5.6% [95% CI, 3.5% to 7.7%]; PU.S. Policies Addressing Ultraprocessed Foods, 1980–2022
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Mande, J. R., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
65Issue
6Page(s)
1134-1141AbstractIntroduction: Ultraprocessed foods are industrial formulations manufactured from substances derived from foods and industrially-produced ingredients and additives. Few countries’ policies directly regulate ultraprocessed food, but several countries’ dietary guidelines suggest eating less ultraprocessed food. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not mention the ultraprocessed food category, but the 2025–2030 Advisory Committee is tasked with evaluating research related to ultraprocessed food consumption. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans are used for U.S. food and nutrition policies. It is unknown the extent that federal and state policymakers have already proposed or passed policies addressing ultraprocessed foods. Methods: Research was conducted using Lexis+ into federal and state statutes, bills, resolutions, regulations, and proposed rules, and Congressional Research Services reports to identify policymaking related to highly processed and ultraprocessed food from January 1980 through February 2023. Results: This research identified 25 policy actions (8 federal, 17 state) proposed or passed between 1983 and 2022 (22 of them, 2011–2022). The most common topic area related to children's nutrition (n=14), and a prevalent theme related to food prices. Only 1 policy defined ultraprocessed food, and 3 policies sought to address the broader food environment by providing incentives to small retailers to stock healthy foods. Conclusions: Addressing ultraprocessed food in U.S. policy activity is quite recent, with few policies directly targeting ultraprocessed foods but rather discussing them as contrary to healthy diets. Internationally, ultraprocessed foods have been directly integrated into national dietary guidelines and school food programs. These policies are consistent with emerging U.S. policy activity and may provide information for future policymaking in the U.S.United States : Protecting Commercial Speech under the First Amendment
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2022Journal title
The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & EthicsVolume
50Issue
2Page(s)
265-275AbstractThe First Amendment to the US Constitution protects commercial speech from government interference. Commercial speech has been defined by the US Supreme Court as speech that proposes a commercial transaction, such as marketing and labeling. Companies that produce products associated with public health harms, such as alcohol, tobacco, and food, thus have a constitutional right to market these products to consumers. This article will examine the evolution of US law related to the protection of commercial speech, often at the expense of public health. It will then identify outstanding questions related to the commercial speech doctrine and the few remaining avenues available in the United States to regulate commercial speech including the use of government speech and addressing deceptive and misleading commercial speech.US Policies That Define Foods for Junk Food Taxes, 1991–2021
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Cash, S. B., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Journal title
Milbank QuarterlyAbstractPolicy Points Suboptimal diet is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the United States. Excise taxes on junk food are not widely utilized in the United States. The development of a workable definition of the food to be taxed is a substantial barrier to implementation. Three decades of legislative and regulatory definitions of food for taxes and related purposes provide insight into methods to characterize food to advance new policies. Defining policies through Product Categories combined with Nutrients or Processing may be a method to identify foods for health-related goals. Context: Suboptimal diet is a substantial contributor to weight gain, cardiometabolic diseases, and certain cancers. Junk food taxes can raise the price of the taxed product to reduce consumption and the revenue can be used to invest in low-resource communities. Taxes on junk food are administratively and legally feasible but no definition of “junk food” has been established. Methods: To identify legislative and regulatory definitions characterizing food for tax and other related purposes, this research used Lexis+ and the NOURISHING policy database to identify federal, state, territorial, and Washington DC statutes, regulations, and bills (collectively denoted as “policies”) defining and characterizing food for tax and related policies, 1991–2021. Findings: This research identified and evaluated 47 unique laws and bills that defined food through one or more of the following criteria: Product Category (20 definitions), Processing (4 definitions), Product intertwined with Processing (19 definitions), Place (12 definitions), Nutrients (9 definitions), and Serving Size (7 definitions). Of the 47 policies, 26 used more than one criterion to define food categories, especially those with nutrition-related goals. Policy goals included taxing foods (snack, healthy, unhealthy, or processed foods), exempting foods from taxation (snack, healthy, unhealthy, or unprocessed foods), exempting homemade or farm-made foods from state and local retail regulations, and supporting federal nutrition assistance objectives. Policies based on Product Categories alone differentiated between necessity/staple foods on the one hand and nonnecessity/nonstaple foods on the other. Conclusions: In order to specifically identify unhealthy food, policies commonly included a combination of Product Category, Processing, and/or Nutrient criteria. Explanations for repealed state sales tax laws on snack foods identified retailers’ difficulty pinpointing which specific foods were subject to the tax as a barrier to implementation. An excise tax assessed on manufacturers or distributors of junk food is a method to overcome this barrier and may be warranted.Valuing Federal Taxation Policies to Prevent Disease and Raise Revenue
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
51Issue
4Page(s)
518-521Abstract~Variability 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.Whole-grain food intake among US adults, based on different definitions of whole-grain foods, NHANES 2003-2018
AbstractDu, M., Mozaffarian, D., Wong, J. B., Pomeranz, J. L., Wilde, P., & Zhang, F. F. (n.d.).Publication year
2022Journal title
American Journal of Clinical NutritionVolume
116Issue
6Page(s)
1704-1714AbstractBACKGROUND: Whole-grain (WG) foods are defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), FDA, AHA, American Association of Cereal Chemists International (AACCI), and Whole Grains Council (WGC) in different ways with diverse focuses on grain components only, whole foods, or nutrient contents. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare estimated WG food intake among US adults using different definitions. METHODS: For each definition, we estimated the mean intake and trends of WG food consumption using survey-weighted 24-h dietary recalls from nationally representative samples of 39,755 US adults aged 20+ y from 8 cycles (2003-2018) of the NHANES. This is an observational study that used deidentified and publicly available datasets. RESULTS: The estimated mean consumption of WG foods (ounces equivalents/2000 kcal/d, oz. eq./d) varied by definition. In 2017-2018, the AHA (mean [SEM]: 1.05 [0.07] oz. eq./d) and WGC (0.95 [0.07]) definitions yielded the highest amounts, followed by the DGA (0.81 [0.06]), AACCI (0.73 [0.05]), and FDA (0.53 [0.04]). Using all definitions except for WGC, US adults increased WG food intake from 2003-2004 to 2017-2018 with the largest increase (61.5%) using the AHA (from 0.65 to 1.05 oz. eq./d), followed by DGA (0.50 to 0.81) and AACCI (0.51 to 0.73) definitions. For each definition, the main sources of WG foods consumed by US adults were ready-to-eat cereals, cooked grains and cereals, and breads (including rolls and tortillas). For all definitions except the AHA, non-Hispanic White adults and individuals with college degrees or above consumed higher levels of WG foods than non-Hispanic Blacks and those with lower levels of education. CONCLUSIONS: Different definitions affect the determination of WG foods, estimated intakes, and associated trends in WG food consumption among US adults. These findings call for a standardized definition of WG foods to guide consumers, industry, and policymakers in promoting WG intake in the US.Clinical Trial Registration: Not Applicable.Workplace wellness programs : How regulatory flexibility might undermine success
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2014Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
104Issue
11Page(s)
2052-2056AbstractThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act revised the law related to workplace wellness programs, which have become part of the nation's broader health strategy. Health-contingent programs are required to be reasonably designed. However, the regulatory requirements are lax and might undermine program efficacy in terms of both health gains and financial return. I propose a method for the government to support a best-practices approach by considering an accreditation or certification process. Additionally I discuss the need for program evaluation and the potential for employers to be subject to litigation if programs are not carefully implemented.