Regulation of Added Substances in the Food Supply by the Food and Drug Administration Human Foods Program.

The US food supply is increasingly associated with diet-related diseases, toxicity, cancer, and other health harms. These public health concerns are partly attributable to a loophole in federal law. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the premarket safety of ingredients regulated as food additives but allows the food industry to self-regulate and determine which substances to classify as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) based on undisclosed data and conclusions that the FDA never sees. Furthermore, the FDA lacks a formal approach for reviewing food additives and GRAS substances already found in the food supply. Substances in the food supply thus include innocuous ingredients (e.g., black pepper), those that are harmful at high levels (e.g., salt), those that are of questionable safety (e.g., potassium bromate), and those that are unknown to the FDA and the public. A recent court decision codified these gaps in the FDA's current approach, leaving states to try to fill the regulatory void. The FDA and Congress should consider several policy options to ensure that the FDA is meeting its mission to ensure a safe food supply. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1061-1070. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307755).

Disclosure of mandatory and voluntary nutrition labelling information across major online food retailers in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: Nutrition labelling is mandatory on food products in retail stores, but compliance in the rapidly expanding online setting remains unclear. We assessed mandatory and voluntary labelling information across major U.S. online retailers. DESIGN: Between January and August 2022, we evaluated a representative basket of sixty food and beverage items across eight product categories of ten major retailers. We evaluated online presence, accessibility and legibility of four mandatory elements - Nutrition Facts, ingredients, allergen statements and percent juice for fruit drinks - and presence of seven voluntary elements - nutrient content claims, health/qualified health claims, ingredient claims, structure-function claims, additive claims, front-of-package nutrient profiling symbols and other marketing claims. SETTING: Major online food retailers in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: On average, each mandatory element was present, accessible and legible for only 35·1 % of items, varying modestly by element (from 38·3 % for ingredients lists to 31·5 % for Nutrition Facts) but widely by retailer (6·6-86·3 %). Voluntary elements were present for 45·8 % of items, ranging from 83·7 % for marketing claims to 2·0 % for structure-function claims. Findings were generally consistent across the eight product categories. Voluntary elements were more frequently present than accessible and legible mandatory elements for six of ten retailers and seven of eight product categories. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory nutrition label elements are not commonly present, accessible and legible in online retail settings and are less consistently present than marketing elements. Coordinated industry and regulatory actions may be needed to ensure consumers can access mandatory nutrition information to make healthy and safe food choices online.

US Policies That Define Foods for Junk Food Taxes, 1991-2021.

Policy 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.

Availability of calorie information on online menus from chain restaurants in the USA: current prevalence and legal landscape.

OBJECTIVE: Federal law requires calorie information on chain restaurant menus. We sought to assess the prevalence of calorie disclosures on online menus and determine if the menus are controlled by restaurants subject to US labelling requirements. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Restaurant websites and mobile apps for restaurant located in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. PARTICIPANTS: US chain restaurants (top seventy-five by number of outlets) and third-party platforms (TPP): Grubhub, Uber Eats, DoorDash. RESULTS: There was at least one calorie disclosure (for at least one food or beverage, in at least one location) on sixty-eight of seventy-two (94 %) menus on restaurant websites or apps, thirty-two of fifty-five (58 %) menus on DoorDash, six of forty-nine (12 %) menus on Grubhub and thirty of fifty-nine (51 %) menus on Uber Eats. There was consistent calorie labelling (all foods and beverages, all locations) on forty-three of seventy-two (60 %) menus on restaurant websites or apps, fifteen of fifty-five (27 %) menus on DoorDash, three of forty-nine (6 %) menus on Grubhub and eleven of fifty-nine (19 %) menus on Uber Eats. Only four restaurant chains consistently labelled calories for all items, in all locations, on all platforms where their menus were found. All three TPP provided restaurants the ability to enter and modify menu items, making the menus subject to US labelling requirements. Only Uber Eats provided guidance to restaurants on entering calorie information. CONCLUSIONS: As consumers increasingly rely on TPP for restaurant ordering, menus on these platforms should include calories in order to promote transparency and nutrition.

Breastmilk or infant formula? Content analysis of infant feeding advice on breastmilk substitute manufacturer websites.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate messages about infant feeding on breastmilk substitute (BMS) manufacturer websites directed at US caregivers and compare information and portrayals of breast-feeding/breastmilk with that of infant formula (IF) feeding. DESIGN: We conducted a content analysis of US BMS companies' websites. A codebook was created through an iterative process to identify messages and images about breast-feeding/breastmilk and IF feeding, including benefits or issues associated with each, and direct-to-consumer marketing practices that could discourage breast-feeding. SETTING: Data were collected in 2019-2020 and analysed in 2020-2021 for US websites of five IF manufacturers. PARTICIPANTS: The websites of Similac, Enfamil and Gerber, which collectively represent approximately 98 % of the US IF market, and two US organic brands, Earth's Best and Happy Baby. RESULTS: Websites contained more messages about breast-feeding/breastmilk than IF but were significantly more likely to mention benefits to baby of IF (44 %) than breast-feeding/breastmilk (<26 %), including significantly more statements that IF provides brain, neural and gastrointestinal benefits; 40 % of breast-feeding/breastmilk content was dedicated to breast-feeding problems (e.g. sore nipples). Twice as many screenshots compared IF brands favourably to breastmilk than as superior to other brands. Certain companies displayed images indicating ease of IF feeding and difficulty of breast-feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial messaging on BMS manufacturer websites encouraged IF feeding and discouraged breast-feeding. Health professionals should discourage their patients from visiting these websites and the US government should regulate misleading claims. Companies should refrain from providing breast-feeding advice and align their US marketing with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.

Policy Opportunities and Legal Considerations to Reform SNAP-Authorized Food Retail Environments.

CONTEXT: There is an invigorated national interest in nutrition security, with emphasis on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) playing a key role. OBJECTIVE: To support healthy food purchasing, several strategies have emerged to modify the food retail environment. However, the legal feasibility of several such policy options has not been established. DESIGN: Research was conducted using Lexis+ to evaluate statutes, regulations, and case law to determine the legal feasibility of requiring retail-based SNAP signage and nutrition disclosures, healthy endcaps and checkout aisles, and tying advertising restrictions to the licensing of SNAP retailers. SETTING: US in-store and online food retail retailers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Legal feasibility. RESULTS: Requiring retailers that designate certain foods or locations as SNAP-eligible to consistently do so in all SNAP-eligible pages/locations is likely feasible. If properly drafted to focus on the nutritional quality of food, healthy checkout and endcap restrictions are legally feasible. It is of unclear legal feasibility to require retailers (especially in-store) to disclose nutrition-related labeling, shelf tags, or nonfactual symbols indicating the relative healthfulness of products. Restricting or banning advertising is not legally feasible even if the government ties the restrictions to retail licensing requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Entities seeking to support healthy food retail should not seek to restrict advertising or compel retailers to convey messages against their interests. The government can license retailers and require them to abide by laws and other requirements that do not violate their constitutional rights. The government can also use its own speech through public service announcements, billboards, and transit advertising to encourage healthy food consumption for all shoppers including those who use SNAP. Additional research is warranted into online retail practices to evaluate variations in online checkout pages and to determine whether online retailers treat SNAP participants differently from non-SNAP participants.

Opportunities to address the failure of online food retailers to ensure access to required food labelling information in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The rapid growth in web-based grocery food purchasing has outpaced federal regulatory attention to the online provision of nutrition and allergen information historically required on food product labels. We sought to characterise the extent and variability that online retailers disclose required and regulated information and identify the legal authorities for the federal government to require online food retailers to disclose such information. DESIGN: We performed a limited scan of ten products across nine national online retailers and conducted legal research using LexisNexis to analyse federal regulatory agencies' authorities. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: The scan of products revealed that required information (Nutrition Facts Panels, ingredient lists, common food allergens and per cent juice for fruit drinks) was present, conspicuous and legible for an average of only 36·5 % of the products surveyed, ranging from 11·4 % for potential allergens to 54·2 % for ingredients lists. More commonly, voluntary nutrition-related claims were prominently and conspicuously displayed (63·5 % across retailers and products). Our legal examination found that the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission and United States Department of Agriculture have existing regulatory authority over labelling, online sales and advertising, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme retailers that can be utilised to address deficiencies in the provision of required information in the online food retail environment. CONCLUSIONS: Information regularly provided to consumers in conventional settings is not being uniformly provided online. Congress or the federal agencies can require online food retailers disclose required nutrition and allergen information to support health, nutrition, equity and informed consumer decision-making.

