Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5086

Bill Overview

Title: Stop Subsidizing Childhood Obesity Act of 2022

Description: of 2022 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: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

Target Audience

Population: Children aged 14 or under globally

Estimated Size: 73000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Marketing Executive (New York, NY)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will challenge how we approach marketing and may force companies to innovate more health-consciously.
  • Though it might hurt short-term revenue, it could lead to a healthier society in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Parent, Software Developer (Austin, TX)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Kids are bombarded with junk food ads, so this is a step in the right direction.
  • It might be difficult to implement effectively, but even partial success will be a win.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

School Principal (Chicago, IL)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The additional funding for the fruit and vegetable program could make a noticeable difference in schools.
  • Marketing changes are less visible but could assist in long-term attitude shifts about healthy eating in children.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 9 6

Retired Nutritionist (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a much-needed push towards prioritizing children's health over profits.
  • Implementation will be critical; vigilance and accountability are necessary to ensure compliance.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Digital Content Creator (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reducing unhealthy food marketing is a good start, but education should go hand in hand.
  • With reliance on tech, digital marketing loopholes might reduce policy effectiveness unless comprehensively addressed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Head of a Food Brand Marketing Team (Seattle, WA)

Age: 45 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We will need to rethink campaign strategies significantly.
  • There could be a ripple effect in industry standards beyond legal requirements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Freelance Graphic Designer (Brooklyn, NY)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could mean less work for people in my field as companies adjust their strategies.
  • It might also open up more opportunities to work with brands promoting healthier lifestyles.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Stay-at-home Parent (Columbus, OH)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Less junk food advertising could mean less pestering from my kids for unhealthy snacks.
  • This program along with school nutrition improvements could support our family's health goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

CEO of a Small Food Business (Denver, CO)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We might see significant adjustments needed in how we promote our products.
  • I'm worried about short-term business impacts, but open to using this as a catalyst for new strategies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

College Student (Boston, MA)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy reflects what we're learning in school about public health measures being crucial in tackling obesity.
  • It represents a significant legal step that could have longer-term cultural impacts, which is exciting to see in practice.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations