Obesity — The New Frontier of Public Health Law
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
The law is now firmly established as a powerful instrument of public health.1 Some of the most important public health victories in the United States in the past century — declining lead exposure, reduced rates of smoking, improvements in workplace and motor vehicle safety, and increased vaccination rates — are the result of new legislation, heightened regulatory enforcement, litigation, or a combination of the three.2,3,4 With each victory, confidence mounts in the capacity of legal tools to be used in combating serious health threats.
One of the newest targets of public health law is obesity.5 The past few years have brought a flurry of legislative initiatives aimed at improving nutrition and physical activity among children and adults, highly publicized personal-injury lawsuits against food and beverage companies,6,7 and new activities on the part of federal regulators.8 Related initiatives in other countries and at the World Health Organization signal growing international interest.9
This new frontier of public health law is welcomed by many health activists, but it has also provoked criticism. A backlash from the food industry is already evident, and rights-oriented consumer groups have decried some measures because they impinge on civil liberties.10 Tensions exist between these interventions and the freedoms of choice, speech, and contract. In this article, we review the rationale for regulatory action to combat obesity, examine legal issues raised by initiatives to date, and comment on the prospects for public health law in this area.
Time for Legal Action?
The public health law approach posits that the law can be used to create conditions that allow people to lead healthier lives and that the government has both the power and the duty to regulate private behavior in order to promote public health.1 The constitutional source of this authority is the police power, which encompasses both directly coercive interventions and policies such as taxes and subsidies that shape behavior by altering the costs of certain choices. States also enjoy broad powers with respect to taxation of goods and services.
Several factors have led to a reexamination of the historical view that food consumption and physical activity are inappropriate subjects for government regulation. Among the "triggers to action" that have catalyzed government intervention in other areas of private behavior, such as alcohol and tobacco use, are the development of a scientific base and social disapproval.11 Both these triggers are now in play with regard to obesity.
The accumulation of an evidence base is particularly important. Emerging research results about the economic and human costs of obesity12 have galvanized interest in greater governmental involvement by medicalizing the problem (witness the Medicare program's decision to classify obesity as a disease13) and by demonstrating the stake that each employer and taxpayer has in it. A growing literature also links exposure to the advertising of unhealthful foods to decisions about consumption and to overweight and obesity. American children are exposed to approximately 40,000 food advertisements per year, 72 percent of which are for candy, cereal, and fast food.14 Empirical studies, including recent reviews by the American Psychological Association15 and the Institute of Medicine (IOM),16 show that advertisements achieve their intended effects on children — that is, they shape product preferences and eating habits.17,18,19,20,21 Moreover, children younger than eight years of age are generally unable to understand the persuasive intent of advertising and to view it critically.15
The publication of the Surgeon General's report on obesity in 200122 brought the research base to a wider audience and raised the public profile of the obesity epidemic. Popular books23,24,25 and movies26 also have educated the public, especially about the food industry. The results of recent opinion polls27,28,29,30 indicate that a majority of Americans believe that the government should be involved in fighting obesity, particularly by regulating the marketing of "junk foods" to children.
Nonetheless, antiobesity laws encounter strong opposition from some quarters on the grounds that they constitute paternalistic intervention into lifestyle choices and enfeeble the notion of personal responsibility. Such arguments echo those made in the early days of tobacco regulation. There are important differences between foods that are not nutritious and tobacco: people cannot abstain from eating; high-calorie foods may be beneficial to some people and harmful to others; there is no food-related equivalent to harm from secondhand smoke; and no one has shown that foods have physically addictive properties, much less that food companies manipulate their addictive content to encourage dependence. However, a key similarity that undercuts the antipaternalism argument is the use of these products by children, who are highly vulnerable to advertising and marketing15 and whose eating habits tend to persist over the life span.16,21
Ideological battles are currently playing out at both the state and federal levels as regulators seek an appropriate balance between private liberty and public health. Table 1 lists the key regulatory targets and tools.
Table 1. Key Regulatory Targets and Examples of Approaches to Obesity in Public Health Law.
Activity in the States
Within state courts and legislatures and local governments, there has been an outpouring of legal initiatives to address obesity. Litigation is a strategy that we have discussed elsewhere.6 The past four years have brought a spate of highly publicized personal-injury lawsuits against food companies by obese persons seeking compensation for obesity-related health problems. The most highly publicized of these lawsuits has been the off-again, on-again suit against McDonald's brought by obese children in New York.31 This suit alleges that foods from McDonald's were dangerous beyond the extent ordinarily understood by consumers, that McDonald's negligently failed to warn consumers of the risks, and that the company's marketing constituted deceptive business practices under the state's consumer-protection laws. Similar claims have been threatened against soft-drink companies.32
Obesity-related lawsuits face substantial legal hurdles. Plaintiffs must prove that the food or corporate practice actually caused injury and that the dangers were not "open and obvious" to the ordinary consumer.6,33 Moreover, 21 states have enacted "personal responsibility" laws that immunize fast-food companies from obesity-related tort claims.34 The lawsuits attract attention, however, and may have contributed to the decision by some food companies to provide more healthful product offerings.
With regard to state legislative and local regulatory activity, much of the focus has been on schools. The policies of school districts have been criticized for contributing to what researchers describe as a "toxic environment" for children35: about 60 percent of U.S. middle schools and high schools sell soft drinks from vending machines on campus,36 although this is likely to change under guidelines recently established by the beverage industry to curtail such sales by 201037; in most schools, meals prepared under the National School Lunch Program exceed federal limits on total and saturated fats38; and only 28 percent of high-school students participate in daily physical-education classes.39 In response to these issues, states and school boards have crafted policies to reduce students' access to foods that are not nutritious and to boost their physical activity (Figure 1).40 Measures include laws restricting competitive food sales (the sale of foods that compete with school lunch programs). Other measures include closed-campus policies that keep students at school for lunch and the requirement for more and better physical education. Notwithstanding its interest in the success of the National School Lunch Program, the federal government has promulgated no rules concerning the sale of competitive foods in public schools, although the IOM is currently studying the issue under a congressional mandate.41
Figure 1. State Legislative Initiatives to Combat Obesity in Schools, 1998–2005.
Data are from the Health Promotion Program state legislation and statute database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.40
Some states also have attempted to improve nutrition and fitness beyond the school gates (Figure 2)40 by creating safe and attractive places to enjoy outdoor exercise. Another, more controversial approach is to tax junk foods, typically by excluding them from the general exemption of foods from state sales taxes. As of 2000, 19 states taxed foods that are not nutritious (such as soft drinks and candy). Several other states had such taxes, but repealed them in the 1990s because of pressure from the affected industries and difficulties administering them (for example, some states had difficulty determining which foods met the definition of a taxable item).42
Figure 2. State Legislative Initiatives to Combat Obesity in the Community, 1998–2005.
Data are from the Health Promotion Program state legislation and statute database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.40
Economic and political barriers hinder more widespread adoption of many of these state initiatives. (Unlike taxes, most measures require revenue outlays.) The evidence base is also thin. To our knowledge, most initiatives have not yet been evaluated. There is no direct evidence that taxes on food affect rates of obesity, but studies have linked food pricing with consumption patterns43 and cigarette taxes with tobacco use.44,45,46 A commitment by state governments and research sponsors to evaluate the effect of policy interventions on key outcome measures such as consumption of junk foods in schools, children's body-mass-index values, and physical activity levels will be necessary to construct and justify a strategy to use public health law to reduce rates of obesity.
