Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Legislation

Sugary Drinks

A “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage (SSB)” is any nonalcoholic beverage sold for human consumption that has one or more added caloric sweeteners and contains more than 25 calories per 12 ounces including but not limited to soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks, sweetened teas, flavored waters, frozen beverages, sweetened coffee beverages, and juices that are not 100% juice. Click here for a list of SSB.

Local Efforts

Proposition V: San Francisco Sugary Drinks Distributor Tax

On November 8, 2016, San Francisco voters approved imposing a tax of one cent per ounce on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages.

A sugar-sweetened beverage is a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12 ounces. These include some soft drinks, sports drinks, iced tea, juice drinks and energy drinks. The tax would also apply to syrups and powders that can be made into sugar-sweetened beverages, for example, fountain drinks from beverage-dispensing machines. The distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages in San Francisco would be responsible for paying the tax.

The measure amends the City’s Business Tax and Regulations Code to impose a one cent per fluid ounce tax on the initial distribution within San Francisco of sugar sweetened beverages, beginning on January 1, 2018. The amendment establishes a Sugary Drinks Distributor Tax Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors on the effectiveness of the tax. Starting in 2018, the committee would submit an annual report that evaluates the impact of the tax on beverage prices, consumer purchasing behavior, and public health, and makes recommendations on the potential establishment and/or funding of programs to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in San Francisco. The committee would be in place until December 31, 2028 unless extended by the Board of Supervisors.

Read the legislation.

File #160025: Nutritional Standards for Food and Beverages Sold in Vending Machines on City Property or Served at City Meetings and Events

Sponsors: Mark Farrell, Eric Mar

Status: Passed. Final action on 5/27/2016.

Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require that prepackaged food and beverages sold in vending machines on City property meet specified nutritional standards and calorie labeling requirements; to require City departments to make best efforts to meet nutritional guidelines for food and beverages purchased with City funds and served at City events and meetings; to encourage restaurants, cafeterias, and concessions located on City property to offer healthy food options; and to require the Department of Public Health (DPH) to submit a report to the Board of Supervisors if DPH concludes that nutritional standards and guidelines should be updated.

Download a fact sheet on healthy vending guidelines (PDF).

On March 10, 2015, three San Francisco Supervisors introduced legislation to:

Require warning labels on advertisements for sugary drinks
Prohibit advertising of sugary drinks on city property
Restrict use of City funds to purchase and sell sugary drinks

All three pieces of legislation were signed by Mayor Ed Lee into law on June 25, 2015!

File # 150245: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning for Advertisements

Sponsors: Scott Wiener, Eric Mar, Malia Cohen, John Avalos

Status: Passed. Final action on 6/25/2015.

Shortly after Mayor Ed Lee signed this legislation into law, the American Beverage Association (ABA), the California Retailers Association, and the California State Outdoor Advertising Association sued the City and County of San Francisco to stop the implementation of the law. In addition, on January 12, 2016 the ABA et al filed a motion for a temporary injunction to block the implementation of the law planned for July 2016. Public documents associated with the lawsuit can be found here.

This ordinance amends the Health Code by adding Article 42 (Sugar-Sweetened Beverages), Division 1 (Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Ordinance) which requires an “Advertiser” who posts, or causes to be posted in San Francisco an advertisement that identify, promote, or market sugar-sweetened beverages for sale or use to include on the advertisement the following warning: “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 term “sugar-sweetened beverage” includes, with some specific exceptions, non-alcoholic beverages that have one or more caloric sweeteners and contains more than 25 calories per 12 ounces of beverage. The warning must occupy at least 20% of the area of the advertisement. The purpose of the warning is to inform the public of health impacts before purchases are made, thereby assisting the public to make a more informed choice about the consumption of the advertised beverage. Read more.

Download the Warning Label fact sheet (PDF).

File # 150241: Prohibiting Advertisements for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on City Property

Sponsors: Malia Cohen, Eric Mar, Scott Wiener

Status: Due to recent legal considerations, the City and County of San Francisco decided not to enforce this law.

Existing law prohibits advertising cigarettes or tobacco products or alcoholic beverages on property owned by or under the control of the City and requires all leases, permits or agreements awarded by the City that allow any person to use City property to specifically provide that there shall be no advertising of cigarettes or tobacco products or alcoholic beverages on such property, subject in each case to certain limited exceptions for alcoholic beverage advertising. The proposed legislation would include a prohibition against advertising Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on property owned by or under the control of the City.

File #150243: Barring City Departments from Purchasing and City Contractors from Selling or Distributing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Sponsors: Eric Mar, Scott Wiener, Malia Cohen, John Avalos

Status: Passed. Final action 6/25/2015. This law is currently being implemented.

Ordinance amends the Administrative Code. Starting July 1, 2015, no City departments are allowed to use City funds to purchase Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, as defined in the ordinance. And no contractor or grantee would be allowed to sell or provide Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, in any form, as part of its performance of a City food services contract, defined as an agreement funded by the City to sell, provide or otherwise distribute meals, snacks, or beverages for immediate consumption. Read more.

SF General Hospital Goes “Soda Free” All Year Round

In 2008, Shape Up San Francisco led the Bay Area’s first-ever regional “Soda Free Summer” campaign encouraging individuals, youth organizations, City departments, and all residents to try going “Soda Free” for the summer months. The movement today has grown tremendously with hospitals and health care providers taking a stand. Last month UCSF announced that it was phasing out sugary drinks on all it’s campuses, clinics, and hospitals. And in June, SF General Hospital dumped sugary drinks! Christina Goette, Director of Shape Up San Francisco (which leads Open Truth) was thrilled to be at the SF General Hospital Summer Fest where it was announced that sugary drinks would no longer be available in vending machines, in the cafeteria, from food vendors, or served to patients. As SFGH CEO Sue Currin said at the event, “We are making it easier for people on campus to make better choices about what to drink.” We applaud their efforts to go “Soda Free” all year round!

News about SFGH

UCSF dumps sugary drinks!

UCSF announced that beginning July 1, 2015 they only sell zero-calorie drinks or non-sweetened drinks with nutritional value such as milk and 100% juice at all their onsite eateries, including cafeterias, vending machines, and retail locations. According to their website, they are implementing this policy change instead of just focusing on education because “Most people know that they shouldn’t consume a lot of sugary drinks but, when they are readily available and habit-forming, they can be very difficult to resist. We know from research that health education alone—in the absence of environmental change—does not produce lasting changes in health behaviors.” We couldn’t agree more, and would like to congratulate UCSF for making this bold an important step towards creating a healthier San Francisco! For more info, check out their website.

Statewide Efforts

AB 2782: Healthy California Fund For Our Children and Families

Authors: Bloom

Co-Sponsors: Chiu and Woods

Existing law provides for various programs that prevent disease and promote health. This bill, subject to specified exemptions, would impose a fee on every distributor, as defined, for the privilege of distributing concentrate in this state, either as concentrate or as sweetened-beverages derived from that concentrate, at the rate of $.02 per fluid ounce to be produced from the concentrate. The Board of Equalization would be responsible for administering and collecting the fee and registering the distributors upon whom the fee is imposed. These amounts would be deposited into the Healthy California Fund, created by the bill. Read the bill or more information on the Coalition for a Healthy California.

SB 203: Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks

Author: Monning
Co-Sponsors: California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), Health Officers Association of California (HOAC), California Black Health Network (CBHN), Latino Health Access (LHA)

Would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, in this state unless the beverage container or multipack bears a safety warning, as prescribed. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

UPDATE – April 29, 2015 – SB 203 did not make it out of the California Senate Health Committee. With only four out of nine senators on the committee voting in favor of the bill, SB 203 is now dead.

AB 1357 (Bloom): Children and Family Health Promotion Program

Author: Bloom
Sponsor: Latino Coalition for a Healthy California (LCHC)

This bill, subject to specified exemptions, would impose a fee on every distributor, as defined, for the privilege of distributing in this state bottled sweetened beverages, at a rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce and for the privilege of distributing concentrate in this state, either as concentrate or as sweetened beverages derived from that concentrate, at the rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce of sweetened beverage to be produced from concentrate. The Board of Equalization would be responsible for administering and collecting the fee and registering the distributors upon whom the fee is imposed. These amounts would be deposited into the Children and Family Health Promotion Trust Fund, created by the bill. The bill would require moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Health Care Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Food and Agriculture, as specified, for various purposes of statewide diabetes and childhood obesity treatment and prevention activities and programs, including awarding competitive grants to local governments, nonprofit organizations, school districts, and other entities for activities in support of the bill’s objectives. This bill would also authorize the State Public Health Officer, the Director of Health Care Services, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to establish regulations and provide procedural measures, to bring into effect those purposes.

This bill would require the State Department of Public Health, in consultation with the other participating departments, to prepare and adopt an annual program budget, as specified. The bill would establish the Children and Family Health Promotion Administration Account within the fund, to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to reimburse expenditures by the State Department of Public Health in administering and implementing the activities required by the bill, and to repay specified loans from other funds.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sweetened beverages, diabetes, childhood obesity, and dental disease.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

UPDATE: AB1357 failed to pass out of the Assembly Health Committee on May 12, 2015.

Physical Education

AB 1391: Pupil instruction: adopted course of study for grades 1 to 6: physical education: complaints

Author: Gomez

This bill would authorize a complaint that a school district or county superintendent of schools has not complied with the instructional minute requirements of the physical education adopted course of study for pupils in those grades to be filed with the school district or county superintendent of schools pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures, as specified. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on school district or county office of education officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill also would state the Legislature’s finding and declaration that the provisions prescribing the requirements for the adopted course of study for grades 1 to 6, inclusive, and for instructional time for physical education in an elementary school maintaining any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, were not intended to create a private right of action, but would provide that nothing in those provisions are to restrict or expand the existing right of any party to seek relief from noncompliance with them pursuant to a writ of mandate.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.