“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.

San Francisco has a consolidated city-county form of government.

A municipal personality split came on April 23 when the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors made moves to join the electricity buying cooperative in Marin County, MarinCleanEnergy.

The county Board of Supervisors does not need the approval of the city to join MCE. CleanPowerSF and MCE would form a joint powers authority, as provided under California law.

In reaction, on May 1 San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee moved to pull the plug on $19.5 million in funds that was to be used to establish CleanPowerSF.

To circumvent Lee’s defunding move, the county supervisors even have gone to the state Legislature to approve Assembly Bill 2159, sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco.  This bill would allow the state to usurp home rule and allow the county to join an “over-the-fence” electricity-buying cooperative, such as in adjacent Marin County. The bill is unnecessary, but would promote lower power rates to his San Francisco constituency.

Ammiano’s bill did not pass in committee but is being reconsidered.

Positive declaration

To add more confusion to the dispute, Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Inglewood, has proposed Assembly Bill 2145. Unions, PG&E and the Construction Trades Council back Bradford’s bill.  A number of clean energy interests oppose the bill.

Right now the law authorizing the creation of electricity buying cooperatives only provides for electricity customers to opt-out of the program, not opt in.  Otherwise, customers are automatically enrolled in the buying program.

Bradford’s bill would reverse that and require that each customer of an electricity-buying cooperative be required to give a written positive declaration that they wanted to join the cooperative.

Additionally, Bradford’s bill would require an electricity-buying co-op to disclose the percentage of annual greenhouse gases actually delivered to customers in accordance with standards of the California Air Resources Board.  Electricity buying co-ops would have to stop any false advertising of the percentage of its clean power.

For example, MarinCleanEnergy claims it has the highest percent of green power – 51 percent – of any electric utility in California.  But the actual proportion of clean energy it provides customers is 27 percent.

MCE currently procures a minimum of 50 percent renewable energy (27 percent from California Renewable Portfolio Supply-eligible sources), not from delivering actual clean power. In Figure 4 on page 13 of its 2013 Integrated Resources Plan, MCE shows that about 50 percent of its current energy mix comes from what is called “Renewable Energy Certificates.”

RECs can come from so-called “dirty” power plants that have reduced their emissions or purchased pollution allowances from the Air Resources Board.  In other words, there is no guarantee that RECs deliver clean power.

The Bradford Bill further requires that CleanPowerSF or MarinCleanEnergy co-ops cannot claim to reduce their electricity rate lower than PG&E by avoiding paying their share of bond-related costs for hydropower from the state Department of Water Resources.

As with other environmental initiatives, such as endangered species laws, seemingly good intentions only have led to fighting over the spoils of who gets the jobs and political patronage from purchasing electricity under California’s Community Choice law.