Bill Overview
Title: Stop Subsidizing Childhood Obesity Act
Description: This bill denies a tax deduction for advertising or marketing directed at children (age 14 or under) for food of poor nutritional quality or a brand primarily associated with food of poor nutritional quality. The bill also denies a deduction for related expenses, including: travel; goods or services constituting entertainment, amusement, or recreation; gifts; or other promotion expenses. The Department of the Treasury must enter into a contract with the National Academy of Medicine to develop procedures to evaluate and identify food of poor nutritional quality and brands that are primarily associated with such food. The bill authorizes additional funding to carry out the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
Sponsors: Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally under the age of 15
Estimated Size: 61000000
- The bill targets advertising and marketing strategies specifically directed at children aged 14 or under.
- This could affect advertising agencies, food manufacturing companies, and others involved in marketing foods identified as being of poor nutritional quality to children.
- Resources saved from tax deductions will be reallocated; this might positively impact the fruit and vegetable market if the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program receives an increase in funding.
- If successful, the bill will encourage the production and marketing of healthier food options targeted at children, impacting the food industry's strategies on a global scale.
- An overall decline in child-directed advertising of unhealthy foods could lead to broad public health improvements among children globally.
Reasoning
- Considering a significant portion of the US population consists of children, many will be indirectly affected by changes in advertising and nutritional influences. However, direct significant impacts will mainly focus on industries directly linked to food advertising, marketing companies, and regulatory bodies.
- A budget of $90 million USD in year one suggests the potential for initial positive shifts in advertising practices, but market adaptation may dilute the larger effect over time.
- Using historical precedents, shifts in advertising can slightly reduce consumer demand for certain foods, contingent upon enforcement and the presence of alternative options.
- Given the policy's emphasis on food advertising reduction and increased funding for healthier options, anticipated impacts on wellbeing should increase over time as healthier choices become more available and advertising less influential.
- Due to the potential reduction in advertising revenue, marketing professionals might experience a hard impact. School programs, however, stand to gain significantly with increased funding, benefiting children over time.
Simulated Interviews
Marketing Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will require us to rethink marketing strategies, which might be tough initially but could lead to more creative campaigns.
- I believe cutting down on unhealthy food advertising is beneficial for children, including my own.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Fruit and Vegetable Supplier (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase demand for our produce, which is great for business.
- It's encouraging to see support for healthier food options in schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be great if fewer ads made me want to eat junk food.
- I'm hopeful more fruits and vegetables might make it to our cafeteria.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Pediatrician (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for public health policy.
- Fewer ads might mean less influence on children's diets and healthier outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
CEO of a Fast-Food Chain (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy imposes constraints impacting our revenue streams related to child-directed marketing.
- We may have to innovate our product lineup to align with the healthier trend.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Dietitian (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can improve the general dietary habits of children if implemented well.
- Increasing funding to healthier school meals is an excellent move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Public Health Official (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are crucial in reducing childhood obesity rates in the long run.
- It may require close monitoring to ensure companies comply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Advertising Executive (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our approach needs to change considerably under this new policy - it's challenging but offers new opportunities.
- Ensuring children adopt healthier eating habits is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Independent Researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy reflects ethical marketing standards and could serve as a model globally.
- It's essential to observe changes in children's food preferences over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Elementary School Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Students might be more inclined towards healthier foods without the influence of junk food ads.
- Funding for fresh produce in schools will help immensely in providing better meals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $90000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $85000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $95000000)
Year 10: $70000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $85000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance and administrative burden on companies to adjust to new advertising rules.
- Potential resistance or lobbying from the food industry affecting implementation.
- Scientific determination of 'poor nutritional quality' foods may face scrutiny.