“Today, San Francisco has sent a clear message that we need to do more to protect our community’s health,” said Supervisor Scott Wiener, in a prepared statement. “These health warnings will help provide people information they need to make informed decisions about what beverages they consume. Requiring health warnings on soda ads also makes clear that these drinks aren’t harmless – indeed, quite the opposite – and that the puppies, unicorns, and rainbows depicted in soda ads aren’t reality. These drinks are making people sick, and we need to make that clear to the public. All three pieces of legislation passed today will improve the health of our community.”

“This prohibition on advertisements for sugar sweetened beverages will align our city’s policies closer with our existing public health goals,” Supervisor Malia Cohen said in the same release. “Our residents, particularly our youth, deserve to be in an environment where residents are exposed to messages and advertisements that promote health, not harmful substances.”

The three ordinances and their requirements are detailed below:

• “Supervisor Wiener’s legislation requiring health warnings on all posted advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages with 25 or more calories per 12 ounces. The warning will read the following “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.” The size of the warnings will be at least 20 percent of the ad space, which is the standard required by the FDA on tobacco warnings. The warnings will only apply to advertisements posted after the effective date of the legislation.
• “Supervisor Cohen’s legislation will prohibit the placement of advertisements for sodas and sugar-sweetened beverages on city owned property. Currently, tobacco and alcohol advertisements are subject to this prohibition. There will be an exception for permitted events in public spaces, like Outside Lands in Golden Gate Park, where the permit and lease can grant separate rules.
• “Supervisor Mar will introduce legislation that bans the use of city funds, whether by city departments or city contractor, on the purchase of sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages.”

The ordinances do not require warning labels on individual bottles or cans.

“The new warning label requirement on sugary drink ads does exactly what the beverage industry has long called for: provides consumers with education. Now, for every advertising message saying ‘live for now’ or ‘open happiness,’ consumers will also receive a science-based reminder that these products contribute to diabetes, obesity and tooth decay,” Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of California Center for Public Health Advocacy, said in a prepared statement.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors previously passed a resolution in support of Senate Bill 203, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning, D-Carmel. SB203 would have made California “the first state to require health warning labels to be placed on sugary drinks, including sodas, sports drinks, and energy drinks.” The bill failed to clear the Senate health committee and will be eligible for reconsideration on January 2016.

In 2014, The Field Poll released survey results revealing “broad voter support for posting a health warning label on sodas and sugary drinks and taxing their sale to provide funds for school nutrition and physical activity programs.”

But opponents to the ban say it isn’t fair to penalize sugary drinks and advertising.

“It’s unfortunate the Board of Supervisors is choosing the politically expedient route of scapegoating instead of finding a genuine and comprehensive solution to the complex issues of obesity and diabetes,” Roger Salazar, a spokesman for CalBev, told the AP.

“The beverage industry already provides consumer-friendly labels on the front of every can, bottle and pack we produce,” American Beverage Association vice president William Dermody wrote in an email to NPR. “A misleading warning label that singles out one industry for complex health challenges will not change behaviors or educate people about healthy lifestyles.”

All three ordinances go into effect 30 days after the mayor has signed the legislation.

One good thing — if you can call it that — about Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed $7 billion tax: It is revealing who is the “Establishment,” both Democrat and Republican, that really runs this state.

With the Republican Party basically moribund, Democrats are the only show in town. So the Establishment will funnel to them campaign cash, for candidates and favored initiatives.

That doesn’t mean the donors favor a particular donor or initiative, or Democrats in general. It means they’re buying influence with the powerful.

So it is with Brown’s tax. It’s unlikely to pass. Opponents will paint it as funding the cushy pensions of government retirees and the ridiculous High-Speed Rail boondoggle. Brown will insist, “No! It’s just going to schools! It’s guaranteed!” But few will believe him. All government money is fungible.

But the Establishment wants to be in good graces with Brown. Although the measure won’t pass, funneling money into it is a signal of membership in the Establishment. It’s ironic how Brown, who for decades has portrayed himself as a maverick, quirky “outsider,” has in his dotage become the ultimate Establishment “insider.”

Brown’s group is called, Californians to Protect Schools, Universities and Public Safety. It should be called, “Californians to Gouge Taxpayers to Fund Lavish Pensions.”

Here are some of the Establishment donors to the tax-gouging initiative, as reported by the Mercury-News:

* $500,000: California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems; now I know why a friend went to have his appendix carved out, and it cost $40,000 for a three-day stay: the hospitals are splurging on political influence peddling;
* $250,000: state building trades; now we know why housing, despite the recent decline, remains so unaffordable in Taxifornia; the money is splurged on stuff like this;
* $100,000: Blue Shield of California; my health insurance; thanks a lot for jacking up my insurance rates to pay for jacking up my taxes; that’s just sicko;
* $300,000: four Indian tribes; time to free the Indians and make them separate nations; then they’ll become tax havens like the Cayman Islands, instead of backing higher taxes;
* $250,000:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation; Lenin pal Armand Hammer’s old outfit.
* $250,000: the American Beverage Association; how about a booze tax, fellas? Or maybe we should bring back Prohibition? Where is Carrie Nation when we need her?

Feb. 1, 2012