In the News

Poor eating is a major cause of illness, especially from cardiometabolic conditions such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. These diseases generate large economic burdens for both government and private insurance programs. For individuals and their families, additional burdens come in the form of personal illness, out-of-pocket costs, reduced quality of life, and a shortened lifespan. These diet-related diseases and costs disproportionately affect low-income families in the United States.

Providing free fruits and vegetables and limiting sugary drinks in schools could have positive health effects in both the short- and long-term, finds a new Food-PRICE study led by researchers from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

A new Food-PRICE study finds persistent nutritional disparities within the food choices of those receiving assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) compared to those not receiving SNAP assistance. The study is published today in JAMA Network Open.

A new study modeled the effects of six food subsidy and tax combinations on improving diet quality and mortality from cardiometabolic disease according to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) status, with some combinations estimating lower overall mortality, and others estimating reductions in mortality disparities.

New research, published in PLOS Medicine, conducted by researchers at the University of Liverpool, Imperial College London, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts and collaborators as part of the Food-PRICE project, highlights the potential health and economic impact of the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration's proposed voluntary salt policy.

An original analysis by researchers at New York University College of Global Public Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University finds that a federal tax on junk food is both legally and administratively feasible. The article, published online in the American Journal of Public Health, points to using an excise tax paid by junk food manufacturers, rather than a sales tax for consumers.

Changing the prices of seven foods, including fruits, vegetables and sugar-sweetened beverages, could reduce deaths due to stroke, diabetes and cardiovascular disease and address health disparities in the United States, finds a study led by researchers from Tufts University.

Federal, state, and local governments each have a role to play in protecting health. Federal and state government, however, can alter or hinder state and local activity through a legal mechanism called preemption – when a higher level of government blocks the action of a lower level of government. An increase in state preemption of local food policies led a research team to assess whether preemption of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) by the federal government would be likely based on Congress’s historical rationales for preempting taxes.

Excise taxes to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages have not yet been enacted at the state or federal level in the United States, but since 2014 seven municipal or county jurisdictions have adopted such taxes. A new viewpoint written by researchers at Tufts University and Harvard Kennedy School evaluated reasons for success or failure and whether local sugar-sweetened beverage taxes are likely to spread.

Nearly half of all deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the U.S. in 2012 were associated with suboptimal consumption of certain dietary factors, according to a study appearing in the March 7 issue of JAMA.