Activity at the Federal Level
At the federal level, regulatory initiatives face similar political, economic, and evidentiary issues. Legal barriers arise as well; these barriers center on the federal government's authority to regulate the commercial activities of the food industry.
There are increasing calls to regulate the advertising of unhealthful foods to children. Many foreign governments prohibit or restrict advertising during television programs that target young children,16,47 and the IOM recently recommended restrictions on television advertising if the food and beverage industries do not voluntarily shift their advertising emphasis away from products that are not nutritious.16
The most common proposals are to restrict the quantity and content of advertisements during children's television programs and to require that broadcasters provide equal time for messages that promote good nutrition and physical activity. Regulation also could target print media, the Internet, in-store promotional campaigns, and product tie-ins to children's television programs. In addition, 19 states have legal restrictions on commercial marketing activities in public schools. Most of these laws are not comprehensive, however, and commercial activities in public schools remain widespread and are candidates for federal regulation.48
The Federal Trade Commission
Federal responsibility for the regulation of advertising lies mainly with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). By agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FTC has primary authority over food advertising, whereas the FDA regulates food labeling.49 Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC may regulate "unfair or deceptive" business practices, including advertising.50 "Unfair" practices are those that may cause substantial, unavoidable injury to consumers that is not outweighed by offsetting consumer or competitive benefits. Advertising is "deceptive" if it is likely to mislead consumers in a way that is material — that is, if it is likely to influence misleadingly their decisions regarding the product.
The FTC's regulatory interest in and authority over child-oriented advertising has been curtailed by a bruising history with such efforts. In 1978, the commission initiated an effort known as the Children's Advertising Rulemaking, or "kidvid," to regulate television advertising of foods with high sugar content to children.51 The commission asserted that advertising to young children is unfair and deceptive because they lack the cognitive ability to understand the bias inherent in advertising.
The proposal drew wide public ire and a vigorous response by the food, toy, broadcasting, and advertising industries.21 Three insurmountable obstacles eventually blocked the FTC's effort.52,53 The first was political. Industry had raised an unprecedented amount of money — $16 million — to fight the proposed rules, and public opinion was unfavorably disposed to the FTC's acting as a "national nanny."54 A responsive Congress temporarily suspended all funding for the agency, restoring it only after passing legislation that narrowed the FTC's authority to regulate children's television advertising.55
The second barrier was practical: regulators could not find a way to tailor the rules narrowly to the objective. Banning all advertisements aimed at young children, for example, was problematic because it cannot be proved that young children make up the majority of any television show's audience. The third problem was evidentiary: the regulators could not produce sufficient evidence that linked food advertising to long-term eating habits. In 1981, the FTC abandoned the rules but extensively documented its findings about the effects of advertising targeted to children in a staff report designed to serve as a "message in a bottle"52 to future regulators.
Today the FTC is empowered to regulate food advertising only if the agency finds that it is deceptive. Child-oriented advertising is evaluated in light of how it is understood by the target age group. Studies have found that children who watch more television than do other children are more likely to identify incorrectly which of two foods is more healthful.56,57 Studies also have found that about half of all nutrition-related information in television advertisements is misleading or inaccurate.58 Personal-injury lawsuits against food companies, including the McDonald's case, have described examples of promotional materials that are arguably deceptive even to adults.
Thus, there may be room within the FTC's existing legal authority to move against advertising to children. The practical and evidentiary problems associated with kidvid might well resurface, but the evidence accumulated over the past 30 years is likely to strengthen the FTC's hand. For example, there would be less difficulty today in establishing an association between food advertising and children's eating habits and obesity. Technological advances such as the V-chip and digital video recorders provide new ways of ensuring that restricted advertising does not reach young children but can reach interested older viewers.52 Also, a workable definition of "children's television programming" has been developed for purposes of regulation under the Children's Television Act.59
Despite these developments and its general interest in the policy problem of childhood obesity,60 the FTC appears to be ideologically disinclined at present to pursue regulation in this area. Its approach to advertising "favors requiring more information over banning information, and avoids broad restrictions limiting both deceptive and non-deceptive speech."61 The notion that consumers, young and old, can choose freely from a marketplace of ideas remains strongly rooted.
The Courts
An alternative to probing the limits of administrative rule-making is to enact legislation that expands the FTC's role in regulating advertising of food to children. However, the legislative path has difficulties of its own, the most considerable of which is the constitutional protection of free speech.
The First Amendment shelters "commercial speech" — expression that is related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and audience. The rationale is that even speech of relatively low value, such as advertising, may carry important information to the public. Indeed, some of the earliest cases regarding commercial speech had to do with the advertising of contraceptives and prescription drugs.62,63,64
Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has been expanding the protection of commercial speech, which historically was narrow.65 Its decisions have favored the free flow of information even in cases in which the advertised products were acknowledged to pose hazards to public health.66 In the case of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly,67 for example, the Court struck down Massachusetts regulations restricting outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of tobacco products within 1000 ft of schools. Although the Court readily accepted the general proposition that restricting advertising near schools would reduce youths' demand for tobacco products, it questioned the effectiveness of the specific regulations and ruled that they restricted more speech than necessary.
Lorillard elucidates the legal hurdles that regulators of food advertising must overcome. They must show that restrictions are tailored to advertising that is directed to children and that these restrictions will be effective in reducing the incidence of youth obesity. To prove that the regulation is narrowly tailored, they must show that it will not unduly restrict advertisers' ability to communicate with adults.67 This proof will remain challenging, but at a minimum, "opt-in" schemes using V-chip or other forms of blocking technology would withstand constitutional challenge.68 To prove effectiveness, the government must offer evidence that demonstrates the magnitude of advertising's contribution to youth obesity, relative to other factors such as physical inactivity. To do so, it must distinguish the contributions of television watching in general from those of the viewing of advertisements specifically.69 Regulators must also show that the regulation is not irrational in its restrictions on some products but not on others or on advertising in some ways but not in others. These major challenges will require careful rule-making and marshaling of relevant research.
The Food and Drug Administration
The FDA has broad authority to regulate food labels under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938. The FDCA requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading and that they reveal all facts that are material to their representations and to the possible adverse consequences of consuming the product.70 It also requires food manufacturers to include certain disclosures on food labels.
In 1973, the FDA began to expand its regulation of food labels under a voluntary program. In 1994, under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA),71 the FDA began to require a "nutrition facts" label on most food products. This label provides information about fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, sugar, and other content. (Restaurant food is excluded from the mandate except when the restaurant makes health claims about an item.) The FDA may add nutrients to this label if it determines that the information would help consumers maintain healthful dietary practices.
Because consumers give more credence to nutritional information in product labels than in advertising,72 labels may help to counteract the consumption impulses wrought by advertising. Reviewing the findings of empirical studies, the FDA recently concluded that only a small percentage of consumers use nutrition labels for weight-control purposes, but label use is associated with more healthful food choices.8 Findings of studies of product sales after the introduction of labeling requirements point to the same conclusion.73
The FDA has historically exercised its authority to require food labels lightly under the assumption that too much information may overwhelm consumers.74 Recently, however, the agency has invigorated its labeling regulations to address obesity. In July 2003, the FDA implemented a rule requiring food manufacturers to list the trans fat content on product nutrition labels by 2006.75 In addition, it convened an Obesity Working Group. In 2004 this group recommended that the FDA evaluate how the nutrition facts panel might better emphasize caloric values. It also advised the FDA to do the following: consider the authorization of health claims on reduced-calorie or low-calorie foods, encourage manufacturers to make dietary guidance statements and comparative labeling statements to encourage healthful food substitutions, seek restaurants' cooperation in a voluntary program of standardized nutritional information for restaurant food, and enforce the requirement that the serving sizes listed on nutrition labels be appropriate.8 The last recommendation was implemented immediately.76 In April 2005, the FDA issued notices of proposed rules regarding information about caloric content and serving size on nutrition labels.77
The exemption of restaurants from labeling requirements merits reexamination. The exemption has been based on the belief that it is too difficult, given variations in how restaurant food is prepared, to provide accurate information on caloric or nutritional content.33 However, fast food, a major contributor to obesity, is highly standardized. Many fast-food restaurants now provide nutritional information on in-store posters and Web sites (some pursuant to an agreement with state attorneys general78), although these posters are often difficult to find. For other restaurants that do not sell fast food, a limited disclosure — for example, a range of calories for each item — would be feasible.
The FDA's authority to regulate food labeling appears to be broader than the FTC's ability to restrict food advertising. However, the FDA is still subject to the commercial speech doctrine, which the Supreme Court has held applies to "compelled speech."79,80 Thus, labeling regulations must be tailored to advance materially the government's interest in the prevention of obesity. However, this requirement will be met more easily by a mandated labeling disclosure than by a restriction on advertising. Mandatory disclosures bring more, not less, speech into the information marketplace and thus are viewed as the less restrictive alternative.61,81 By providing consumers with the information needed to make well-informed decisions, labeling requirements that focus on preventing deception are especially likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Defining a Workable Strategy
Several themes emerge from this review of legal strategies to combat obesity. First, initiatives are most likely to gain acceptance if they focus on children and adolescents. Young people are especially vulnerable to advertising, and there is greater political tolerance for legal interventions on their behalf — this is a clear lesson from the history of tobacco control. Second, the states are living up to their reputation as laboratories, with a variety of innovative initiatives under way. However, a laboratory's mission is to test, prove, and disprove. Careful evaluation of state initiatives is needed.
Third, restrictions on food advertising to children will be difficult to impose in the current legal and political environment. Additional research on advertising and obesity may help build the case for regulation. An alternative is to develop counter-advertising campaigns that encourage better nutrition and alert young consumers to their potential for manipulation by food advertisements. Well-crafted antitobacco advertisements have had considerable effects on youths' tobacco use and attitudes.82,83 However, whereas settlement funds from tobacco lawsuits were available to pay for those advertisements, counteradvertising campaigns to encourage better nutrition would require public funding.
Fourth, the success of government regulation of the food industry will probably fall short of what industry could accomplish alone if it were strongly motivated to do so. Efforts to encourage self-regulation and corporate responsibility60 could go far toward improving the healthfulness of foods sold, provided the industry responses heed the limits of antitrust law and do not displace meaningful external regulation.4
Finally, the initial regulatory strategy should concentrate on improving public awareness of the role of the food industry and the food environment — the social, physical, and economic conditions that affect access to healthful and unhealthful foods — in contributing to the nation's obesity problem.24 Measures aimed at improving consumer information in order to facilitate informed decision making — rather than at limiting the flow of information into the marketplace — are most likely to gain early acceptance. Over time, a greater understanding of the environmental influences on food choices should create the ideological conditions for further regulation. The law is slow to recognize that choices in the marketplace may not be totally free; the burden will be on researchers to demonstrate that some forms of communication may impede rather than facilitate informed choices.
We have focused on affirmative measures that the government could take to curb obesity, but the removal of existing policy incentives that operate to the detriment of this goal may also be effective. A large body of literature discusses the role that agricultural subsidies play in shaping the nation's food supply and the prices of foods with high sugar content relative to more healthful foods.24,84 Removing these subsidies is politically problematic, but doing so could alter the food environment considerably.
This exploration of the frontier of laws to fight obesity illustrates the dynamic nature of the relationship between public health law and the broader cultural and public health environment.6 There are many historical examples of the law's driving social change; however, progressive laws are unlikely to be implemented until the dominant cultural mores are sufficiently favorable. Progress in policy to address obesity will be and should be incremental. It should respond to and drive shifts in ideological, political, health, and economic conditions. At present, these conditions appear to be converging toward the support of a broader public policy approach to obesity, albeit one that focuses primarily on informing personal choices rather than restricting them.85 Crafting a regulatory strategy that within the strictures of the Constitution responds to evolving knowledge about obesity and its prevention may be the single most important challenge for public health law in the 21st century.
Supported by general institutional funds.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We are indebted to Ama Boah, Rebecca Haffajee, and Bryan Lee for research assistance.
Source Information
From the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (M.M.M., D.M.S.); and Aetna, Hartford, Conn. (T.A.B.).
References
Gostin LO. Public health law: power, duty, restraint. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Mensah GA, Goodman RA, Zaza S, et al. Law as a tool for preventing chronic diseases: expanding the spectrum of effective public health strategies. Prev Chronic Dis 2004;1:A11-A11.
Ten great public health achievements -- United States, 1900-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:241-243.
Koplan JP, Liverman CT, Kraak VI, eds. Preventing childhood obesity: health in the balance. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005.
Nestle M, Jacobson MF. Halting the obesity epidemic: a public health policy approach. Public Health Rep 2000;115:12-24.
Mello MM, Rimm EB, Studdert DM. The McLawsuit: the fast-food industry and legal accountability for obesity. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:207-216.
New class action suits to target soda companies, advocates say. Obesity Policy Report. Vol. 3. No. 11. November 1, 2005.
Calories count: report of the working group on obesity. Rockville, Md.: Food and Drug Administration, March 12, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/owg-toc.html.)
Global strategy on diet, physical activity, and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.
The Center for Consumer Freedom. Fit or fat, we're under fire. August 25, 2002. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1398.)
Kersh R, Morone J. The politics of obesity: seven steps to government action. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:142-153.
Sturm R. The effects of obesity, smoking, and drinking on medical problems and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:245-253.
HHS announces revised Medicare obesity coverage policy. News releases of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040715.html.)
Kunkel D. Children and television advertising. In: Singer DG, Singer JL, eds. Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2001:375-93.
Kunkel D, Wilcox BL, Cantor J, Palmer E, Linn S, Dowrick P. Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, February 20, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.pdf.)
McGinnis JM, Gootman JA, Kraak VI, eds. Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity? Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2006.
Chou S-Y, Rashad I, Grossman M. Fast-food restaurant advertising and its influence on childhood obesity. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=875730.)
Taras HL, Sallis JF, Patterson TL, Nader PR, Nelson JA. Television's influence on children's diet and physical activity. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1989;10:176-180.
Borzekowski DL, Robinson TN. The 30-second effect: an experiment revealing the impact of television commercials on food preferences of preschoolers. J Am Diet Assoc 2001;101:42-46.
Gorn GG, Goldberg ME. Behavioral evidence of the effects of televised food messages on children. J Consum Res 1982;9:200-205.
Story M, French S. Food advertising and marketing directed at children and adolescents in the US. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2004;1:3-3.
The Surgeon General's call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. Rockville, Md.: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/CalltoAction.pdf.)
Schlosser E. Fast food nation: the dark side of the all-American meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Nestle M. Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Critser G. Fat land: how Americans became the fattest people in the world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Westbrook C. Review of: Super Size Me. BBC News Online. September 10, 2004.
Obesity as a public health issue: a look at solutions. Washington, D.C.: Lake Snell Perry, June 11, 2003. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.phsi.harvard.edu/health_reform/poll_results.pdf.)
Harris Interactive. Most of the American public, including a majority of parents, believe that childhood obesity in the U.S. is a major problem. Wall Street Journal Online. February 15, 2005:1-4. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/wsjhealthnews/WSJOnline_HI_Health-CarePoll2005vol4_iss03.pdf.)
Oliver JE, Lee T. Public opinion and the politics of America's obesity epidemic. KSG working paper no. RWP02-017. Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government, May 2002.
Evans WD, Finkelstein EA, Kamerow DB, Renaud JM. Public perceptions of childhood obesity. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:26-32.
Pelman ex rel. v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), refiled as 2003 WL 22052778 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2003), vacated in part, 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2005), remanded, 396 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Warner M. Lines are drawn for big suit over sodas. New York Times. December 7, 2005.
Epstein RA. What (not) to do about obesity: a moderate Aristotelian answer. Georgetown Law J 2005;93:1361-1386.
State bill tracking: nutrition & healthy lifestyles. Washington, D.C.: National Restaurant Association, 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.restaurant.org/government/state/nutrition/bills_key.cfm#lawsuits.)
Ebbeling CB, Pawlak DB, Ludwig DS. Childhood obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure. Lancet 2002;360:473-482.
Fried EJ, Nestle M. The growing political movement against soft drinks in schools. JAMA 2002;288:2181-2181.
American Beverage Association. School beverage guidelines Q&A. 2006. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ameribev.org/schools/GuidelineQandA.asp.)
Carter RC. The impact of public schools on childhood obesity. JAMA 2002;288:2180-2180.
Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance Survey: youth online comprehensive results. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Health Promotion Program state legislation and statute database: obesity, obesity-childhood, physical activity, and nutrition. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/phdatabase.htm.)
Nutrition standards for foods in schools. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine, 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.iom.edu/project.asp?id=30181.)
Jacobson MF, Brownell KD. Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. Am J Public Health 2000;90:854-857.
French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW. Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22:309-335.
Reducing tobacco use: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, August 2000. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/index.htm.)
DeCicca P, Kenkel D, Mathios A. Putting out the fires: will higher taxes reduce the onset of youth smoking? J Polit Econ 2002;110:144-169.
Ross H, Chaloupka FJ. The effect of cigarette prices on youth smoking. Health Econ 2003;12:217-230.
Hawkes C. Marketing food to children: the global regulatory environment. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf.)
Commercial activities in schools. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, September 2000. (Report no. GAO/HEHS-00-156.) (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00156.pdf.)
Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration. Working agreement between FTC and Food and Drug Administration. 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ? 9,850.01 (1971).
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 (1914).
Federal Trade Commission. Children's advertising: proposed trade regulation rulemaking and public hearing, Fed Regist 1978;43(82):17967-72.
Westen T. Historical perspective on FTC rulemaking and why it failed. Presented at Loyola Law School Symposium on Food Marketing to Children and the Law, Los Angeles, October 21, 2005.
Federal Trade Commission. Children's advertising: termination of rulemaking proceeding. Fed Regist 1981;46:48710-48714.
Engle PC. The FTC as national nanny. Washington Post. March 8, 1978:A14.
Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act of 1980, P.L. 96-252, 94 Stat. 374 (1980).
Harrison K. Is "fat free" good for me? A panel study of television viewing and children's nutritional knowledge and reasoning. Health Commun 2005;17:117-132.
Signorielli N, Staples J. Television and children's conceptions of nutrition. Health Commun 1997;9:289-301.
Byrd-Bredbenner C, Grasso D. Health, medicine, and food messages in television commercials during 1992 and 1998. J Sch Health 2000;70:61-65.
Children's Television Act of 1990, 47 U.S.C. 303(a)-(b), 394 (1990).
Federal Trade Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Perspectives on marketing, self-regulation, and childhood obesity. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission, April 2006. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/05/PerspectivesOnMarketingSelfRegulation%26ChildhoodObesityFTCandHHSReportonJointWorkshop.pdf.)
Federal Trade Commission. In the matter of request for comment on First Amendment issues. Report no. 02N-0209. September 13, 2002. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/09/fdatextversion.pdf.)
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 738 (1976).
Carey v. Population Services, International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).
Gostin LO. Corporate speech and the Constitution: the deregulation of tobacco advertising. Am J Public Health 2002;92:352-355.
Bayer R, Gostin LO, Javitt GH, Brandt A. Tobacco advertising in the United States: a proposal for a constitutionally acceptable form of regulation. JAMA 2002;287:2990-2995.
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).
Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 358 F3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 47 (Oct. 4, 2004).
Engle MK. FTC regulation of marketing to children. Presented at the Institute of Medicine workshop on the prevention of childhood obesity: understanding the influences of marketing, media, and family dynamics. Washington, D.C., December 9, 2003. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.iom.edu/?id=17215.)
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(n), 343(a) (1994).
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, 21 U.S.C. 343(q)-(r) (1990).
Food and Drug Administration. Food labeling, health messages and label statements: reproposed rule. Fed Regist 1990;55:5176-5192.
Mathios AD. The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: an analysis of the salad dressing market. J Law Econ 2000;43:651-677.
Noah L, Noah BA. Liberating commercial speech: product labeling controls and the First Amendment. Fla Law Rev 1995;47:63-112.
Food and Drug Administration, Food labeling: trans fatty acids in nutrition labeling, nutrient content claims, and health claims, 21 C.F.R. 101.9 (2003).
Tarantino LM. Letter to food manufacturers about accurate serving size declaration on food products. Rockville, Md.: Food and Drug Administration, March 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fl-ltr4.html.)
FDA asking for public comment on food label changes. Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration, 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01170.html.)
McCann MA. Economic efficiency and consumer choice theory in nutritional labeling. Wisconsin Law Rev 2004;4:1161-244.
Gostin LO, Javitt GH. Health promotion and the First Amendment: government control of the informational environment. Milbank Q 2001;79:547-578.
United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001).
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002).
Farrelly MC, Davis KC, Haviland ML, Messeri P, Healton CG. Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health 2005;95:425-431.
Emery S, Wakefield MA, Terry-McElrath Y, et al. Televised state-sponsored antitobacco advertising and youth smoking beliefs and behavior in the United States, 1999-2000. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:639-645.
Tillotson JE. America's obesity: conflicting public policies, industrial economic development, and unintended human consequences. Annu Rev Nutr 2004;24:617-643.
Bloche MG. Obesity and the struggle within ourselves. Georgetown Law J 2005;93:1335-1359.(Michelle M. Mello, J.D., )
One of the newest targets of public health law is obesity.5 The past few years have brought a flurry of legislative initiatives aimed at improving nutrition and physical activity among children and adults, highly publicized personal-injury lawsuits against food and beverage companies,6,7 and new activities on the part of federal regulators.8 Related initiatives in other countries and at the World Health Organization signal growing international interest.9
This new frontier of public health law is welcomed by many health activists, but it has also provoked criticism. A backlash from the food industry is already evident, and rights-oriented consumer groups have decried some measures because they impinge on civil liberties.10 Tensions exist between these interventions and the freedoms of choice, speech, and contract. In this article, we review the rationale for regulatory action to combat obesity, examine legal issues raised by initiatives to date, and comment on the prospects for public health law in this area.
Time for Legal Action?
The public health law approach posits that the law can be used to create conditions that allow people to lead healthier lives and that the government has both the power and the duty to regulate private behavior in order to promote public health.1 The constitutional source of this authority is the police power, which encompasses both directly coercive interventions and policies such as taxes and subsidies that shape behavior by altering the costs of certain choices. States also enjoy broad powers with respect to taxation of goods and services.
Several factors have led to a reexamination of the historical view that food consumption and physical activity are inappropriate subjects for government regulation. Among the "triggers to action" that have catalyzed government intervention in other areas of private behavior, such as alcohol and tobacco use, are the development of a scientific base and social disapproval.11 Both these triggers are now in play with regard to obesity.
The accumulation of an evidence base is particularly important. Emerging research results about the economic and human costs of obesity12 have galvanized interest in greater governmental involvement by medicalizing the problem (witness the Medicare program's decision to classify obesity as a disease13) and by demonstrating the stake that each employer and taxpayer has in it. A growing literature also links exposure to the advertising of unhealthful foods to decisions about consumption and to overweight and obesity. American children are exposed to approximately 40,000 food advertisements per year, 72 percent of which are for candy, cereal, and fast food.14 Empirical studies, including recent reviews by the American Psychological Association15 and the Institute of Medicine (IOM),16 show that advertisements achieve their intended effects on children — that is, they shape product preferences and eating habits.17,18,19,20,21 Moreover, children younger than eight years of age are generally unable to understand the persuasive intent of advertising and to view it critically.15
The publication of the Surgeon General's report on obesity in 200122 brought the research base to a wider audience and raised the public profile of the obesity epidemic. Popular books23,24,25 and movies26 also have educated the public, especially about the food industry. The results of recent opinion polls27,28,29,30 indicate that a majority of Americans believe that the government should be involved in fighting obesity, particularly by regulating the marketing of "junk foods" to children.
Nonetheless, antiobesity laws encounter strong opposition from some quarters on the grounds that they constitute paternalistic intervention into lifestyle choices and enfeeble the notion of personal responsibility. Such arguments echo those made in the early days of tobacco regulation. There are important differences between foods that are not nutritious and tobacco: people cannot abstain from eating; high-calorie foods may be beneficial to some people and harmful to others; there is no food-related equivalent to harm from secondhand smoke; and no one has shown that foods have physically addictive properties, much less that food companies manipulate their addictive content to encourage dependence. However, a key similarity that undercuts the antipaternalism argument is the use of these products by children, who are highly vulnerable to advertising and marketing15 and whose eating habits tend to persist over the life span.16,21
Ideological battles are currently playing out at both the state and federal levels as regulators seek an appropriate balance between private liberty and public health. Table 1 lists the key regulatory targets and tools.
Table 1. Key Regulatory Targets and Examples of Approaches to Obesity in Public Health Law.
Activity in the States
Within state courts and legislatures and local governments, there has been an outpouring of legal initiatives to address obesity. Litigation is a strategy that we have discussed elsewhere.6 The past four years have brought a spate of highly publicized personal-injury lawsuits against food companies by obese persons seeking compensation for obesity-related health problems. The most highly publicized of these lawsuits has been the off-again, on-again suit against McDonald's brought by obese children in New York.31 This suit alleges that foods from McDonald's were dangerous beyond the extent ordinarily understood by consumers, that McDonald's negligently failed to warn consumers of the risks, and that the company's marketing constituted deceptive business practices under the state's consumer-protection laws. Similar claims have been threatened against soft-drink companies.32
Obesity-related lawsuits face substantial legal hurdles. Plaintiffs must prove that the food or corporate practice actually caused injury and that the dangers were not "open and obvious" to the ordinary consumer.6,33 Moreover, 21 states have enacted "personal responsibility" laws that immunize fast-food companies from obesity-related tort claims.34 The lawsuits attract attention, however, and may have contributed to the decision by some food companies to provide more healthful product offerings.
With regard to state legislative and local regulatory activity, much of the focus has been on schools. The policies of school districts have been criticized for contributing to what researchers describe as a "toxic environment" for children35: about 60 percent of U.S. middle schools and high schools sell soft drinks from vending machines on campus,36 although this is likely to change under guidelines recently established by the beverage industry to curtail such sales by 201037; in most schools, meals prepared under the National School Lunch Program exceed federal limits on total and saturated fats38; and only 28 percent of high-school students participate in daily physical-education classes.39 In response to these issues, states and school boards have crafted policies to reduce students' access to foods that are not nutritious and to boost their physical activity (Figure 1).40 Measures include laws restricting competitive food sales (the sale of foods that compete with school lunch programs). Other measures include closed-campus policies that keep students at school for lunch and the requirement for more and better physical education. Notwithstanding its interest in the success of the National School Lunch Program, the federal government has promulgated no rules concerning the sale of competitive foods in public schools, although the IOM is currently studying the issue under a congressional mandate.41
Figure 1. State Legislative Initiatives to Combat Obesity in Schools, 1998–2005.
Data are from the Health Promotion Program state legislation and statute database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.40
Some states also have attempted to improve nutrition and fitness beyond the school gates (Figure 2)40 by creating safe and attractive places to enjoy outdoor exercise. Another, more controversial approach is to tax junk foods, typically by excluding them from the general exemption of foods from state sales taxes. As of 2000, 19 states taxed foods that are not nutritious (such as soft drinks and candy). Several other states had such taxes, but repealed them in the 1990s because of pressure from the affected industries and difficulties administering them (for example, some states had difficulty determining which foods met the definition of a taxable item).42
Figure 2. State Legislative Initiatives to Combat Obesity in the Community, 1998–2005.
Data are from the Health Promotion Program state legislation and statute database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.40
Economic and political barriers hinder more widespread adoption of many of these state initiatives. (Unlike taxes, most measures require revenue outlays.) The evidence base is also thin. To our knowledge, most initiatives have not yet been evaluated. There is no direct evidence that taxes on food affect rates of obesity, but studies have linked food pricing with consumption patterns43 and cigarette taxes with tobacco use.44,45,46 A commitment by state governments and research sponsors to evaluate the effect of policy interventions on key outcome measures such as consumption of junk foods in schools, children's body-mass-index values, and physical activity levels will be necessary to construct and justify a strategy to use public health law to reduce rates of obesity.
Activity at the Federal Level
At the federal level, regulatory initiatives face similar political, economic, and evidentiary issues. Legal barriers arise as well; these barriers center on the federal government's authority to regulate the commercial activities of the food industry.
There are increasing calls to regulate the advertising of unhealthful foods to children. Many foreign governments prohibit or restrict advertising during television programs that target young children,16,47 and the IOM recently recommended restrictions on television advertising if the food and beverage industries do not voluntarily shift their advertising emphasis away from products that are not nutritious.16
The most common proposals are to restrict the quantity and content of advertisements during children's television programs and to require that broadcasters provide equal time for messages that promote good nutrition and physical activity. Regulation also could target print media, the Internet, in-store promotional campaigns, and product tie-ins to children's television programs. In addition, 19 states have legal restrictions on commercial marketing activities in public schools. Most of these laws are not comprehensive, however, and commercial activities in public schools remain widespread and are candidates for federal regulation.48
The Federal Trade Commission
Federal responsibility for the regulation of advertising lies mainly with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). By agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FTC has primary authority over food advertising, whereas the FDA regulates food labeling.49 Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC may regulate "unfair or deceptive" business practices, including advertising.50 "Unfair" practices are those that may cause substantial, unavoidable injury to consumers that is not outweighed by offsetting consumer or competitive benefits. Advertising is "deceptive" if it is likely to mislead consumers in a way that is material — that is, if it is likely to influence misleadingly their decisions regarding the product.
The FTC's regulatory interest in and authority over child-oriented advertising has been curtailed by a bruising history with such efforts. In 1978, the commission initiated an effort known as the Children's Advertising Rulemaking, or "kidvid," to regulate television advertising of foods with high sugar content to children.51 The commission asserted that advertising to young children is unfair and deceptive because they lack the cognitive ability to understand the bias inherent in advertising.
The proposal drew wide public ire and a vigorous response by the food, toy, broadcasting, and advertising industries.21 Three insurmountable obstacles eventually blocked the FTC's effort.52,53 The first was political. Industry had raised an unprecedented amount of money — $16 million — to fight the proposed rules, and public opinion was unfavorably disposed to the FTC's acting as a "national nanny."54 A responsive Congress temporarily suspended all funding for the agency, restoring it only after passing legislation that narrowed the FTC's authority to regulate children's television advertising.55
The second barrier was practical: regulators could not find a way to tailor the rules narrowly to the objective. Banning all advertisements aimed at young children, for example, was problematic because it cannot be proved that young children make up the majority of any television show's audience. The third problem was evidentiary: the regulators could not produce sufficient evidence that linked food advertising to long-term eating habits. In 1981, the FTC abandoned the rules but extensively documented its findings about the effects of advertising targeted to children in a staff report designed to serve as a "message in a bottle"52 to future regulators.
Today the FTC is empowered to regulate food advertising only if the agency finds that it is deceptive. Child-oriented advertising is evaluated in light of how it is understood by the target age group. Studies have found that children who watch more television than do other children are more likely to identify incorrectly which of two foods is more healthful.56,57 Studies also have found that about half of all nutrition-related information in television advertisements is misleading or inaccurate.58 Personal-injury lawsuits against food companies, including the McDonald's case, have described examples of promotional materials that are arguably deceptive even to adults.
Thus, there may be room within the FTC's existing legal authority to move against advertising to children. The practical and evidentiary problems associated with kidvid might well resurface, but the evidence accumulated over the past 30 years is likely to strengthen the FTC's hand. For example, there would be less difficulty today in establishing an association between food advertising and children's eating habits and obesity. Technological advances such as the V-chip and digital video recorders provide new ways of ensuring that restricted advertising does not reach young children but can reach interested older viewers.52 Also, a workable definition of "children's television programming" has been developed for purposes of regulation under the Children's Television Act.59
Despite these developments and its general interest in the policy problem of childhood obesity,60 the FTC appears to be ideologically disinclined at present to pursue regulation in this area. Its approach to advertising "favors requiring more information over banning information, and avoids broad restrictions limiting both deceptive and non-deceptive speech."61 The notion that consumers, young and old, can choose freely from a marketplace of ideas remains strongly rooted.
The Courts
An alternative to probing the limits of administrative rule-making is to enact legislation that expands the FTC's role in regulating advertising of food to children. However, the legislative path has difficulties of its own, the most considerable of which is the constitutional protection of free speech.
The First Amendment shelters "commercial speech" — expression that is related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and audience. The rationale is that even speech of relatively low value, such as advertising, may carry important information to the public. Indeed, some of the earliest cases regarding commercial speech had to do with the advertising of contraceptives and prescription drugs.62,63,64
Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has been expanding the protection of commercial speech, which historically was narrow.65 Its decisions have favored the free flow of information even in cases in which the advertised products were acknowledged to pose hazards to public health.66 In the case of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly,67 for example, the Court struck down Massachusetts regulations restricting outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of tobacco products within 1000 ft of schools. Although the Court readily accepted the general proposition that restricting advertising near schools would reduce youths' demand for tobacco products, it questioned the effectiveness of the specific regulations and ruled that they restricted more speech than necessary.
Lorillard elucidates the legal hurdles that regulators of food advertising must overcome. They must show that restrictions are tailored to advertising that is directed to children and that these restrictions will be effective in reducing the incidence of youth obesity. To prove that the regulation is narrowly tailored, they must show that it will not unduly restrict advertisers' ability to communicate with adults.67 This proof will remain challenging, but at a minimum, "opt-in" schemes using V-chip or other forms of blocking technology would withstand constitutional challenge.68 To prove effectiveness, the government must offer evidence that demonstrates the magnitude of advertising's contribution to youth obesity, relative to other factors such as physical inactivity. To do so, it must distinguish the contributions of television watching in general from those of the viewing of advertisements specifically.69 Regulators must also show that the regulation is not irrational in its restrictions on some products but not on others or on advertising in some ways but not in others. These major challenges will require careful rule-making and marshaling of relevant research.
The Food and Drug Administration
The FDA has broad authority to regulate food labels under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938. The FDCA requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading and that they reveal all facts that are material to their representations and to the possible adverse consequences of consuming the product.70 It also requires food manufacturers to include certain disclosures on food labels.
In 1973, the FDA began to expand its regulation of food labels under a voluntary program. In 1994, under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA),71 the FDA began to require a "nutrition facts" label on most food products. This label provides information about fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, sugar, and other content. (Restaurant food is excluded from the mandate except when the restaurant makes health claims about an item.) The FDA may add nutrients to this label if it determines that the information would help consumers maintain healthful dietary practices.
Because consumers give more credence to nutritional information in product labels than in advertising,72 labels may help to counteract the consumption impulses wrought by advertising. Reviewing the findings of empirical studies, the FDA recently concluded that only a small percentage of consumers use nutrition labels for weight-control purposes, but label use is associated with more healthful food choices.8 Findings of studies of product sales after the introduction of labeling requirements point to the same conclusion.73
The FDA has historically exercised its authority to require food labels lightly under the assumption that too much information may overwhelm consumers.74 Recently, however, the agency has invigorated its labeling regulations to address obesity. In July 2003, the FDA implemented a rule requiring food manufacturers to list the trans fat content on product nutrition labels by 2006.75 In addition, it convened an Obesity Working Group. In 2004 this group recommended that the FDA evaluate how the nutrition facts panel might better emphasize caloric values. It also advised the FDA to do the following: consider the authorization of health claims on reduced-calorie or low-calorie foods, encourage manufacturers to make dietary guidance statements and comparative labeling statements to encourage healthful food substitutions, seek restaurants' cooperation in a voluntary program of standardized nutritional information for restaurant food, and enforce the requirement that the serving sizes listed on nutrition labels be appropriate.8 The last recommendation was implemented immediately.76 In April 2005, the FDA issued notices of proposed rules regarding information about caloric content and serving size on nutrition labels.77
The exemption of restaurants from labeling requirements merits reexamination. The exemption has been based on the belief that it is too difficult, given variations in how restaurant food is prepared, to provide accurate information on caloric or nutritional content.33 However, fast food, a major contributor to obesity, is highly standardized. Many fast-food restaurants now provide nutritional information on in-store posters and Web sites (some pursuant to an agreement with state attorneys general78), although these posters are often difficult to find. For other restaurants that do not sell fast food, a limited disclosure — for example, a range of calories for each item — would be feasible.
The FDA's authority to regulate food labeling appears to be broader than the FTC's ability to restrict food advertising. However, the FDA is still subject to the commercial speech doctrine, which the Supreme Court has held applies to "compelled speech."79,80 Thus, labeling regulations must be tailored to advance materially the government's interest in the prevention of obesity. However, this requirement will be met more easily by a mandated labeling disclosure than by a restriction on advertising. Mandatory disclosures bring more, not less, speech into the information marketplace and thus are viewed as the less restrictive alternative.61,81 By providing consumers with the information needed to make well-informed decisions, labeling requirements that focus on preventing deception are especially likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Defining a Workable Strategy
Several themes emerge from this review of legal strategies to combat obesity. First, initiatives are most likely to gain acceptance if they focus on children and adolescents. Young people are especially vulnerable to advertising, and there is greater political tolerance for legal interventions on their behalf — this is a clear lesson from the history of tobacco control. Second, the states are living up to their reputation as laboratories, with a variety of innovative initiatives under way. However, a laboratory's mission is to test, prove, and disprove. Careful evaluation of state initiatives is needed.
Third, restrictions on food advertising to children will be difficult to impose in the current legal and political environment. Additional research on advertising and obesity may help build the case for regulation. An alternative is to develop counter-advertising campaigns that encourage better nutrition and alert young consumers to their potential for manipulation by food advertisements. Well-crafted antitobacco advertisements have had considerable effects on youths' tobacco use and attitudes.82,83 However, whereas settlement funds from tobacco lawsuits were available to pay for those advertisements, counteradvertising campaigns to encourage better nutrition would require public funding.
Fourth, the success of government regulation of the food industry will probably fall short of what industry could accomplish alone if it were strongly motivated to do so. Efforts to encourage self-regulation and corporate responsibility60 could go far toward improving the healthfulness of foods sold, provided the industry responses heed the limits of antitrust law and do not displace meaningful external regulation.4
Finally, the initial regulatory strategy should concentrate on improving public awareness of the role of the food industry and the food environment — the social, physical, and economic conditions that affect access to healthful and unhealthful foods — in contributing to the nation's obesity problem.24 Measures aimed at improving consumer information in order to facilitate informed decision making — rather than at limiting the flow of information into the marketplace — are most likely to gain early acceptance. Over time, a greater understanding of the environmental influences on food choices should create the ideological conditions for further regulation. The law is slow to recognize that choices in the marketplace may not be totally free; the burden will be on researchers to demonstrate that some forms of communication may impede rather than facilitate informed choices.
We have focused on affirmative measures that the government could take to curb obesity, but the removal of existing policy incentives that operate to the detriment of this goal may also be effective. A large body of literature discusses the role that agricultural subsidies play in shaping the nation's food supply and the prices of foods with high sugar content relative to more healthful foods.24,84 Removing these subsidies is politically problematic, but doing so could alter the food environment considerably.
This exploration of the frontier of laws to fight obesity illustrates the dynamic nature of the relationship between public health law and the broader cultural and public health environment.6 There are many historical examples of the law's driving social change; however, progressive laws are unlikely to be implemented until the dominant cultural mores are sufficiently favorable. Progress in policy to address obesity will be and should be incremental. It should respond to and drive shifts in ideological, political, health, and economic conditions. At present, these conditions appear to be converging toward the support of a broader public policy approach to obesity, albeit one that focuses primarily on informing personal choices rather than restricting them.85 Crafting a regulatory strategy that within the strictures of the Constitution responds to evolving knowledge about obesity and its prevention may be the single most important challenge for public health law in the 21st century.
Supported by general institutional funds.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We are indebted to Ama Boah, Rebecca Haffajee, and Bryan Lee for research assistance.
Source Information
From the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (M.M.M., D.M.S.); and Aetna, Hartford, Conn. (T.A.B.).
References
Gostin LO. Public health law: power, duty, restraint. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Mensah GA, Goodman RA, Zaza S, et al. Law as a tool for preventing chronic diseases: expanding the spectrum of effective public health strategies. Prev Chronic Dis 2004;1:A11-A11.
Ten great public health achievements -- United States, 1900-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:241-243.
Koplan JP, Liverman CT, Kraak VI, eds. Preventing childhood obesity: health in the balance. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005.
Nestle M, Jacobson MF. Halting the obesity epidemic: a public health policy approach. Public Health Rep 2000;115:12-24.
Mello MM, Rimm EB, Studdert DM. The McLawsuit: the fast-food industry and legal accountability for obesity. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:207-216.
New class action suits to target soda companies, advocates say. Obesity Policy Report. Vol. 3. No. 11. November 1, 2005.
Calories count: report of the working group on obesity. Rockville, Md.: Food and Drug Administration, March 12, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/owg-toc.html.)
Global strategy on diet, physical activity, and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.
The Center for Consumer Freedom. Fit or fat, we're under fire. August 25, 2002. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1398.)
Kersh R, Morone J. The politics of obesity: seven steps to government action. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:142-153.
Sturm R. The effects of obesity, smoking, and drinking on medical problems and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:245-253.
HHS announces revised Medicare obesity coverage policy. News releases of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040715.html.)
Kunkel D. Children and television advertising. In: Singer DG, Singer JL, eds. Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2001:375-93.
Kunkel D, Wilcox BL, Cantor J, Palmer E, Linn S, Dowrick P. Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, February 20, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.pdf.)
McGinnis JM, Gootman JA, Kraak VI, eds. Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity? Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2006.
Chou S-Y, Rashad I, Grossman M. Fast-food restaurant advertising and its influence on childhood obesity. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=875730.)
Taras HL, Sallis JF, Patterson TL, Nader PR, Nelson JA. Television's influence on children's diet and physical activity. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1989;10:176-180.
Borzekowski DL, Robinson TN. The 30-second effect: an experiment revealing the impact of television commercials on food preferences of preschoolers. J Am Diet Assoc 2001;101:42-46.
Gorn GG, Goldberg ME. Behavioral evidence of the effects of televised food messages on children. J Consum Res 1982;9:200-205.
Story M, French S. Food advertising and marketing directed at children and adolescents in the US. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2004;1:3-3.
The Surgeon General's call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. Rockville, Md.: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/CalltoAction.pdf.)
Schlosser E. Fast food nation: the dark side of the all-American meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Nestle M. Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Critser G. Fat land: how Americans became the fattest people in the world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Westbrook C. Review of: Super Size Me. BBC News Online. September 10, 2004.
Obesity as a public health issue: a look at solutions. Washington, D.C.: Lake Snell Perry, June 11, 2003. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.phsi.harvard.edu/health_reform/poll_results.pdf.)
Harris Interactive. Most of the American public, including a majority of parents, believe that childhood obesity in the U.S. is a major problem. Wall Street Journal Online. February 15, 2005:1-4. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/wsjhealthnews/WSJOnline_HI_Health-CarePoll2005vol4_iss03.pdf.)
Oliver JE, Lee T. Public opinion and the politics of America's obesity epidemic. KSG working paper no. RWP02-017. Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government, May 2002.
Evans WD, Finkelstein EA, Kamerow DB, Renaud JM. Public perceptions of childhood obesity. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:26-32.
Pelman ex rel. v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), refiled as 2003 WL 22052778 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2003), vacated in part, 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2005), remanded, 396 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Warner M. Lines are drawn for big suit over sodas. New York Times. December 7, 2005.
Epstein RA. What (not) to do about obesity: a moderate Aristotelian answer. Georgetown Law J 2005;93:1361-1386.
State bill tracking: nutrition & healthy lifestyles. Washington, D.C.: National Restaurant Association, 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.restaurant.org/government/state/nutrition/bills_key.cfm#lawsuits.)
Ebbeling CB, Pawlak DB, Ludwig DS. Childhood obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure. Lancet 2002;360:473-482.
Fried EJ, Nestle M. The growing political movement against soft drinks in schools. JAMA 2002;288:2181-2181.
American Beverage Association. School beverage guidelines Q&A. 2006. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ameribev.org/schools/GuidelineQandA.asp.)
Carter RC. The impact of public schools on childhood obesity. JAMA 2002;288:2180-2180.
Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance Survey: youth online comprehensive results. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Health Promotion Program state legislation and statute database: obesity, obesity-childhood, physical activity, and nutrition. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/phdatabase.htm.)
Nutrition standards for foods in schools. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine, 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.iom.edu/project.asp?id=30181.)
Jacobson MF, Brownell KD. Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. Am J Public Health 2000;90:854-857.
French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW. Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22:309-335.
Reducing tobacco use: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, August 2000. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/index.htm.)
DeCicca P, Kenkel D, Mathios A. Putting out the fires: will higher taxes reduce the onset of youth smoking? J Polit Econ 2002;110:144-169.
Ross H, Chaloupka FJ. The effect of cigarette prices on youth smoking. Health Econ 2003;12:217-230.
Hawkes C. Marketing food to children: the global regulatory environment. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf.)
Commercial activities in schools. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, September 2000. (Report no. GAO/HEHS-00-156.) (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00156.pdf.)
Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration. Working agreement between FTC and Food and Drug Administration. 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ? 9,850.01 (1971).
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 (1914).
Federal Trade Commission. Children's advertising: proposed trade regulation rulemaking and public hearing, Fed Regist 1978;43(82):17967-72.
Westen T. Historical perspective on FTC rulemaking and why it failed. Presented at Loyola Law School Symposium on Food Marketing to Children and the Law, Los Angeles, October 21, 2005.
Federal Trade Commission. Children's advertising: termination of rulemaking proceeding. Fed Regist 1981;46:48710-48714.
Engle PC. The FTC as national nanny. Washington Post. March 8, 1978:A14.
Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act of 1980, P.L. 96-252, 94 Stat. 374 (1980).
Harrison K. Is "fat free" good for me? A panel study of television viewing and children's nutritional knowledge and reasoning. Health Commun 2005;17:117-132.
Signorielli N, Staples J. Television and children's conceptions of nutrition. Health Commun 1997;9:289-301.
Byrd-Bredbenner C, Grasso D. Health, medicine, and food messages in television commercials during 1992 and 1998. J Sch Health 2000;70:61-65.
Children's Television Act of 1990, 47 U.S.C. 303(a)-(b), 394 (1990).
Federal Trade Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Perspectives on marketing, self-regulation, and childhood obesity. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission, April 2006. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/05/PerspectivesOnMarketingSelfRegulation%26ChildhoodObesityFTCandHHSReportonJointWorkshop.pdf.)
Federal Trade Commission. In the matter of request for comment on First Amendment issues. Report no. 02N-0209. September 13, 2002. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/09/fdatextversion.pdf.)
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 738 (1976).
Carey v. Population Services, International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).
Gostin LO. Corporate speech and the Constitution: the deregulation of tobacco advertising. Am J Public Health 2002;92:352-355.
Bayer R, Gostin LO, Javitt GH, Brandt A. Tobacco advertising in the United States: a proposal for a constitutionally acceptable form of regulation. JAMA 2002;287:2990-2995.
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).
Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 358 F3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 47 (Oct. 4, 2004).
Engle MK. FTC regulation of marketing to children. Presented at the Institute of Medicine workshop on the prevention of childhood obesity: understanding the influences of marketing, media, and family dynamics. Washington, D.C., December 9, 2003. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.iom.edu/?id=17215.)
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(n), 343(a) (1994).
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, 21 U.S.C. 343(q)-(r) (1990).
Food and Drug Administration. Food labeling, health messages and label statements: reproposed rule. Fed Regist 1990;55:5176-5192.
Mathios AD. The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: an analysis of the salad dressing market. J Law Econ 2000;43:651-677.
Noah L, Noah BA. Liberating commercial speech: product labeling controls and the First Amendment. Fla Law Rev 1995;47:63-112.
Food and Drug Administration, Food labeling: trans fatty acids in nutrition labeling, nutrient content claims, and health claims, 21 C.F.R. 101.9 (2003).
Tarantino LM. Letter to food manufacturers about accurate serving size declaration on food products. Rockville, Md.: Food and Drug Administration, March 2004. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fl-ltr4.html.)
FDA asking for public comment on food label changes. Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration, 2005. (Accessed May 25, 2006, at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01170.html.)
McCann MA. Economic efficiency and consumer choice theory in nutritional labeling. Wisconsin Law Rev 2004;4:1161-244.
Gostin LO, Javitt GH. Health promotion and the First Amendment: government control of the informational environment. Milbank Q 2001;79:547-578.
United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001).
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002).
Farrelly MC, Davis KC, Haviland ML, Messeri P, Healton CG. Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health 2005;95:425-431.
Emery S, Wakefield MA, Terry-McElrath Y, et al. Televised state-sponsored antitobacco advertising and youth smoking beliefs and behavior in the United States, 1999-2000. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:639-645.
Tillotson JE. America's obesity: conflicting public policies, industrial economic development, and unintended human consequences. Annu Rev Nutr 2004;24:617-643.
Bloche MG. Obesity and the struggle within ourselves. Georgetown Law J 2005;93:1335-1359.(Michelle M. Mello, J.D., )