Alyssa J Moran1, Aviva Musicus2, Mary T Gorski Findling3, Ian F Brissette4, Ann A Lowenfels4, S V Subramanian5, Christina A Roberto6. 1. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: ajm978@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Interfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 4. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 5. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal food assistance program, providing $67 billion in benefits to 44 million Americans. Some states distribute SNAP benefits over one or a few days each month, which may create an incentive for retailers to heavily promote top-selling products, like sugar-sweetened beverages, when benefits are disbursed. METHODS: A beverage environment scan assessing presence of displays, advertisements, and price promotions for sugar-sweetened, low-calorie, and unsweetened beverages was administered in a census of SNAP-authorized beverage retailers (n=630) in three cities in New York from September to November 2011. Multilevel regression models controlling for store type; county; and percentage SNAP enrollment, poverty, and non-Hispanic white population in the store's census tract were used to estimate the odds of in-store beverage marketing during the SNAP benefit issuance period compared to other days of the month. Data were analyzed in 2016. RESULTS: There were higher odds of in-store sugar-sweetened beverage marketing during SNAP benefit issuance days (first to ninth days of the month) compared with other days of the month, particularly for sugar-sweetened beverage advertisements (OR=1.66, 95% CI=1.01, 2.72) and displays (OR=1.88, 95% CI=1.16, 3.03). In census tracts with high SNAP enrollment (>28%), the odds of a retailer having sugar-sweetened beverage displays were 4.35 times higher (95% CI=1.93, 9.98) during issuance compared with non-issuance days. There were no differences in marketing for low-calorie or unsweetened beverages. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in sugar-sweetened beverage marketing during issuance may exacerbate disparities in diet quality of households participating in SNAP. Policy changes, like extending SNAP benefit issuance, may mitigate these effects.
INTRODUCTION: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal food assistance program, providing $67 billion in benefits to 44 million Americans. Some states distribute SNAP benefits over one or a few days each month, which may create an incentive for retailers to heavily promote top-selling products, like sugar-sweetened beverages, when benefits are disbursed. METHODS: A beverage environment scan assessing presence of displays, advertisements, and price promotions for sugar-sweetened, low-calorie, and unsweetened beverages was administered in a census of SNAP-authorized beverage retailers (n=630) in three cities in New York from September to November 2011. Multilevel regression models controlling for store type; county; and percentage SNAP enrollment, poverty, and non-Hispanic white population in the store's census tract were used to estimate the odds of in-store beverage marketing during the SNAP benefit issuance period compared to other days of the month. Data were analyzed in 2016. RESULTS: There were higher odds of in-store sugar-sweetened beverage marketing during SNAP benefit issuance days (first to ninth days of the month) compared with other days of the month, particularly for sugar-sweetened beverage advertisements (OR=1.66, 95% CI=1.01, 2.72) and displays (OR=1.88, 95% CI=1.16, 3.03). In census tracts with high SNAP enrollment (>28%), the odds of a retailer having sugar-sweetened beverage displays were 4.35 times higher (95% CI=1.93, 9.98) during issuance compared with non-issuance days. There were no differences in marketing for low-calorie or unsweetened beverages. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in sugar-sweetened beverage marketing during issuance may exacerbate disparities in diet quality of households participating in SNAP. Policy changes, like extending SNAP benefit issuance, may mitigate these effects.
Authors: Cindy W Leung; Susan J Blumenthal; Elena E Hoffnagle; Helen H Jensen; Susan B Foerster; Marion Nestle; Lilian W Y Cheung; Dariush Mozaffarian; Walter C Willett Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Rebecca L Franckle; Alyssa Moran; Tao Hou; Dan Blue; Julie Greene; Anne N Thorndike; Michele Polacsek; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Punam Ohri-Vachaspati; Zeynep Isgor; Leah Rimkus; Lisa M Powell; Dianne C Barker; Frank J Chaloupka Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Rebecca L Franckle; Michele Polacsek; Sara N Bleich; Anne N Thorndike; Mary T G Findling; Alyssa J Moran; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anne Barnhill; A Susana Ramírez; Marice Ashe; Amanda Berhaupt-Glickstein; Nicholas Freudenberg; Sonya A Grier; Karen E Watson; Shiriki Kumanyika Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2022 Impact factor: 1.604
Authors: Rebecca L Franckle; Anne N Thorndike; Alyssa J Moran; Tao Hou; Dan Blue; Julie C Greene; Sara N Bleich; Jason P Block; Michele Polacsek; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Denise Holston; Jessica Stroope; Matthew Greene; Bailey Houghtaling Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amelie A Hecht; Megan M Lott; Kirsten Arm; Mary T Story; Emily Snyder; Margo G Wootan; Alyssa J Moran Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amelie A Hecht; Crystal L Perez; Michele Polascek; Anne N Thorndike; Rebecca L Franckle; Alyssa J Moran Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.390