Vision: All San Franciscans have access to healthy eating and active living where they live, work, learn and play.
Mission: To create equitable and sustainable environments, systems and policies that promote healthy eating and active living across the lifespan in San Francisco.
1. Increase access to healthy food
2. Increase opportunities for physical activity
3. Decrease consumption of sugary drinks
Values: Prevention, Social Justice, Diversity, Collective Impact
Meeting theme: Sugary Drinks
|I. Welcome and IntroductionsBea and Chuck, Shape Up SF Coalition Co-Chairs||
|II. Political Analysis of Prop E, San Francisco’s Soda TaxCorey Cook, Associate Professor of Public Policy at University of San Francisco||
|III. Sugary Drinks Policy FindingsRoberto Vargas, UCSF CTSI Community Engagement & Health Policy Navigator||
|IV. Open TruthJanna Cordiero, Healthy Beverage Consultant||
|V. Shape Up SF Strategic Plan UpdateChristina Goette, Shape Up SF||3:30-3:40|
Present: Cate McCracken, Cassie Ray, Angela Moskow, Gina Li, Corey Cook, Jinny Hayes, Shari Zinn, John Maa, Robin Dean, Janna Cordeiro, Brittni Chicuata, Avni Desai, Ana Validzic, Christina Goette, Bea Cardenas Duncan, Chuck Collins, Maureen Erwin, Jim ILlig, Nick Panagopoulos, Sarah Fine, Maya Rodgers, Roberto Vargas, Susana Hennessey Lavery, Marianne Szeto
Political Analysis of Prop E by Corey Cook
Corey provided an objective analysis of Prop E, SF’s Soda Tax that went to voters in November 2014. He began with a political science lesson to introduce 4 themes:
- Negativity bias – voters prefer status quo and tend to vote no.
- Voters use cues or “information shortcuts” such as party identification, endorsers. Is the cue given from a trustworthy source and have information they care about?
- Voter fatigue – The further down the list a measure is on a ballot, the more likely a voter will vote NO. On average, dropping 1 place on a ballot increases the no vote by .1%.
- Campaign spending – The greater the money spent on a YES campaign does not necessarily mean more votes. However, more money spent on NO campaign does tend to increase votes.
When applied to SF, voter cues were a problem. The “elite” support was split. Ex. Board of Supervisors, the Mayor didn’t endorse it. Outside groups such as the American Diabetes Association or American Cancer Society also did not endorse.
Voter fatigue – Prop E was #42 on the ballot.
Campaign spending – the final numbers will be available Jan 31, but it’s estimated that the Big Soda spent $9.1 M vs. Choose Health SF’s $300K.
Voters often view public health as individual health and may not view impacts of type 2 diabetes on society like second hand smoke.
Progressive voter index (PVI) shows a measure of general ideology and the spread for Prop E is huge. It had poor support in district 6, 10 and 11. Older voters supported it. New and newly arrived voters opposed it.
Sugary Drinks Policy Findings by Roberto Vargas, UCSF CTSI Community Engagement & Health Policy Navigator
In 2010, SF Health Improvement Partnership (SFHIP) formed to address health disparities and inequities in SF. In 2013, they developed study to understand community-based perspectives for how to address obesity-related diseases through nutrition policy. They conducted 9 focus groups in the Tenderloin, Bayview Hunters Point and Mission.
Government: Lack of trust; role of government in setting recommendations for sugar intake, not to subsidize foods that exceed those limits; preserve choice but set age limit for children to purchase sugary drinks.
Education: Support across groups for education and labeling; support campaigns in community, online, schools, and families and focus on industry tactics to target their communities over simply health messages; education is more important than policy.
Protect our children: strong support of policies to protect children; restrict marketing and access from children; mixed support for product placement.
Cost/affordability: they don’t want the cost of sugary drinks to increase, even if they agree that people should consume less. Support for tax increase when they know what revenue will fund. Prefer taxing producers, not consumers. Make healthy drinks more affordable and water more accessible.
Water: Increase water stations, keep them maintained and located in busy areas, etc.
Open Truth Campaign by Janna Cordeiro, Healthy Beverage Consultant
Join SF Bay Area Youth, public health officials, and concerned community members in an exciting new campaign to OPEN the TRUTH about the tactics of the beverage industry and the negative health impacts of its products. The Open Truth campaign aims to:
- Increase awareness about how sugary drinks are making us sick;
- Expose the tactics of the sugary drinks industry, which targets young people, parents, and communities of color in order to increase profits and brand loyalty; and
- Inspire policy changes that will increase access to healthy drinks, limit marketing to kids, educate consumers, and provide funds for sugary drink education.
Last week, we launched the website, a social media campaign, and ads on public transit in the Bay Area.
The Open Truth Campaign is a collaboration between the Shape Up San Francisco (project of the Population Health Division of the SFDPH) and The Bigger Picture (Youth Speaks and Center for Vulnerable Populations/UCSF), Alameda County Department of Public Health, Sonoma County Department of Health Services, and the American Heart Association Greater Bay Area Division.
Shape Up SF Strategic Planning