Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SF committee advances revised sugary-drink warning ordinance after community input
Summary
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee on Jan. 9 advanced a revised Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Ordinance to the full Board with a positive recommendation. The reintroduction narrows warning size, adds language-access requirements and expands enforcement options after Ninth Circuit litigation stalled the 2015 measure.
SAN FRANCISCO — The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee forwarded a revised ordinance updating the city's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors on Jan. 9 with a positive recommendation.
Natalie G., representing Supervisor Walton's office, told the committee the ordinance was first passed unanimously in 2015 but never went into effect after a subsequent Ninth Circuit ruling. The reintroduced version updates the findings about links between sugary-drink consumption and weight gain, obesity and type 2 diabetes and adds language-access protections, she said. "We know that there's been countless studies connecting these beverages to weight gain, obesity, and type 2 diabetes," Natalie G. said during her presentation.
The revisions described to the committee include: reducing the required warning label size from 20% to 10% of an advertisement's area; refining the definition of "advertiser" to cover manufacturers, sellers and promoters (while excluding some installers and space providers); modifying the warning text to read a "San Francisco Government warning, drinking beverages with added sugars can cause weight gain, which increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes"; requiring official translations in major city languages such as Spanish and Chinese; removing several prior exemptions (while retaining an exemption for ads in place 50 years or more); and giving the Department of Public Health authority to issue administrative notices with the City Attorney's office able to pursue civil enforcement.
A member of the public asked whether the ordinance targeted all sugary beverages or specific products; Natalie G. clarified the installment exemption applies to installers of signs, not the owners of small businesses.
After brief discussion the chair moved to forward the item to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the committee took the motion "without objection." The ordinance will appear on the Board of Supervisors' Jan. 28 agenda for further consideration.
What happens next: the ordinance was forwarded to the full Board for possible amendment or adoption. The committee record shows no final vote on adoption at this meeting.
Provenance: topic introduction at SEG 034; topic finish at SEG 166.