State Preemption of Consumer Merchandise and Beverage Containers: New Strategy to Preempt Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies?

State legislators passed laws preempting, or prohibiting, local governments from regulating beverage containers. Although the primary purpose of these laws may be to ban local environmental regulations addressing single-use plastics, it is unknown the extent they also preempt public health policies aimed at reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. In 2021, using LexisNexis, we assessed state legislation preempting local control over consumer merchandise and containers. We identified 8 laws (and 16 failed bills) with broad language preempting local regulation of the sale, use, or marketing of multiple container types, including beverage containers. Most legislative activity occurred during 2016-2021, with legislative intent to avoid a "patchwork" of local laws, avoid burdening retailers, and have a "refreshing drink." Local policy control was characterized as "personal choice." Broad preemption language may stifle local policy making aimed at reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and preempt public health policies such as restricting portion size, in-store promotion and display, and labeling measures.

State Gun-Control, Gun-Rights, and Preemptive Firearm-Related Laws Across 50 US States for 2009-2018.

Objectives. To assess state policy environments and the relationship between state gun-control, gun-rights, and preemptive firearm-related laws in the United States. Methods. In 2019 through 2020, we evaluated substantive firearm laws and preemptive firearm laws across 50 US states for 2009 through 2018. For each state, we compared substantive measures with preemptive measures on the same policy topic for 2018. Results. The presence of state firearm-related laws varied across states, but with the exception of "punitive preemption" the number of gun-control, gun-rights, and preemptive measures remained unchanged in most states from 2009 through 2018. As of 2018, a majority of states had preemptive measures on almost all gun-control policy topics without enacting substantive gun-control measures. Several states had a combination of gun-control and preemptive measures. Only a small number of states had gun-control measures with few to no preemptive measures. Conclusions. Even where state legislators were unable to pass statewide gun-rights measures, they succeeded in passing preemption, preserving state authority over a wide range of gun-control and gun-rights policy topics. The majority of states used preemption as a tool to support policy frameworks favoring gun rights.

State Preemption: An Emerging Threat to Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation.

We sought to examine the strategies promoting and countering state preemption of local sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes in the United States. Using Crosbie and Schmidt's tobacco preemption framework, we analyzed key tactics used by the SSB industry to achieve state preemption of local taxes identified in news sources, industry Web sites, government reports, and public documents.Starting in 2017, 4 states rejected and 4 passed laws preempting local SSB taxes. The beverage industry attempted to secure state preemption through front groups and trade associations, lobbying key policymakers, inserting preemptive language into other legislation, and issuing legal threats and challenges. The public health community's response is in the early stages of engaging in media advocacy, educating policymakers, mobilizing national collaboration, and expanding legal networks.State preemption of local SSB taxes is in the early stages but will likely scale up as local tax proposals increase. The public health community has a substantial role in proactively working to prevent preemption concurrent with health policy activity and using additional strategies successfully used in tobacco control to stop preemption diffusion.

Trends in Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods Among US Youths Aged 2-19 Years, 1999-2018.

Importance: 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 = 33 795) 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%]; P < .001 for trend), whereas the percentage of total energy from consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5% (difference, -5.3% [95% CI, -7.5% to -3.2%]; P < .001 for trend). Among the subgroups of ultraprocessed foods, the estimated percentage of energy from consumption of ready-to-heat and -eat mixed dishes increased from 2.2% to 11.2% (difference, 8.9% [95% CI, 7.7% to 10.2%]) and from consumption of sweet snacks and sweets increased from 10.7% to 12.9% (difference, 2.3% [95% CI, 1.0% to 3.6%]), but the estimated percentage of energy decreased for sugar-sweetened beverages from 10.8% to 5.3% (difference, -5.5% [95% CI, -6.5% to -4.5%]) and for processed fats and oils, condiments, and sauces from 7.1% to 4.0% (difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -3.7% to -2.6%]) (all P < .05 for trend). There was a significantly larger increase in the estimated percentage of energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods among non-Hispanic Black youths (from 62.2% to 72.5%; difference, 10.3% [95% CI, 6.8% to 13.8%]) and Mexican American youths (from 55.8% to 63.5%; difference, 7.6% [95% CI, 4.4% to 10.9%]) than the increase among non-Hispanic White youths (from 63.4% to 68.6%; difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 2.1% to 8.3%]) (P = .04 for trends). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on the NHANES cycles from 1999 to 2018, the estimated proportion of energy intake from consumption of ultraprocessed foods has increased among youths in the US and has consistently comprised the majority of their total energy intake.

