Adoption and Design of Emerging Dietary Policies to Improve Cardiometabolic Health in the US

  • Yue Huang
  • Jennifer Pomeranz
  • Parke Wilde
  • Simon Capewell
  • Tom Gaziano
  • Martin O’Flaherty
  • Rogan Kersh
  • Laurie Whitsel
  • Dariush Mozaffarian
  • Renata MichaEmail author
Nutrition (P. Kris-Etherton, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Nutrition


Purpose 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.


These findings highlight recent action on dietary policies to improve cardiometabolic health in the US; and key elements necessary to design such policies.


Diet Nutrition Policy Tax Subsidy Labeling 



The authors thank all of the collaborators and advisory groups in the Food Policy Review and Intervention Cost-Effectiveness (Food-PRICE) project (

Author Contributions

Ms. Huang and Dr. Micha had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Huang, Mozaffarian, Micha.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: all authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Huang, Micha.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Obtained funding: Micha.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Huang.

Study supervision: Micha.


This research was supported by the NIH, NHLBI (R01 HL130735, PI Micha). The funding agency did not contribute to design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ms. Huang, Drs. Pomeranz, Wilde, Capewell, Gaziano, Kersh, O’Flaherty, Mozaffarian, and Micha report grants from NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Whitsel serves as the Director of Policy Research for the American Heart Association. In addition, Dr. Micha reports personal fees from the World Bank, Bunge, and Dr. Mozaffarian from Astra Zeneca, Acasti Pharma, GOED, DSM, Haas Avocado Board, Nutrition Impact, Pollock Communications, Boston Heart Diagnostics, Bunge, and UpToDate, outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

11883_2018_726_MOESM1_ESM.docx (56 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 55 kb).


  1. 1.
    Micha R, Peñalvo JL, Cudhea F, Imamura F, Rehm CD, Mozaffarian D. Association between dietary factors and mortality from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the United States. JAMA. 2017;317(9):912–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133(4):e38–360. Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):1033–46. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brownell KD, Kersh R, Ludwig DS, Post RC, Puhl RM, Schwartz MB, et al. Personal responsibility and obesity: a constructive approach to a controversial issue. Health Aff. 2010;29(3):379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artinian NT, Fletcher GF, Mozaffarian D, Kris-Etherton P, Van Horn L, Lichtenstein AH, et al. Interventions to promote physical activity and dietary lifestyle changes for cardiovascular risk factor reduction in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122(4):406–41. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spring B, Ockene JK, Gidding SS, Mozaffarian D, Moore S, Rosal MC, et al. Better population health through behavior change in adults: a call to action. Circulation. 2013;128(19):2169–76. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL, Bittner V, Daniels SR, Franch HA, et al. Population approaches to improve diet, physical activity, and smoking habits a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1514–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mozaffarian D. Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity: a comprehensive review. Circulation. 2016;133(2):187–225. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Afshin A, Penalvo J, Del Gobbo L, Kashaf M, Micha R, Morrish K, et al. CVD prevention through policy: a review of mass media, food/menu labeling, taxation/subsidies, built environment, school procurement, worksite wellness, and marketing standards to improve diet. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015;17(11):98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J, Wardle J, Hammond RA, Friel S, et al. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2410–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stephens SK, Cobiac LJ, Veerman JL. Improving diet and physical activity to reduce population prevalence of overweight and obesity: an overview of current evidence. Prev Med. 2014;62:167–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ezzati M, Riboli E. Can noncommunicable diseases be prevented? Lessons from studies of populations and individuals. Science. 2012;337(6101):1482–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hyseni L, Atkinson M, Bromley H, Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, McGill R, et al. The effects of policy actions to improve population dietary patterns and prevent diet-related non-communicable diseases: scoping review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017;71(6):694–711. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mozaffarian D. Foods, nutrients, and health: when will our policies catch up with nutrition science? Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;5(2):85–8. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Afshin A, Penalvo JL, Del Gobbo L, Silva J, Michaelson M, O'Flaherty M, et al. The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172277. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long MW, Gortmaker SL, Ward ZJ, Resch SC, Moodie ML, Sacks G, et al. Cost effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):112–23. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paarlberg R, Mozaffarian D, Micha R. Can US local soda taxes continue to spread? Food Policy. 2017;71:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Food labeling: nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments; final rule, 21 CFR Parts 101, 11 (2014).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Food labeling: revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels; final rule, 21 CFR 101 (2016).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopkinson J House ag to examine SNAP soda purchases. Politico. 2016. Accessed August 8, 2017.
  21. 21.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) Grant Program. 2015. Accessed September 15, 2017.
  22. 22.
    Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry: voluntary sodium reduction goals: target mean and upper bound concentrations for sodium in commercially processed, packaged, and prepared Foods. 2016. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  23. 23.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015–2020. 2015.
  24. 24.
    Nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; final rule, 7 CFR 210, 220 (2012).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meals on Wheels America. 2017. Accessed November 2, 2017.
  26. 26.
    Block JP, Subramanian S. Moving beyond “food deserts”: reorienting United States policies to reduce disparities in diet quality. PLoS Med. 2015;12(12):e1001914.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dubowitz T, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Cohen DA, Beckman R, Steiner ED, Hunter GP, et al. Diet and perceptions change with supermarket introduction in a food desert, but not because of supermarket use. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(11):1858–68. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lerner D, Rodday AM, Cohen JT, Rogers WH. A systematic review of the evidence concerning the economic impact of employee-focused health promotion and wellness programs. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(2):209–22. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Story M, Nanney MS, Schwartz MB. Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):71–100. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fox MK. Improving food environments in schools: tracking progress. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(7):1010–3. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Turner L, Chaloupka FJ. Slow progress in changing the school food environment: nationally representative results from public and private elementary schools. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(9):1380–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hirschman J, Chriqui JF. School food and nutrition policy, monitoring and evaluation in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(06):982–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chriqui JF, Piekarz E, Chaloupka FJ. USDA snack food and beverage standards: how big of a stretch for the states? Child Obes. 2014;10(3):234–40. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen JFW, Richardson S, Parker E, Catalano PJ, Rimm EB. Impact of the new U.S. Department of Agriculture school meal standards on food selection, consumption, and waste. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(4):388–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abt Associates. Food and Nutrition Service evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). 2011. Accessed August 19, 2017.
  36. 36.
    Korenman S, Abner KS, Kaestner R, Gordon RA. The child and adult care food program and the nutrition of preschoolers. Early Child Res Q. 2013;28(2):325–36. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; Final Rule, 7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220 226 (2016).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chriqui J, Eidson S, Chaloupka F. State sales taxes on regular soda (as of January 1, 2014)-BTG fact sheet. Chicago: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago; 2014. Accessed August 15, 2017Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Figueroa E, Waxman S. Which states tax the sale of food for home consumption in 2017? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2017. Accessed September 25, 2017.
  40. 40.
    H.R. 5279. Sweet Act, 113th Congress (2013–2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    H.R. 1687. Sweet Act, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marron DB, Gearing ME, Iselin J. Should we tax unhealthy foods and drinks? Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute & Brookings Institute. 2015. Accessed September 26, 2017.
  43. 43.
    Francis N, Marron DB, Rueben KS. The pros and cons of taxing sweetened beverages based on sugar content. The Tax Policy Center. 2016. Accessed September 23, 2017.
  44. 44.
    ChangeLab Solutions & Healthy Food America. Best practices in designing local taxes on sugary drinks. 2016. Accessed September 8, 2017.
  45. 45.
    Pomeranz JL, Wilde P, Huang Y, Micha R, Mozaffarian D. Legal and administrative feasibility of a Federal Junk Food and sugar-sweetened beverage tax to improve diet. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(2):203–9. Scholar
  46. 46.
    City of Berkeley. Imposing a general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage products. 2014. Sweeetened Beverage Tax - Full Text.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2017.
  47. 47.
    City of Philadephia.Philadelphia Beverage Tax. Accessed March 28, 2018.
  48. 48.
    San Francisco tax on distributing sugar sweetened beverage. 2016. Accessed October 27, 2017.
  49. 49.
    Albany Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax. 2016. Accessed October 3, 2017.
  50. 50.
    City of Oakland. Oakland Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax. 2016. Accessed October 17, 2017.
  51. 51.
  52. 52.
    Cook County Government. Cook County sweetened beverage tax ordianance. 2016. Accessed October 11, 2017.
  53. 53.
    City of Seattle. An ordinance imposing a tax on engaging in the business of distributing sweetened beverages. 2017. Accessed November 6, 2017.
  54. 54.
  55. 55.
    Texas. Tax Code § 151.314.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Maine law 36 M.R.S. 1811; 36 M.R.S. 1752.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    The Navajo Nation. Public ruling: administration of the “elimination of the sales tax on fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, water, nuts, seeds and nut butters” under the Navajo Nation Sales Tax. 2014. Taxes/Public Rulings/Healthy Foods Act Public Ruling.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2017.
  58. 58.
    Food and Drug Administration. Final determination regarding partially hydrogenated oils. 80 FR 34650. (2015).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI). 2016. Accessed October 21, 2017.
  60. 60.
  61. 61.
    Gase LN, Barragan NC, Robles B, Leighs M, Kuo T. A mixed-methods evaluation of the choose less, weigh less portion size health marketing campaign in Los Angeles County. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29(6):e214–24. Scholar
  62. 62.
    San Francisco Human Services Agency. Eat fresh. Accessed November 14, 2017.
  63. 63.
    Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center. Health Department launches new ad campaign encouraging New Yorkers to grab a snack of fruits or vegetables. 2014. Accessed October 21, 2017.
  64. 64.
    City of San Antonio. ¡Viva Health! Accessed November 19, 2017.
  65. 65.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Simple goodness campaign. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  66. 66.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Low fat milk campaign. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  67. 67.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Simple steps toward better health-and they are free! Accessed November 9, 2017.
  68. 68.
    University of Wyoming. Cent$ible Nutrition Program. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  69. 69.
    Iowa Department of Public Health. Pick a better snack. Accessed November 19, 2017.
  70. 70.
    Oregon State University. Food hero. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  71. 71.
    Michigan Fitness Foundation. They learn from watching you. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  72. 72.
    Oklahoma Nutrition Information & Education Project. The whole milk truth. Accessed November 21, 2017.
  73. 73.
    South Dakota State University. Pick it! Try it! Like it! Accessed November 9, 2017.
  74. 74.
    University of Rhode Island. Rhode Island mass transit social marketing campaign. - transit. Accessed October 27, 2017.
  75. 75.
    Produce for Better Health Foundation. Fruits and Veggies - More Matters. Accessed August 21, 2017.
  76. 76.
    Let's Move! Accessed October 18, 2017.
  77. 77.
