City of San Francisco Sugary Drink Tax, Proposition E (November 2014)

Voting on taxes

Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

City taxes
County taxes
School taxes
Property taxes
Sales taxes
Income taxes
Other taxes

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot simplification
* 2.2 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 Similar measures
* 7 External links
* 8 Additional reading
* 9 Footnotes

A City of San Francisco Sugary Drink Tax, Proposition E ballot measure was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California, where it was defeated.

A similar measure was also on the November ballot in Berkeley. It was approved.

This measure, which would have imposed a $0.02 per ounce tax on sugary beverages in San Francisco, was introduced by city supervisor Scott Wiener. The tax would have amounted to a 24 cent tax on every can of soda sold. The tax was estimated to bring in a revenue of about $31 million per year.[1]

The proceeds of the Proposition E tax would have been earmarked for "nutrition, physical activity, and health programs in public schools, parks, and elsewhere."[2]

With millions of dollars spent by the beverage industry in opposition, similar tax measures were defeated in 2012 in Richmond and the town of El Monte.[3]

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for approval of this measure.

## Election results[edit]

City of San Francisco, Proposition E

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 98,625| 44.41%
Yes|  123,475|  55.59%

While Proposition E gathered more "yes" votes than "no" votes, the measure required a 2/3rds majority to pass.

Election results via: San Francisco General Election Report

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot simplification[edit]

The Ballot Simplification Committee provided the following statement explaining Proposition E:[4]

“  |

THE WAY IT IS NOW:

The City does not impose a tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages. Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to serious health problems.

THE PROPOSAL:

Proposition E would place a tax of 2 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs.

A sugar-sweetened beverage is a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12 ounces, including 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 in a beverage-dispensing machine, such as fountain drinks.

The distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages in San Francisco would be responsible for paying the tax.

Some beverages would not be subject to the tax, even if they contain added sugar. These include:

* Diet sodas;
* Milk, soy milk, rice milk and almond milk;
* Beverages that contain only natural fruit and vegetable juice;
* Infant formula;
* Meal replacements, supplemental nutrition products and weight reduction beverages; and
* Syrups and powders sold for mixing by individuals to make sugar-sweetened beverages.

The San Francisco Unified School District, Department of Public Health, and Recreation and Park Department must use the proceeds of this tax to fund health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs. The funds must be used only for new or expanded programs. Up to 2 percent of the tax proceeds could be used to administer the funds.

A 15-member Healthy Nutrition and Physical Activity Access Fund Committee would advise the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors and City departments about how to spend the funds.

Because the proceeds from the tax are dedicated to specific purposes, approval of this measure requires two-thirds of the votes cast.

A “YES” VOTE MEANS: If you vote "yes," you want the City to collect a tax of 2 cents per ounce from the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs.

A “NO” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “no,” you do not want the City to collect this tax.[5]

| ”

|
|

—San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee[4]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the ordinance that would have been enacted by the approval of Proposition E is available here.

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

Supervisor Scott Wiener

Supervisors Scott Wiener, Eric Mar, Malia Cohen, David Chiu, John Avalos and David Campos were the sponsors of this measure.

### Arguments in favor[edit]

According to Wiener, "We are experiencing an epidemic of health problems directly attributable to sugary beverages – including spikes in diabetes and obesity afflicting adults, teenagers, and even young children. Teenagers, particularly in low income communities, are now being diagnosed with pre-diabetes or full-blown diabetes. These cases of diabetes are attributable to significant consumption of sugary beverages. A recent California survey found that sugary beverage consumption by teenagers is increasing above its already-high level."[2]

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco was the official ballot opponent. The Coalition for an Affordable City, a group formed to oppose the measure, and Californians for Food & Beverage Choice, an organization formed and supported by the American Beverage Association, also actively opposed the measure. Californians for Food & Beverage Choice also opposed the beverage tax in Berkeley.[6]

### Arguments against[edit]

The Libertarian Party's ballot argument against this measure said, "High cigarette taxes have resulted in smuggling, tax evasion, and violence, and jacking up soda taxes will likewise have adverse consequences that legislators cannot anticipate."[6]

LPSF outreach director Starchild said, "Your body belongs to you, not to the State, What you put into it should be your choice."[6]

Roger Salzar, spokesman for the CFBC, said, "Our view basically is that beverage taxes aren’t the solution for changing behaviors or teaching people about healthy lifestyles. A regressive tax on common grocery items like sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley won’t make people any healthier, but it does have an impact on businesses and consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet."[6]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

According to a fact sheet on the proposed soda tax found on Scott Wiener's website, Wiener collaborated with Supervisors Eric Mar, Malia Cohen and John Avalos to unify proposals and get the tax on the ballot. The San Francisco City Council voted during one of its February meetings to put the measure on the ballot.[2][6]

## Similar measures[edit]

a City of Berkeley Sugary Beverages and Soda Tax Question, Measure D (November 2014)
d City of Richmond Tax on Soda, Measure N (November 2012)
d City of El Monte Soda Tax, Measure H (November 2012)

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Choose Health SF - San Francisco Soda Tax (Sugary Drink Tax/Sugary Beverage Tax) Website
* Supervisor Scott Wiener website
* Libertarian Party of San Francisco website

## Additional reading[edit]

* CBS News, "San Francisco supervisors propose sugary beverage tax," October 30, 2013
* San Francisco Chronicle, "Tax on soda to be floated in San Francisco," October 28, 2013
* Reuters, "San Francisco joins sugary drinks fray with tax proposal," October 29, 2013
* The Examiner, "Opponents and supporters dig in for SF showdown over sugary-beverage tax," February 3, 2014

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "San Francisco moves to put sugary-drink tax on ballot," February 4, 2014
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Scott Wiener's website, "Fact Sheet on Supervisor Scott Wiener’s Proposed Sugary Beverage Tax," accessed December 13, 2013
3. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Tax on soda to be floated in San Francisco," October 28, 2013
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 San Francisco Elections Office website, "Proposition E Simplification Digest," archived September 9, 2014
5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Los Angeles Times, "Berkeley voters will weigh in on sugary drink tax in November," July 2, 2014

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy