Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York.
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Jun;58(6):783-788. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.006. Epub 2020 Apr 6.
Health and safety warnings are a regular part of the consumer protection landscape. However, the only sugar-sweetened beverage policy passed to date was found unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This paper evaluates sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies in light of existing health and safety warnings on consumer products and the First Amendment.
In 2019, using LexisNexis, existing federal, state, and local health and safety warning laws for consumer products were identified. Then, bills proposed and laws passed through July 2019 that required sugar-sweetened beverage warnings were examined. Finally, First Amendment case law related to warning and disclosure requirements was analyzed to identify outstanding questions about the constitutionality of sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies.
Warnings on consumer products provide key examples of long-established health and safety warning language, rationales for passage, and formatting requirements. Between 2011 and 2019, a total of 9 jurisdictions proposed 28 bills (including 1 law by San Francisco) requiring sugar-sweetened beverage warnings on labels, advertisements, and at point of sale. This analysis highlighted outstanding First Amendment questions on permissible wording and formatting requirements and the need for evidence and rationales that focus on specific health harms of sugar-sweetened beverages. Warnings on labels and at point of sale may pose fewer First Amendment concerns than on advertisements.
Sugar-sweetened beverage warning policies that mirror health and safety warnings long established as permissible on other consumer products should be considered constitutional; however, evolving First Amendment jurisprudence leaves outstanding questions, especially on the interpretation of controversy, formatting requirements, and levels of required specificity for warning language.
健康和安全警告是消费者保护领域的常规组成部分。然而，迄今为止通过的唯一含糖饮料政策被认为违反了第一修正案。本文根据现有消费品健康和安全警告以及第一修正案，评估了含糖饮料警告政策。
2019 年，使用 LexisNexis，确定了现有的联邦、州和地方消费品健康和安全警告法。然后，审查了截至 2019 年 7 月提出的要求含糖饮料警告的法案和通过的法律。最后，分析了与警告和披露要求有关的第一修正案案例法，以确定有关含糖饮料警告政策合宪性的悬而未决问题。
消费品上的警告提供了长期确立的健康和安全警告语言、通过的理由和格式要求的关键示例。在 2011 年至 2019 年期间，共有 9 个司法管辖区提出了 28 项法案（包括旧金山的一项法律），要求在标签、广告和销售点对含糖饮料进行警告。这项分析突出了第一修正案在可允许的措辞和格式要求方面以及对具体含糖饮料健康危害的证据和理由方面的悬而未决问题。标签和销售点上的警告可能比广告上的警告引发的第一修正案问题更少。
模仿在其他消费品上长期确立的健康和安全警告的含糖饮料警告政策应被视为符合宪法；然而，不断发展的第一修正案判例法仍存在悬而未决的问题，特别是在争议的解释、格式要求和警告语言所需的具体程度方面。
