Board keeps BPA restrictions in amended toys and child products ordinance after divided vote

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted on April 17 to keep restrictions on bisphenol A — commonly called BPA — in an amended city health-code ordinance that governs toys, childcare products and child feeding products.

The action followed a procedural divided question from Supervisor Daly aimed at restoring BPA restrictions that the legislation sought to remove. Deputy City Attorney Adams explained the effect of the divided question: “the legislation before you removes the restrictions on BPA … [and] in doing so, essentially, what he did would be to add those — readd those restrictions back into the legislation.” The board voted on the divided question and the proposal to restore the BPA restrictions failed; the board then voted on the ordinance and it passed on first reading.

The ordinance renumbers and amends sections of the San Francisco Health Code, listed in the file as sections 34.1 through 34.3 and adding new sections 34.1, 34.2 and 34.6 through 34.9 to restate the ban on specified products. Deputy City Attorney Adams and several supervisors discussed whether the divided question had been considered and voted on the prior week; Adams clarified that Daly had the right to divide the question again and the board proceeded accordingly.

Supervisor Daly repeatedly framed his motion as a bid to reinstate BPA restrictions that had failed in a prior week’s vote. Several supervisors expressed confusion about procedural history and how prior votes affected the current tally. After the divided question failed, the board took a roll call on the ordinance as amended and the measure passed on first reading by the roll-call totals recorded in the minutes.

The item proceeded without additional amendments during the floor debate; no new regulatory language beyond the referenced health-code sections was introduced at the meeting. The city attorney’s office and deputy city attorneys were present to explain the legal and procedural effects of the divided question and the ordinance.

The ordinance now returns to the board for the statutory next steps for items passed on first reading. The file in the clerk’s record lists the specific health-code sections referenced in the legislation; the transcript does not include the final text of those sections and does not identify an effective date.

Votes and next steps: the board recorded the divided-question vote as failing and then recorded the ordinance’s passage on first reading; the ordinance will return for subsequent readings or procedural steps required by the charter before final adoption.