Local communities are often active public health policy makers, so state preemption—when the state withdraws authority from local governments—can hinder public health progress. Kansas enacted the most sweeping law in the nation preempting food, nutrition, and agricultural policy.
Design:
Qualitative thematic content analysis was used on public comments to identify and evaluate common and key arguments. A codebook was developed using an iterative process. Open coding was applied to all comments.
Setting:
All testimony and comments submitted by individuals and organizations to the Kansas State Legislature on the preemptive bill.
Participants:
Eight types of commentators submitted 34 written and 12 oral comments.
Measures:
The data were evaluated on a latent level to examine underlying drivers of preemption.
Results:
Comments addressed 18 themes, referenced 366 times; 68% in opposition. Common themes included local control, food labeling, public health, need for statewide standards, and debate over food regulation. Key themes included the need for state and federal uniformity to support businesses and consumers, debate over topics not in the bill, the value of local control, confusion over bill coverage, and outside influences.
Conclusion:
Confusion about bill language and coverage, the combination of food and agricultural issues, and backing by multinational corporations helped propel preemption forward in Kansas. Food policy stakeholders nationally can anticipate similar arguments and strategies in their state.
Institute of Medicine. For the Public’s Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy to Meet New Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
2.
GorovitzEMosherJPertschukM. Preemption or prevention?: lessons from efforts to control firearms, alcohol, and tobacco. J Public Health Policy. 1998;19(1):36–50.
3.
PertschukMHobartRPalomaMLarkinMABalbachED. Grassroots movement building and preemption in the campaign for residential fire sprinklers. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(10):1780–1787.
4.
PertschukMPomeranzJLRalston AokiJLarkinMAPalomaM. Assessing the impact of federal and state preemption in public health: a framework for decision makers. J Public Health Management Practice. 2012;19(3):213–219.
5.
PomeranzJLZellersLBareMPertschukM. State Preemption of Food and Nutrition Policies and Litigation: Undermining Government’s Role in Public Health. Am J Prev Med. [Published online ahead of print November 19, 2018] 2019 Jan;56(1):47–57.
City of Cleveland v. State, 2013-Ohio-1186, 989 N.E.2d 1072 (8th District March 28, 2013).
11.
Moreland-RussellSBarberoCAndersenSGearyNDodsonEABrownsonRC. “Hearing from all sides” How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(2):91–98.
Haynes-MaslowLAndressLPittsSJ. Arguments used in public comments to support or oppose the US department of agriculture’s minimum stocking requirements: a content analysis. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018: S2212–2672(17)31958–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.12.005. [Epub ahead of print]
16.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
17.
ErlingssonCBrysiewiczP. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. Afr J Emerg Med. 2017;7(3):93–99.
