Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sugary Beverage Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board backs concept of sugary-beverage tax after extensive public health testimony; some members urge caution on timing
Summary
The San Francisco board voted to support the concept of a 2¢-per-ounce sugary-beverage tax to fund child-nutrition and physical-activity programs after lengthy public testimony. Several commissioners voiced concerns about ballot timing and campaign risk to other measures; the resolution endorses the idea, not final ballot language.
The San Francisco Unified School District board voted to support the concept of a sugary-beverage tax after extensive public comment from health experts, parents, students and city supervisors.
Supervisors Eric Marr and Scott Wiener appeared to summarize legislation under development proposing a 2¢ per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages with revenue directed to child nutrition and physical activity programs. Speakers from public-health coalitions, Shape Up San Francisco, UCSF researchers and local clinicians cited studies linking sugary-beverage consumption to obesity and diabetes and urged the board to support the concept and mobilize community backing.
Public commenters described the tax as an equity measure: Roberto Vargas, representing Bayview residents, emphasized higher rates of diabetes and hospitalizations in his community; several speakers estimated annual revenue in the tens of millions to fund school programs. One presenter said the city budget analyst estimated costs of obesity and diabetes attributable to sugary drinks between $48.1 million and $61.8 million.
Board discussion acknowledged broad support for the public-health case but split over strategy. Some commissioners argued endorsement now would help build a coalition ahead of a likely ballot campaign; others voiced concern that endorsing before final language and timing could jeopardize or complicate concurrent ballot measures (the Public Education Enrichment Fund and the Children’s Fund). Commissioner Mathis said she would not support the endorsement that night, citing the need for more information; Commissioner Mendoza McDonald said she supported the concept but not an immediate endorsement, citing ballot timing and potential campaign risk.
The board subsequently voted, with several 'no' votes recorded and the chair announcing '5 ayes.' The resolution expresses board support for the idea of a sugary-beverage tax and asks the Board of Supervisors to place a measure on a future ballot; it does not approve or place a specific ordinance on the ballot.
Next steps identified in board discussion included coordinating with supervisors on final language, refining revenue allocations and mobilizing community partners for outreach and education.