Legal Feasibility and Implementation of Federal Strategies for a National Retail-Based Fruit and Vegetable Subsidy Program in the United States.

Policy Points Suboptimal intake of fruit and vegetables is associated with increased risk of diet-related diseases. A national retail-based fruit and vegetable subsidy program could broadly benefit the health of the entire population. Existing fruit and vegetable subsidy programs can inform potential implementation mechanisms; Congress's powers to tax, spend, and regulate interstate commerce can be leveraged to create a federal program. Legal and administrative feasibility considerations support a conditional funding program or a federal-state cooperative program combining regulation, licensing, and state or local options for flexible implementation strategies. Strategies to engage key stakeholders would enable the program to utilize lessons learned from existing programs. CONTEXT: Suboptimal intake of fruit and vegetables (F&Vs) is associated with increased risk of diet-related diseases. Yet, there are no US government programs to support increased F&V consumption nationally for the whole population, most of whom purchase food at retail establishments. To inform policy discussion and implementation, we identified mechanisms to effectuate a national retail-based F&V subsidy program. METHODS: We conducted legal and policy research using LexisNexis, the UConn Rudd Center Legislation Database, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Disease State Policy Tracking System, the US Department of Agriculture's website, Congress.gov, gray literature, and government reports. First, we identified existing federal, state, local, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) policies and programs that subsidize F&Vs. Second, we evaluated Congress's power to implement a national retail-based F&V subsidy program. FINDINGS: We found five federal programs, three federal bills, four state laws, and 17 state (including the District of Columbia [DC]) bills to appropriate money to supplement federal food assistance programs with F&Vs; 74 programs (six multistate, 22 state [including DC], and 46 local) administered by state and local governments and NGOs that incentivize the purchase of F&Vs for various subpopulations; and two state laws and 11 state bills to provide tax exemptions for F&Vs. To create a national F&V subsidy program, Congress could use its Commerce Clause powers or its powers to tax or spend, through direct regulation, licensing, taxation, tax incentives, and conditional funding. Legal and administrative feasibility considerations support a voluntary conditional funding program or, as a second option, a mandatory federal-state cooperative program combining regulation and licensing. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple existing programs provide an important foundation to inform potential implementation mechanisms for a national F&V subsidy program. Results also highlight the value of state and local participation to leverage existing networks and stakeholder knowledge.

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

Objectives. To compare children's drink products that contain or purport to contain juice and evaluate labels in light of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.Methods. In 2019, we analyzed federal law for drinks that contain or purport to contain juice by using LexisNexis and FDA's Web site, identified top-selling children's "juice" drinks in fruit punch flavors, gathered labels in store and online, and extracted data from the principal display and information panels.Results. FDA regulations permit a wide range of names, claims, and fruit vignettes on drinks that contain or purport to contain juice, reflecting the product's flavor and not necessarily its ingredients. We identified 39 brands of children's drinks, including 100% juice (n = 7), diluted juices (n = 11), juice drinks (n = 8), fruit-flavored drinks (n = 8), and flavored waters (n = 5), with nonuniform statements of identity; vitamin C and low-sugar claims; and fruit vignettes representing 19 fruits. Many products contained added sugar and nonnutritive sweeteners but little to no juice.Conclusions. Principal display panels rendered it difficult to differentiate among product types, identify those with added sweeteners, and distinguish healthier products. Revised labeling regulations are warranted to support public health.

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Using a legal standard for scrutinising the regulation of food label claims, this study assessed whether consumers are misled about wholegrain (WG) content and product healthfulness based on common product labels. DESIGN: First, a discrete choice experiment used pairs of hypothetical products with different amounts of WG, sugar and salt to measure effects on assessment of healthfulness; and second, a WG content comprehension assessment used actual product labels to assess respondent understanding. SETTING: Online national panel survey. PARTICIPANTS: For a representative sample of US adults (n 1030), survey responses were collected in 2018 and analysed in 2019. RESULTS: First, 29-47 % of respondents incorrectly identified the healthier product from paired options, and respondents who self-identified as having difficulty in understanding labels were more likely to err. Second, for actual products composed primarily of refined grains, 43-51 % of respondents overstated the WG content, whereas for one product composed primarily of WG, 17 % of respondents understated the WG content. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of consumer misunderstanding of grain product labels was high in both study components. Potential policies to address consumer confusion include requiring disclosure of WG content as a percentage of total grain content or requiring disclosure of the grams of WG v. refined grains per serving.

Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children.

The World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes prohibits claims and other marketing that may confuse caregivers about benefits of formula and other milk-based drinks for infants and toddlers, but such marketing is common in the United States. This study assessed caregivers' provision of milk-based products to their infants and toddlers and potential confusion about product benefits and appropriate use. Online survey of 1,645 U.S. caregivers of infants (6-11 months) and toddlers (12-36 months). Respondents identified infant formula and toddler milk products they served their child (ren) and provided relative agreement with common marketing claims. Logistic regression assessed relationships between agreement and serving these products, controlling for individual characteristics. Over one-half of caregivers of infants (52%) agreed that infant formula can be better for babies' digestion and brain development than breastmilk, and 62% agreed it can provide nutrition not present in breastmilk. Most caregivers of toddlers (60%) agreed that toddler milks provide nutrition toddlers do not get from other foods. Some caregivers of infants (11%) reported serving toddler milk to their child most often. Agreement with marketing claims increased the odds of serving infant formula and/or toddler milks. For caregivers of toddlers, odds were higher for college-educated and lower for non-Hispanic White caregivers. Common marketing messages promoting infant formula and toddler milks may mislead caregivers about benefits and appropriateness of serving to young children. These findings support calls for public health policies and increased regulation of infant formula and toddler milks.

Legal Feasibility of US Government Policies to Reduce Cancer Risk by Reducing Intake of Processed Meat.

Policy Points High-profile international evidence reviews by the World Health Organization, the World Cancer Research Fund, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Cancer Society concluded that processed meat consumption increases the risk of cancer. The red meat and processed meat industries are influential in the United States and in several other nations. The US federal government supports public-private partnerships for commodity meat promotion and advertising. Four potential policy options to affect consumption of processed meat are taxation, reduced processed meat quantities in school meal standards, public service announcements, and warning labels. Feasibility of these options would be enhanced by an explicit and science-based statement on processed meat in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. CONTEXT: The World Health Organization, the World Cancer Research Fund, and the American Cancer Society have each in recent years concluded that processed meats are probable carcinogens. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans did not separately evaluate health effects of processed meat, although it mentioned lower processed meat intakes among characteristics of healthy diets. METHODS: We summarized the international scientific literature on meat intake and cancer risk; described the scientific and political processes behind the periodic Dietary Guidelines for Americans; described the US red meat and processed meat industries and the economic structure of government-supported industry initiatives for advertising and promotion; and reviewed and analyzed specific factors and precedents that influence the feasibility of four potential policy approaches to reduce processed meat intake. FINDINGS: Based on a review of 800 epidemiological studies, the World Health Organization found sufficient evidence in humans that processed meat is carcinogenic, estimating that each 50-gram increase in daily intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Among the four policy responses we studied, legal feasibility is highest in the US for three policy options: reducing processed meat in school meals and other specific government-sponsored nutrition programs; a local, state, or federal tax on processed meat; and public service announcements on health harms of processed meats by either the government or private sector entities. Legal feasibility is moderate for a fourth policy option, mandatory warning labels, due to outstanding legal questions about the minimum evidence required to support this policy. Political feasibility is influenced by the economic and political power of the meat industries and also depends on decisions in the next round of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans about how to assess and describe the link between processed meat consumption and cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Public policy initiatives to reduce processed meat intake have a strong scientific and public health justification and are legally feasible, but political feasibility is influenced by the economic and political power of meat industries and also by uncertainty about the likely treatment of processed meat in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Becerra Decision.

In 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzed a California state requirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices-1 for licensed clinics about the availability 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 the unlicensed 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.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Data: Why Disclosure Is Needed.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides funding to low-income households to purchase food at participating stores. The goals of the program include reducing hunger, improving nutrition, and strengthening the US food system. These are interrelated, as food access and choice depend on availability.SNAP generates data that could be useful for program evaluation and evidence-based policymaking to reach public health goals. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not collect or disclose all SNAP-related 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 store-level transaction and redemption data, and in 2019, the US Supreme Court blocked disclosure of these data. These federal proceedings can inform the 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.

Mandating Front-of-Package Food Labels in the U.S. - What are the First Amendment Obstacles?

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