We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
June 2019 (Volume 97)
April 2019 | Parke Wilde, Jennifer L. Pomeranz, Lauren J. Lizewski, Mengyuan Ruan, Dariush Mozaffarian, Fang Fang Zhang | Original Scholarship
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.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Published in 2019
Reproductive Health: Assessing the Damage
Case Studies in Medicare for All
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund