upper waypoint

San Francisco Supervisors to Vote on Sugary Beverage Warning

Save ArticleSave Article
Failed to save article

Please try again

If the law passes, drinks would carry a label with a "San Francisco Government Warning" that say sugary beverages cause weight gain and increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday on whether to add a label that would warn consumers about the health effects of sugary beverages.

If the law passes, drinks would carry a label with a "San Francisco Government Warning" that says sugary beverages can cause weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

related coverage

The law was originally passed by the city's supervisors in 2015 by then-Supervisor Scott Weiner. But the American Beverage Association (ABA) sued, stating the legislation was unconstitutional.

In Jan. 2019, a federal appeals court sided with the ABA, declaring that the law violated constitutionally protected speech.

The upcoming vote on Tuesday will be an attempt to pass a revised version of the law, sponsored by District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton.

Natalie Gee, a legislative aid for Walton, spoke to the city's Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee on Jan. 9.

"There's been numerous studies showing that these large beverage companies specifically target their advertising to communities of color, creating more health disparities," Gee said to the committee.

The law has seven revisions:

  • Offers more recent scientific findings on the health effects of sugary beverages
  • Redefines the definition of who an advertiser of sugar-sweetened beverages is
  • Reduces the size of the warning label from 20% to 10% of the total area of the advertisement
  • Revises the text of the warning label
  • Offers the proposed warning in multiple languages
  • Eliminates exemptions and waivers of the warning label for specific types of sugar-sweetened beverages
  • Allows city agencies to pursue civil enforcement

In a statement, the ABA said the newly revised ordinance "ignores the serious First Amendment issues that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals" originally found.

The statement continued, "America’s beverage companies agree that it’s important that San Francisco families moderate their daily sugar intake and, in partnership with community leaders and public health advocates, we will continue to work to provide all Californians with transparent nutritional information about our products.”

KQED's Julie Chang contributed to this report.

Sponsored

lower waypoint
next waypoint
California PUC Considers New Fixed Charge for ElectricityPro-Palestinian Protests on California College Campuses: What Are Students Demanding?Will the U.S. Really Ban TikTok?Gaza War Ceasefire Talks Continue as Israel Threatens Rafah InvasionKnow Your Rights: California Protesters' Legal Standing Under the First AmendmentCalifornia Forever Shells out $2M in Campaign to Build City from ScratchSaying Goodbye to AsiaSF; New State Mushroom; Farm Workers Buy Mobile Home Park‘I’m Gonna Miss It’: Inside One of AsiaSF’s Last Live Cabarets in SoMaHow Wheelchair Rentals Can Open Up Bay Area Beaches (and Where to Find Them)California Housing Is Even Less Affordable Than You Think, UC Berkeley Study Says