    Swann P. Are you pouring on the pounds? Agenda building for sugary drink limits in New York City. Asia Pacific Publ Relat J 16(1).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sarah Samuels Center for Public Health Research & Evaluation. Evaluation of San Francisco's social marketing campaign "Pouring on the Pounds". 2010. Accessed November 6, 2017.
  79. 79.
    Choose Health LA. How many packs of sugar are you drinking? Accessed October 13, 2017.
  80. 80.
    Food Fit Philly. Sugary drinks & salt. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  81. 81.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Drinking yourself sick. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  82. 82.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Health Department launches new ad campaign highlighting the health risks of children consuming sugary drinks. 2015. Accessed November 6, 2017.
  83. 83.
    Baltimore City Health Department. Rethink your drink. 2016. Accessed October 24, 2017.
  84. 84.
    University of Nevada. Rethink your drink. Accessed November 24, 2017.
  85. 85.
    San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Ordinance No. 101096. Setting nutritional standards for restaurant foood sold accompanied by toys or other youth focused incentive items. 2010.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Santa Clara Board of Supervisors. Ordinance No. NS-300-820. 2010.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Polacsek M, O'Rourke K, O'Brien L, Blum JW, Donahue S. Examining compliance with a statewide law banning junk Food and beverage marketing in Maine schools. Public Health Rep. 2012;127(2):216–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    California A.B. 841: pupil nutrition: food and beverages: advertising: corporate incentive programs (Section 49431.9 in the Education Code).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Local School Wellness Policy Implementation Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 81 FR 50151. 2016.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. Preliminary proposed nutrition principles to guide industry self-regulatory efforts; request for comments. 2011. November 16, 2017.
  91. 91.
    H.R. 4310. To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect children's health by denying any deduction for advertising and marketing directed at children to promote the consumption of food at fast food restaurants or of food of poor nutritional quality., 111th Congress (2010 - 2011) Sess.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    H.R. 6599. Stop subsidizing childhood obesity act, 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) Sess.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    S.B. 2342. Stop subsidizing childhood obesity act, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    H.R. 2831. To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny any deduction for marketing directed at children to promote the consumption of food of poor nutritional quality, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    S.B. 39. HeLP America Act, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    H.R. 5232. Stop subsidizing childhood obesity act, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    S.B. 2936. Stop subsidizing childhood obesity act, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    H.R. 3147. Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2013, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    S.B. 1653. Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2013, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    H.R. 4061. Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2015, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    S.B. 2301. Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2015, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Notice of Adoption of Amendments to Article 81 of the New York City Health Code. 2015.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ordinance No. 100-15 [Health Code - Sugar-sweetened beverage warning for advertisements]. 2015.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Health Bucks. Accessed December 12, 2017.
  105. 105.
    The Food Project. Boston Bounty Bucks and new EBT project. 2010. FY09 Food Project Inc. %2478%2C708.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2017.
  106. 106.
    Philadelphia Department of Public Health. The Food Trust's Food Bucks Network. Accessed October 18, 2017.
  107. 107.
  108. 108.
  109. 109.
    Guilford County. Guilford County Department of health and human services, division of public health receives $99,987 National Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grant. 2015. Accessed October 9, 2017.
  110. 110.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announces $16.8 million in grants to encourage healthy food purchases for SNAP participants. 2016. Accessed October 5, 2017.
  111. 111.
    Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. Healthy Incentives Program. Accessed November 18, 2017.
  112. 112.
    Washington State Department of Health. Washington State Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) Program, Fruit and Vegetable Prescription Program. Accessed October 18, 2017.
  113. 113.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Connecting health and food: an incentive program ot increase fruit and vegetable consumption among VT's SNAP participants through healthcare and retail.
  114. 114.
    Food and Nutrition Service. WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. 2016. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  115. 115.
    Food and Nutrition Service. Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. 2016. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  116. 116.
    Food and Nutrition Service. WIC food packages - regulatory requirements for WIC-eligible foods. 2016. Accessed December 4, 2017.
  117. 117.
    Bartlett S, Associates A. Evaluation of the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP), final report. 2014. Accessed August 12, 2017.
  118. 118.
