Implementing federal food service guidelines in federal and private worksite cafeterias in the United States leads to improved health outcomes and is cost saving.

Poor diet increases cardiometabolic disease risk, yet the impact of food service guidelines on employee health and its cost effectiveness is poorly understood. Federal food service guidelines (FFSG) aim to provide United States (U.S.) government employees with healthier food options. Using microsimulation modeling, we estimated changes in the incidence of cardiometabolic disease, related mortality, and the cost effectiveness of implementing FFSG in nationally representative model populations of government and private company employees across 5 years and lifetime. We based estimates on changes in workplace intake of six FFSG dietary targets and showed lifetime reductions of heart attacks (- 107/million), strokes (- 30/million), diabetes (- 134/million), ischemic heart disease deaths (- 56/million), and stroke deaths (- 8/million). FFSG is cost saving overall, with total savings in discounted healthcare costs from $4,611,026 (5 years) to $539,809,707 (lifetime) $U.S. This study demonstrates that FFSG improves health outcomes and is cost saving.

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Using a legal standard for scrutinising the regulation of food label claims, this study assessed whether consumers are misled about wholegrain (WG) content and product healthfulness based on common product labels. DESIGN: First, a discrete choice experiment used pairs of hypothetical products with different amounts of WG, sugar and salt to measure effects on assessment of healthfulness; and second, a WG content comprehension assessment used actual product labels to assess respondent understanding. SETTING: Online national panel survey. PARTICIPANTS: For a representative sample of US adults (n 1030), survey responses were collected in 2018 and analysed in 2019. RESULTS: First, 29-47 % of respondents incorrectly identified the healthier product from paired options, and respondents who self-identified as having difficulty in understanding labels were more likely to err. Second, for actual products composed primarily of refined grains, 43-51 % of respondents overstated the WG content, whereas for one product composed primarily of WG, 17 % of respondents understated the WG content. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of consumer misunderstanding of grain product labels was high in both study components. Potential policies to address consumer confusion include requiring disclosure of WG content as a percentage of total grain content or requiring disclosure of the grams of WG v. refined grains per serving.

Federal, State, and Local Nutrition Policies for Cancer Prevention: Perceived Impact and Feasibility, United States, 2018.

Objectives. To assess stakeholder perceptions of the impact and feasibility of 21 national, state, and local nutrition policies for cancer prevention across 5 domains in the United States.Methods. We conducted an online survey from October through December 2018. Participants were invited to take the survey via direct e-mail contact or an organizational e-newsletter.Results. Federal or state Medicare/Medicaid coverage of nutrition counseling and federal or state subsidies on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains for participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program were the policies rated as having the highest perceived impact and feasibility. Overall, the 170 respondents rated policy impact higher than policy feasibility. Polices at the federal or state level had a higher perceived impact, whereas local policies had higher perceived feasibility.Conclusions. Our findings might guide future research and advocacy that can ultimately motivate and target policy actions to reduce cancer burdens and disparities in the United States.

Cost Effectiveness of Nutrition Policies on Processed Meat: Implications for Cancer Burden in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Processed meats are associated with increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers, but health and economic impacts of policies to discourage processed meats are not well established. This paper aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of implementing tax and warning labels on processed meats. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort-state transition model was developed in 2018, including lifetime and short-term horizons, healthcare, and societal perspectives, and 3% discount rates for costs and health outcomes. The model simulated 32 subgroups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity from the U.S. adult population and integrated nationally representative 2011-2014 data on processed meat consumption, with etiologic effects of processed meat consumption on cancer incidence, medical and indirect societal costs, and policy costs. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the 10% excise tax would prevent 77,000 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,800, 107,000) and 12,500 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,880, 23,900), add 593,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=419,000, 827,000), and generate net savings of $2.7 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.1 billion healthcare costs saved. The warning label policy would avert 85,400 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,600, 141,000) and 15,000 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,860, 34,500), and add 660,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=418,000, 1,070,000), with net savings of $4.5 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.3 billion healthcare costs saved. In subgroup analyses, greater health and economic benefits accrued to (1) younger subpopulations, (2) subpopulations with greater cancer risk, and (3) those with higher baseline processed meat consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The model shows that implementing tax or warning labels on processed meats would be a cost-saving strategy with substantial health and economic benefits. The findings should encourage policy makers to consider nutrition-related policies to reduce cancer burden.

Preventable Cancer Burden Associated With Poor Diet in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diet is an important risk factor for cancer that is amenable to intervention. Estimating the cancer burden associated with diet informs evidence-based priorities for nutrition policies to reduce cancer burden in the United States. METHODS: Using a comparative risk assessment model that incorporated nationally representative data on dietary intake, national cancer incidence, and estimated associations of diet with cancer risk from meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies, we estimated the annual number and proportion of new cancer cases attributable to suboptimal intakes of seven dietary factors among US adults ages 20 years or older, and by population subgroups. RESULTS: An estimated 80 110 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 76 316 to 83 657) new cancer cases were attributable to suboptimal diet, accounting for 5.2% (95% UI = 5.0% to 5.5%) of all new cancer cases in 2015. Of these, 67 488 (95% UI = 63 583 to 70 978) and 4.4% (95% UI = 4.2% to 4.6%) were attributable to direct associations and 12 589 (95% UI = 12 156 to 13 038) and 0.82% (95% UI = 0.79% to 0.85%) to obesity-mediated associations. By cancer type, colorectal cancer had the highest number and proportion of diet-related cases (n = 52 225, 38.3%). By diet, low consumption of whole grains (n = 27 763, 1.8%) and dairy products (n = 17 692, 1.2%) and high intake of processed meats (n = 14 524, 1.0%) contributed to the highest burden. Men, middle-aged (45-64 years) and racial/ethnic minorities (non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and others) had the highest proportion of diet-associated cancer burden than other age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80 000 new cancer cases are estimated to be associated with suboptimal diet among US adults in 2015, with middle-aged men and racial/ethnic minorities experiencing the largest proportion of diet-associated cancer burden in the United States.

Legal Feasibility of US Government Policies to Reduce Cancer Risk by Reducing Intake of Processed Meat.

Policy Points High-profile international evidence reviews by the World Health Organization, the World Cancer Research Fund, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Cancer Society concluded that processed meat consumption increases the risk of cancer. The red meat and processed meat industries are influential in the United States and in several other nations. The US federal government supports public-private partnerships for commodity meat promotion and advertising. Four potential policy options to affect consumption of processed meat are taxation, reduced processed meat quantities in school meal standards, public service announcements, and warning labels. Feasibility of these options would be enhanced by an explicit and science-based statement on processed meat in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. CONTEXT: The World Health Organization, the World Cancer Research Fund, and the American Cancer Society have each in recent years concluded that processed meats are probable carcinogens. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans did not separately evaluate health effects of processed meat, although it mentioned lower processed meat intakes among characteristics of healthy diets. METHODS: We summarized the international scientific literature on meat intake and cancer risk; described the scientific and political processes behind the periodic Dietary Guidelines for Americans; described the US red meat and processed meat industries and the economic structure of government-supported industry initiatives for advertising and promotion; and reviewed and analyzed specific factors and precedents that influence the feasibility of four potential policy approaches to reduce processed meat intake. FINDINGS: Based on a review of 800 epidemiological studies, the World Health Organization found sufficient evidence in humans that processed meat is carcinogenic, estimating that each 50-gram increase in daily intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Among the four policy responses we studied, legal feasibility is highest in the US for three policy options: reducing processed meat in school meals and other specific government-sponsored nutrition programs; a local, state, or federal tax on processed meat; and public service announcements on health harms of processed meats by either the government or private sector entities. Legal feasibility is moderate for a fourth policy option, mandatory warning labels, due to outstanding legal questions about the minimum evidence required to support this policy. Political feasibility is influenced by the economic and political power of the meat industries and also depends on decisions in the next round of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans about how to assess and describe the link between processed meat consumption and cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Public policy initiatives to reduce processed meat intake have a strong scientific and public health justification and are legally feasible, but political feasibility is influenced by the economic and political power of meat industries and also by uncertainty about the likely treatment of processed meat in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.