Jennifer L. Pomeranz
Jennifer L. 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, 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
Children's Fruit "Juice" Drinks and FDA Regulations: Opportunities to Increase Transparency and Support Public Health
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L.Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
110Issue
6Page(s)
871-880Objectives. 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.Firearm Industry Groups Are Using COVID-19 to Expand Gun Rights
Pomeranz, J. L.Publication year
2020Journal title
Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPVolume
26Issue
4Page(s)
320-321Geographic and Longitudinal Trends in Media Framing of Obesity in the United States
AbstractChiang, J., Arons, A., Pomeranz, J. L., Siddiqi, A., & Hamad, R.Publication year
2020Journal title
ObesityVolume
28Issue
7Page(s)
1351-1357Objective: The media’s framing of public health issues is closely linked to public opinion on these issues and support for interventions to address them. This study characterized geographic and temporal variation in the US media’s framing of obesity across states from 2006 to 2015. Methods: Newspaper articles that mentioned the term obesity were drawn from Access World News (NewsBank, Inc., Naples, Florida), a comprehensive online database (N = 364,288). This study employed automated content analysis, a machine learning technique, to categorize articles as (1) attributing obesity to individual-level causes (e.g., lifestyle behaviors), (2) attributing obesity to environmental/systemic causes (e.g., neighborhood walkability), (3) attributing obesity to both individual-level causes and environmental/systemic causes, or (4) articles without any such attribution framework. Results: Nationwide across all years, a higher proportion of articles focused on individual-level attribution of obesity than environmental-level attribution or both. Missouri and Idaho had the highest proportions of articles with an individual framework, and Nevada, Arkansas, and Wisconsin had the highest proportions of articles with an environmental framework. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that US media sources heavily focus on an individual framing of obesity, which may be informing public perceptions of obesity. By highlighting differences in obesity media portrayal, this study could inform research to understand why particular states represent outliers and how this may affect obesity policy making.Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children
AbstractRomo-Palafox, M. J., Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L.Publication year
2020Journal title
Maternal and Child NutritionVolume
16Issue
3The 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.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.Publication year
2020Journal title
International journal of environmental research and public healthVolume
17Issue
4Public 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.Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Policies in the Broader Legal Context: Health and Safety Warning Laws and the First Amendment
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
58Issue
6Page(s)
783-788Introduction: Health and safety warnings are a regular part of the consumer protection landscape. However, the only sugar-sweetened beverage policy passed to date was found unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This paper evaluates sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies in light of existing health and safety warnings on consumer products and the First Amendment. Methods: In 2019, using LexisNexis, existing federal, state, and local health and safety warning laws for consumer products were identified. Then, bills proposed and laws passed through July 2019 that required sugar-sweetened beverage warnings were examined. Finally, First Amendment case law related to warning and disclosure requirements was analyzed to identify outstanding questions about the constitutionality of sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies. Results: Warnings on consumer products provide key examples of long-established health and safety warning language, rationales for passage, and formatting requirements. Between 2011 and 2019, a total of 9 jurisdictions proposed 28 bills (including 1 law by San Francisco) requiring sugar-sweetened beverage warnings on labels, advertisements, and at point of sale. This analysis highlighted outstanding First Amendment questions on permissible wording and formatting requirements and the need for evidence and rationales that focus on specific health harms of sugar-sweetened beverages. Warnings on labels and at point of sale may pose fewer First Amendment concerns than on advertisements. Conclusions: Sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies that mirror health and safety warnings long established as permissible on other consumer products should be considered constitutional; however, evolving First Amendment jurisprudence leaves outstanding questions, especially on the interpretation of controversy, formatting requirements, and levels of required specificity for warning language.Abortion disclosure laws and the first amendment: The broader public health implications of the supreme Court's becerra decision
AbstractPomeranz, J. L.Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
3Page(s)
412-418In 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.Federal Regulation of Infant and Toddler Food and Drink Marketing and Labeling
Pomeranz, J. L., & Harris, J. L.Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of law & medicineVolume
45Issue
1Page(s)
32-56Harnessing the Power of Food Labels for Public Health
Pomeranz, J. L., & Lurie, P. G.Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
56Issue
4Page(s)
622-625Identifying Novel Predictors of State Legislative Action to Address Obesity
AbstractArons, A., Pomeranz, J., & Hamad, R.Publication year
2019Journal title
Journal of Public Health Management and PracticeObjective: 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
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M.Publication year
2019Journal title
American Journal of Health PromotionVolume
33Issue
6Page(s)
894-902Purpose: Local communities are often active public health policy makers, so state preemption—when the state withdraws authority from local governments—can hinder public health progress. Kansas enacted the most sweeping law in the nation preempting food, nutrition, and agricultural policy. Design: Qualitative thematic content analysis was used on public comments to identify and evaluate common and key arguments. A codebook was developed using an iterative process. Open coding was applied to all comments. Setting: All testimony and comments submitted by individuals and organizations to the Kansas State Legislature on the preemptive bill. Participants: Eight types of commentators submitted 34 written and 12 oral comments. Measures: The data were evaluated on a latent level to examine underlying drivers of preemption. Results: Comments addressed 18 themes, referenced 366 times; 68% in opposition. Common themes included local control, food labeling, public health, need for statewide standards, and debate over food regulation. Key themes included the need for state and federal uniformity to support businesses and consumers, debate over topics not in the bill, the value of local control, confusion over bill coverage, and outside influences. Conclusion: Confusion about bill language and coverage, the combination of food and agricultural issues, and backing by multinational corporations helped propel preemption forward in Kansas. Food policy stakeholders nationally can anticipate similar arguments and strategies in their state.Legal Feasibility of US Government Policies to Reduce Cancer Risk by Reducing Intake of Processed Meat
AbstractWilde, P., Pomeranz, J. L., Lizewski, L. J., Ruan, M., Mozaffarian, D., & Zhang, F. F.Publication year
2019Journal title
Milbank QuarterlyVolume
97Issue
2Page(s)
420-448Policy 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.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.Publication year
2019Journal title
Food PolicyVolume
86Front-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.Publication year
2019Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
56Issue
1Page(s)
47-57Introduction: 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
2019Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
109Issue
2Page(s)
251-252Can the Government Require Health Warnings on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Advertisements?
Pomeranz, J., Mozaffarian, D., & Micha, R.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.Publication year
2018Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
108Issue
1Page(s)
67-72Discrimination 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.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.Publication year
2018Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
108Issue
2Page(s)
203-209Objectives. 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.Reductions 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.Publication year
2018Journal title
Journal of Epidemiology and Community HealthVolume
72Issue
9Page(s)
817-824Background 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
Pomeranz, J., Romo Palafox, M., & Harris, J.Publication year
2018Journal title
Preventive MedicineVolume
109Page(s)
11-16Consolidated 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.Publication year
2017Journal title
Preventive MedicineVolume
105Page(s)
397-403States 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.Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Reform:: Retail Requirements, Eligible Foods
Pomeranz, J. L.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.Publication year
2017Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
53Issue
5Page(s)
740-743Food law for public health
Pomeranz, J. L.Publication year
2016