    H.R. 3072. Local Food for Healthy Families Act of 2013, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    H.R. 4904. Vegetables Are Really Important Eating Tools for You (VARIETY) Act of 2014, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    H.R. 5423. SNAP Healthy Incentives Act of 2016, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    S.Amdt. 1152 to S. 954, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    S.Amdt.2235 to S.3240, 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) Sess.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    H.R. 3073. Healthy Food Choices Act of 2013, 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) Sess.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    H.R. 4881. Healthy Food Choices Act of 2016, 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) Sess.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Food Labeling: trans, 21 CFR 101 (2003).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    American Bev. Ass 'n v. City and County of San Francisco, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017).Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    KY H.B. 550. An act relating to the Kentucky Healthy Nutrition Pilot Project. 2012.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Otite FO, Jacobson MF, Dahmubed A, Mozaffarian D. Trends in trans fatty acids reformulations of US supermarket and brand-name foods from 2007 through 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E85. Scholar
  129. 129.
    Assaf RR. Overview of local, state, and national government legislation restricting trans fats. Clin Ther. 2014;36(3):328–32. Scholar
  130. 130.
    He FJ, Brinsden HC, MacGregor GA. Salt reduction in the United Kingdom: a successful experiment in public health. J Hum Hypertens. 2014;28(6):345–52. Scholar
  131. 131.
    Institute of Medicine Committee on Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake. Henney JE TC, Boon CS, . Strategies to reduce sodium intake in the United States. National Academies Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Pomeranz JL, Mozaffarian D, Micha R. Front of package labels and the First Amendment. Milbank Quarterly [Under review]. 2018.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Institute of Medicine. Examination of front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols: phase I report. National Academies Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Institute of Medicine. Front-of-package symbols and systems: IOM phase 2 report. National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Food labeling; nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments; extension of compliance date; request for comments. 2017.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Food and Drug Administration. FDA proposes to extend compliance dates for Nutrition Facts Label final rules. 2017. Accessed November 2, 2017.
  137. 137.
    Schwartz MB. Moving beyond the debate over restricting sugary drinks in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(2, Supplement 2):S199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Escobar MAC, Veerman JL, Tollman SM, Bertram MY, Hofman KJ. Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1072. Scholar
  139. 139.
    Wang YC, Coxson P, Shen Y-M, Goldman L, Bibbins-Domingo K. A penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would cut health and cost burdens of diabetes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(1):199–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564–71. Scholar
  141. 141.
    Pomeranz JL, Mozaffarian D, Micha R. The Potential for Federal Preemption of State and Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(5):740–3. Scholar
  142. 142.
    National Commission on Hunger. Freedom from hunger: an achievable goal for the United States of America. 2015. Accessed December 16, 2017.
  143. 143.
    Harnack L, Oakes JM, Elbel B, Beatty T, Rydell S, French S. Effects of subsidies and prohibitions on nutrition in a food benefit program: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2016.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Liu J, Mozaffarian D, Sy S, Huang Y, Lee Y, Wilde P, et al. Abstract 022: Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives and disincentives for improving diet and health through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Circulation. 2018;137(Suppl 1):A022-A.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    De Koning L, Malik VS, Kellogg MD, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sweetened beverage consumption, incident coronary heart disease, and biomarkers of risk in MenClinical perspective. Circulation. 2012;125(14):1735–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després J-P, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation. 2010;121(11):1356–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Fung TT, Malik V, Rexrode KM, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2009;89(4):1037–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Curtis CJ, Clapp J, Niederman SA, Ng SW, Angell SY. US food industry progress during the National Salt Reduction Initiative: 2009–2014. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1815–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    H.R. 5054. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. 2017.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    H.R. 144. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 2017.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Pearson-Stuttard J, Kypridemos C, Collins B, Mozaffarian D, Huang Y, Bandosz P et al. Estimating the health and economic effects of the proposed US Food and Drug Administration voluntary sodium reformulation: microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS Med. 2018;15(4):e1002551.
  152. 152.
    Collins B, Kypridemos C, Pearson-Stuttard J, Huang Y, Bandosz P, Wilde P, et al. Abstract 019: Cost-effectiveness of the FDA sodium reduction targets for the processed food industry: are there internal incentives to reformulate? Circulation. 2018;137(Suppl 1):A019-A.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Wyness LA, Butriss JL, Stanner SA. Reducing the population's sodium intake: the UK Food Standards Agency's salt reduction programme. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(02):254–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Webb M, Fahimi S, Singh GM, Khatibzadeh S, Micha R, Powles J, et al. Cost effectiveness of a government supported policy strategy to decrease sodium intake: global analysis across 183 nations. BMJ. 2017;356:i6699. Scholar
  155. 155.
    Pomeranz JL. Front-of-package food and beverage labeling: new directions for research and regulation. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(3):382–5. Scholar
  156. 156.
    Harris JL, Pomeranz JL, Lobstein T, Brownell KD. A crisis in the marketplace: how food marketing contributes to childhood obesity and what can be done. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:211–25. Scholar
  157. 157.
    Wang X, Ouyang Y, Liu J, Zhu M, Zhao G, Bao W, et al. Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2014;349:g4490. Scholar
  158. 158.
    Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Loria CM, Vupputuri S, Myers L, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults: the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(1):93–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Pearson-Stuttard J, Bandosz P, Rehm CD, Penalvo J, Whitsel L, Gaziano T, et al. Reducing US cardiovascular disease burden and disparities through national and targeted dietary policies: A modelling study. PLoS Med. 2017;14(6):e1002311. Scholar
  160. 160.
    Pearson-Stuttard J, Bandosz P, Rehm CD, Afshin A, Penalvo JL, Whitsel L, et al. Comparing effectiveness of mass media campaigns with price reductions targeting fruit and vegetable intake on US cardiovascular disease mortality and race disparities. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;106(1):199–206. Scholar
  161. 161.
    Micha R, Shulkin ML, Penalvo JL, Khatibzadeh S, Singh GM, Rao M, et al. Etiologic effects and optimal intakes of foods and nutrients for risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses from the Nutrition and Chronic Diseases Expert Group (NutriCoDE). PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175149. Scholar
  162. 162.
    Monteiro CA, Levy RB, Claro RM, de Castro IR, Cannon G. Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(1):5–13. Scholar
  163. 163.
    Mozaffarian D, Rogoff KS, Ludwig DS. The real cost of food: can taxes and subsidies improve public health? JAMA. 2014;312(9):889–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    NutriSaving. Accessed November 21, 2017.
  165. 165.
    Becker MW, Bello NM, Sundar RP, Peltier C, Bix L. Front of pack labels enhance attention to nutrition information in novel and commercial brands. Food Policy. 2015;56(Supplement C):76–86. Scholar
  166. 166.
    Penalvo JL, Cudhea F, Micha R, Rehm CD, Afshin A, Whitsel L, et al. The potential impact of food taxes and subsidies on cardiovascular disease and diabetes burden and disparities in the United States. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):208. Scholar
  167. 167.
    Cobiac LJ, Tam K, Veerman L, Blakely T. Taxes and subsidies for improving diet and population health in Australia: a cost-effectiveness modelling study. PLoS Med. 2017;14(2):e1002232.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Isaacs J. The costs of benefit delivery in the Food Stamp Program - lessons from a cross-program analysis. Economic Research Service. 2008. Accessed August 3, 2017.
  169. 169.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Analysis of alternatives for implementing a Cash Value Voucher Program. 2007. Accessed November 16, 2017.
  170. 170.
    Hersey JC, Wohlgenant KC, Arsenault JE, Kosa KM, Muth MK. Effects of front-of-package and shelf nutrition labeling systems on consumers. Nutr Rev. 2013;71(1):1–14. Scholar
  171. 171.
    Food and Nutrition Service. Eligibility of White Potatoes for Purchase with the Cash-Value Voucher. 2014. Accessed December 12, 2017.
  172. 172.
    Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2392–404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    John Hancock. The John Hancock Vitality Program. 2016. Accessed August 15, 2017.
  174. 174.
    Sturm R, An R, Segal D, Patel D. A cash-back rebate program for healthy food purchases in South Africa: results from scanner data. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(6):567–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Wholesome Wave. Doubling SNAP. 2016. Accessed September 19, 2017.
  176. 176.
    Fair Food Network. Double up food bucks. 2016. Accessed November 19, 2017.
  177. 177.
    Rahkovsky I, Lin B-H, Lin C-TJ, Lee J-Y. Effects of the Guiding Stars Program on purchases of ready-to-eat cereals with different nutritional attributes. Food Policy. 2013;43(Supplement C):100-107. doi:
  178. 178.
    Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Schwartz MB, Seamans MJ, Musicus A, Novak N, et al. Facts up front versus traffic light food labels: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(2):134–41. Scholar
  179. 179.
    Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Livingston KA, Harris JL, Thompson JM, Seamans MJ, et al. Choosing front-of-package food labelling nutritional criteria: how smart were 'Smart Choices'? Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(2):262–7. Scholar
  180. 180.
    Unilever, Nestlé, Barilla & Tesco amongst companies sharing sodium, sugar & fat reduction strategies at The Reformulation Series 2014. 2014. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  181. 181.
    Slining MM, Ng SW, Popkin BM. Food companies' calorie-reduction pledges to improve U.S. diet. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(2):174–84. Scholar
  182. 182.
    Kraak VI, Story M, Wartella EA, Ginter J. Industry progress to market a healthful diet to American children and adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(3):322–33; quiz A4. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yue Huang
    • 1
  • Jennifer Pomeranz
    • 2
  • Parke Wilde
    • 1
  • Simon Capewell
    • 3
  • Tom Gaziano
    • 4
  • Martin O’Flaherty
    • 3
  • Rogan Kersh
    • 5
  • Laurie Whitsel
    • 6
  • Dariush Mozaffarian
    • 1
  • Renata Micha
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Friedman School of Nutrition Science and PolicyTufts UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.College of Global Public HealthNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Public Health and PolicyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.Division of Cardiovascular MedicineBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Wake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  6. 6.American Heart AssociationWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations