TY - JOUR
T1 - Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Policies in the Broader Legal Context
T2 - Health and Safety Warning Laws and the First Amendment
AU - Pomeranz, Jennifer L.
AU - Mozaffarian, Dariush
AU - Micha, Renata
N1 - Funding Information:
No financial disclosures were reported by Jennifer L. Pomeranz. Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the Gates Foundation; personal fees from GOED, Nutrition Impact, Bunge, Indigo Agriculture, Motif FoodWorks, Amarin, Acasti Pharma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, America's Test Kitchen, and Danone; scientific advisory board, Brightseed, DayTwo, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, and Tiny Organics; and chapter royalties from UpToDate, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Micha reports research funding from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Micha reports research funding from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Nestlé, and Danone , and personal fees from Bunge, and Development Initiatives for serving as the co-chair of the Global Nutrition Report; all outside the submitted work.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the NIH grant numbers R01HL130735 (Principal Investigator, Micha). The NIH had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. This investigation was performed as part of the Food-PRICE (Policy Review and Intervention Cost-Effectiveness) Project ( www.food-price.org ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine
PY - 2020/6
Y1 - 2020/6
N2 - Introduction: 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.
AB - Introduction: 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084531676&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85084531676&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.006
DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 32273133
AN - SCOPUS:85084531676
SN - 0749-3797
VL - 58
SP - 783
EP - 788
JO - American journal of preventive medicine
JF - American journal of preventive medicine
IS - 6
ER -