SAN FRANCISCO -- Citing the First Amendment, the American Beverage Association (ABA) has joined forces with two other groups to fight an effort by San Francisco to require health warnings on advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages.
In June, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors enacted a measure that requires soda ads posted on buses, billboards and other city surfaces to carry warnings stating that drinks with added sugar contribute to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. The “warning mandate,” which is scheduled to go into effect July 25, 2016, also applies to sports venues.
A second action bans soda ads on public property. This “speech ban,” as dubbed by the ABA lawsuit, was scheduled to become effective Saturday, one day after the lawsuit was filed.
“At its very core, the First Amendment forbids the government from suppressing private speech that it disagrees with, and equally forbids the government from compelling private speakers to express the government’s views,” the lawsuit states, according to court documents accessed by CSP Daily News. The ban “discriminates against speech based on the identity of the speaker, in violation of the First Amendment, by expressly prohibiting speech that includes the name of any sugar-sweetened beverage producer.”
Further, the lawsuit decries the suggestion that calories from beverages--those singled out by the city—are more damaging than those from other food products.
“Sustained overconsumption of calories from any source—whether sugar-sweetened beverages, ice cream, pizza, hot dogs or pasta—without offsetting physical activity can contribute to weight gain and its associated negative health consequences. But the city’s opinion about a unique connection between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, diabetes and tooth decay is controversial.”
The separating of “added sugars” and naturally occurring sugars in beverages is also in question.
“The city’s opinion is that added sugars contribute more to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay than sugars inherently in or naturally present in food (e.g., as in 100% fruit juice),” the lawsuit states. However, the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics "has concluded that the 'human metabolism does not distinguish between sugars found in a food and those added to the food."
“A 12-oz. serving of a full-calorie soft drink and a 12-oz. serving of many 100% fruit juice products have roughly the same amount of sugar—some 100% apple-juice products have more sugar than a 12-oz full-calorie soft drink," the lawsuit states. "Yet the warning mandate applies only to the soft drinks.”
The California Retailers Association and the California State Outdoor Advertising Association have joined ABA as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
If the “warning mandate” is maintained, the required label would read, “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 plaintiffs in the case also requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the San Francisco laws from going into effect as scheduled. No ruling was made as of Monday morning.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.