Jennifer L Pomeranz1, Parke Wilde1, Yue Huang1, Renata Micha1, Dariush Mozaffarian1. 1. Jennifer L. Pomeranz is with the College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY. Parke Wilde, Yue Huang, Renata Micha, and Dariush Mozaffarian are with the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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.
Authors: Renata Micha; Jose L Peñalvo; Frederick Cudhea; Fumiaki Imamura; Colin D Rehm; Dariush Mozaffarian Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David D Kim; Parke E Wilde; Dominique S Michaud; Junxiu Liu; Lauren Lizewski; Jennifer Onopa; Dariush Mozaffarian; Fang Fang Zhang; John B Wong Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lauren Lizewski; Grace Flaherty; Parke Wilde; Ross Brownson; Claire Wang; Melissa Maitin-Shepard; Yan Li; Dariush Mozaffarian; Fang Fang Zhang Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Peter E H Schwarz; Patrick Timpel; Lorenz Harst; Colin J Greaves; Mohammed K Ali; Jeffrey Lambert; Mary Beth Weber; Mohamad M Almedawar; Henning Morawietz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 24.094