have previous years of service diabetes. i mean, we've had hours of hearings and we reviewed numerous amounts of statistics about cost, about where and how the large soda industry spends their money, who they're targeting. the overwhelming data that supports the health disparities that i know and see everyday. so i hope to have your support today as we we continue to bring this measure to the ballot this november. thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. this initiative has really been a policy struggle for me since i was introduced a couple of months ago. i want to start off by saying that i absolutely support the intent of the legislation. i do believe that sugary beverages have severe health

impact on our communities and disproportionate impact on low income communities and communities of color. i think there are severe costs of unhealthy eating and behavior that doesn't have consequences to our budget and healthcare system, but to the lives of real people, children and seniors. second, i really appreciate how the tax is going to be utilized if this is passed by voters. i absolutely agree with what we would spend this revenue on and that they absolutely combat the negative outcomes of sugary beverages. rec centers, all these things will help make our city healthier, particularly for our young people. i think the question for me has really been about the means.

is taxation to get to the outcome we'd like to see and parallel it with other taxes i've seen. i've been very conflicted about whether i've supported them in the past and i know that when we had a state tax on cigarettes a little over ten years ago that i actually did not support that at that time and the reason being was that the tax was flat, it is regressive, it unfairly burdens low income consumers. while i want people to smoke less, i'm not sure that is the medium through which i'd like to get people to smoke less. if it was a tax that purely impacted the i think i would feel very differently about this, but we know there's nothing that will prevent beverage companies from passing this tax on. i think also that, you know, education is actually the best means by which we can combat

the impact of sugary beverages especially amongst young people. i notice add d a huge because it was cheaper and more affordable, never got any comments or feedback, and by the time i left i was getting requests from young people to buy more healthy things and i think that was clearly not led by a tax, but because there was better education in our public system and r about what was good for our body. it certainly has convinced me to make changes in my diet. but ultimately, i can't support this today. my issues around it really are around the means by which we're trying to get to the outcome we all believe in. i think a regressive tax, a flat tax is not the way to go. instead of taxing the things we don't want to see, we should be

subsidizing the food we want people to be eating. i have a lot of concern about residents on fixed income. what is the alternative? i know that water comes up a lot, but i think that if we don't have a subsidized alternative that we are placed this burden unfairly on certain groups of folks. it is a really tough decision for me today. i'm glad that this will be going to the voters. i know there'll be six votes to place this before the voters today. i thought about voting for it to showcase that i think voters should decide on this tax measure, but ultimately i just don't agree with the way we're going about approaching the final outcome. i want to recognize the incredible work that cohen and wiener have done. there are folks in every district supporting the soda tax measure. i know the tenderloin food justice commission has been

very active on this and i want to appreciate their lobbying and advocacy on this and my no vote doesn't reflect the hard work that's gone into this. someone told me a very interesting fact yesterday was that evictions went down when they introduced the closing the loophole to [inaudible] didn't make it fwartd, but the one thing i have to say is that if nothing else i think that placing this on the ball let will push a conversation on sugary beverages and its impacts and i think that's an education campaign. i'm glad this conversation is happening. the education i think is absolutely the right way to get people to consume less sugary beverages. i'm just not sure i support a flat tax, a regressive flat tax to make that happen. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you.

i guess i'm going to have very similar remarks as supervisor kim. i appreciate the authors of this ordinance that's moving forward today. there's no argument in my mind that there's a health problem, not only in san francisco, but throughout the world and part of the health problem is about how much consumption of sugar we're having. the issues i'm having with this, and it is a tough decision for me because there's some -- a lot of merit within the ordinance itself. and these are issues that i personally have been trying to address in running organizations for our very young children, zero to 5, and part of what we always try to do in this organization is how

do you education parents around this issue and how do we get support to get these parents around these issues about -- because the first thing you see -- i see a lot of parents, they don't even understand the connection between sugar and the health issues and they're at the age of infancy instantly having baby bottles not with milk, but with sugar water. and so the thing that we try to do was to not just with the kids we were serving, but to whole parenting so that parents from certain neighborhoods and communities and so forth, can actually get the same information that other neighborhoods may be getting. the -- for me the crucial piece for combatting this whole issue

with diabetes and so forth is about education. i also have some issues about the regressive flat tax piece of this, because i know which communities going to really hurt. and then -- you have that issue of health and also the -- i also have the concern that i like to focus my energy and many other ballot initiatives that's going to be on the november ballot and they're actually as important when it comes to transportation and when it comes to minimum wages and so forth. at the same time, here's what i'm urging -- i mean, my no vote on this is not to say the concept's wrong and my no vote is about whether this is my pry

oi for at this point and whether this is the way to go. education -- i mean, i've urged for many, many years and decades a go to say to the department of public health in san francisco, where's the funding to help education parents on this. so regardless of the outcome of this ordinance, it's real important for this chamber -- members of this chamber to urge the mayor and others to support more resources going into the education piece of this. so thank you very much. >> supervisor mar. >> yeah, let me just -- i'm a little bit flabbergasted right now. supervisor yee, 40% of the funds will go into the san francisco unified school district. the san francisco unified school district is a strong supporter, as was the board of education, and for my two former colleagues and presidents of the school board, perhaps you weren't listening when we had a number of

hearings at the board from the yale red center on food policy and obesity to the center of science for public interest, to ucsf, to harvard. it's rr clear education alone is not enough to address the severe health crisis we're in. all the researchers come to that conclusion. you need various local policy measures and also as i said before, increasing access to alternatives and reducing consumption of harmful beverages, but very clear conclusion, education alone is not enough. i also wanted to say to my colleague, norman yee, the parent organizations through the city have been the power of the grass roots campaign we built from the second district pta to individual ptas having

vigorous discussions. i know others will continue to support the children and families first initiative as well, but a lot of it is about families first and health is a key part of it. i wanted to say too that it's not just a health problem as was stated by -- earlier as supervisor wiener and especially supercohen ly supervisor cohen made it clear to me, it's a crisis out there. it's a epidemic, it's exploding from the time when coca-cola was first introduced into the vending machines until now there's been this eks cloegs because of the supervise me big gulps and other types of beverages and in many ways diabetes is regressive and the $50 million that this will

raise will go to son-in-law of the most forward looking policies and progressive efforts to reduce the impacts and this crisis we're facing as others have said. i would urge you to think about those amazing studies done by many of the best health researchers, but even the discussions within our committee meetings from the budget committee to the gao commit tee committee as we move this forward. >> i want to acknowledge the argument that i haeshd heard from one of my other colleagues about concerns around a regressive tax. a regressive tax is a tax that unfairly put on generally poor people. what's ironic is that these diseases that we're looking to

solve are also regressive, meaning that it affects the same population. it's really hard and i find it very disingenuous would you say just to argument a regressive tax argument when dealing with a serious policy issue and i just want to acknowledge that my comments earlier onjust to argument a regressive tax argument when dealing with a serious policy issue and i just want to acknowledge that my comments earlier on hostile environment for many reasons,

poverty, exposure to trauma, exposure to violence, poor education and that also does not exclude the over specifically targeting people to consume these sugary beverages, which data has concluded, does in fact kill people. thank you. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you mr. president. i want to thank everyone for their remarks. i know there are a lot of different views on a lot of these issues and we can agree to disagree, although i do strongly disagree with some of the remarks. i want to thank supervisor kim for raising the cigarette tack issue and the comparison.

i appreciate that candor. i happen to be a strong supporter of cigarette taxes and in fact, when the statewide cigarette tax in 2012 failed in california due to tens of millions of dollars spent by big tobacco it received 73 pk % of the vote in progressive san francisco because ultimately the tobacco tax has been an absolute in the collapse of smoking rate in the united states when 50 years ago almost of americans, 48%, i believe, smoked. now it's about 18%. it wasn't just education. education is part of that decline. the fact that when i was a kid working in a convenience store on the east coast in new jersey we sold a pack of cigarettes for 75 cents or a dollar. prices have gone up on those

cigarettes over the years and that's an absolutely crucial piece of the puzzle in decreasing smoking rates. and then investing those cigarette taxes into education and health programs and it become a vir child abuse circle and lives have been saved and communities are healthier as a result. this is no different. you recall 50 years ago when the surgeon general came out with his warning that cigarettes cause cancer, that was controversial at the time and the industry fought it, just like the soda industry sort of killed the bill in sacramento to require labeling on sugary beverages. at the same time this ib dust tri within san francisco saying don't do a tax, just education, they're talking out the other side of their mouth in sacramento saying how dare you even put a label on your products, saying these drinks can give people diseases. education is very important and

this measure will help funds educations programs among others, but tax policy is a critical part of reducing the consumption of sugary beverages. when we look at a can of soda with 10 teaspoons in. if you were in a cafe watching a friend of yours putting 10 teaspoons of sugar in their drink, you would be horrified. this is not just another product. these products are making people sick, they're making our kids sick, i think we have a responsibility to act. the cigarette tax is a great model and that's we should be moving. i knee gleked to thank a few peek. people. i want to agree with supervisor mar in thanking all our legislative aids. i also want to thank, as i did

in committee, carol at the city attorney's office who has been an absolute phenomenal resource in putting together this very well crafted measure. >> supervisor tank. >> thank you. a lot of the comments i wanted to make have been said. i have struggled very much with making a decision on this measure. i have heard from my of my constituents who i respect a lot, who support this. and at tend of the day, i think that for me, i also do know that this will make it on to the ballot measure, but i am not comfortable with putting my name and associating myself with this measure, for many of the same arguments that were alluded to earlier. i know a lot as been said, this education alone is not enough and i absolutely agree. i think that i probably would have felt more comfortable if this were not a localized tax, only in san francisco. if it was statewide or nationwide effort. i know this is a start of

something and it's by all means not the end and we hope as a city in san francisco we can set an example for everyone and we can be a leader. i see that and agree with that. at the same time, what ask going to stop someone from going across the way to dayly city to costco, stocking up on sugary beverages in another area not in san francisco? i do see those impacts, those are real and those are things that will happen. i don't disagree with the fact that sugar is something that is incredibly detrimental to our health, our lives. diabetes is something that's very -- hits close to home. i watched my grandmother inject herself with inside lun everyday for about a decade and she never drank soda. i mean, i know there are many, many, many impacts, negative impacts that sugar has on our health, along with other things we also do consume as well. i do appreciate everyone who's put so much effort into this. i don't dispute any of the

information that's been provided to us from health organizations, from different research yun verities, whatever it is. i don't dispute any of that information. i just also don't agree with the means that we are going about this. i do hope that as we have all unanimously supported measures that are supporting funding to our school districts to support families and children, i hope we'll focus a lot of our attention on education efforts, prevent measures and providing alternatives. those are important things i'd like to spend time on versus trying to put a tax on a food item for people. so with that said, again, i do want to respect the sponsors of this legislation, everyone who's worked really hard. i spoke with a lot of parents from district 4 who went out to do a lot of outreach to our merchant corridors to make sure we're educating people about

the impacts of sugar and what this measure would do and not do. i would have to respectfully disagree with the means we're going about this, but by all means, interested to see how voters will decide on this in november. >> thank you. supervisor campos. >> thank you. i'll be very brief, but i want to thank all my colleagues for their words and clearly this is a very important issue and there's a lot of passion here. i will simply say that i think every -- i don't know that any of the points that i have heard are disib general would you say. i think everyone here is genuinely trying to address a very complicated issue and i speak as someone who is supporting this measure. i think that many of the points that have been raised against it are very valid points and ultimately i'm supporting this measure because i believe that

in a close call with something like this, i'm going to air on the side of giving voters the choice and that's why i'm supporting this, you know, to give voters the opportunity to decide for themselves what the right approach is. and i do think that -- for me, the fact is unless we do something different, unless things change, the health issues we're identifying that supervisor mar and others talked about, are only going to continue and get worse. that said, i do think that there are legitimate concerns about this measure. it is a regressive tax, it is a regressive tax to say to the pop haitian that has been targeted by these companies, that you're the ones that are going to bear the brunt of how to pay for the funding of education and other things. that's an issue for me.

that said, i still don't know what the right proper, you know, non regressive way of funding something is and i'm open to that. i also think that there is something big brother about this and i have concerns about that. but again, it's -- i think in a close call like this, i'm going to air on the side of giving voters the choice, and that's by supporting this and i do think that one of the benefits of this measure is that it will spark conversation that, by the way, is not taking place and not taking place in the very communities we're worried about. i know in the immigrant community we're not talking enough about this disproportionate height rates of diabetes so my hope is one benefit of this measure is there'll be more discussion. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> i want first i didn't get to clarify some of the points i

wanted to make. again, i want to reiterate that i appreciate the commitment and intent of the supporters of this ballot measure. i just want to bring up examples of other ways besides education that i think we can reduce the consumption of unhealthy food items. i'm a huge supporter of our healthy corner store campaign, something erik mar initiated with supervisor cohen. i think that's great of looking at ways to convert lick kwor stores to be corner store. reducing their sales and of tobacco and alcohol and more to produce. that's incentivizing small business owners to change their owner. food gardens, we have an amazing food garden, they give out 400 pounds of food a month

for free, residents of tenderloin all fresh and healthy vegetables. it's been great. i get that diabetes has a

higher impact on low income residents and i think i have a lot of feelings and thoughts about that. i think labeling is important. i think what then mayor bloomberg i think those are all things that we can look at. we certainly did this with cell phone antennas or attempted to several years ago. we attempted to label and education consumers about the potential usage of cell phones. i don't want this vote to be viewed as not thinking this this is an important issue on an epidemic. again, i just want to reemphasize that i just question whether this is the medium. if this is a question of whether this will go to the vote and, you know, we were the sixth vote or another thing, i think that we'd want the conversation to move forward to the voters. i think this conversation has been super interesting and i've learned a lot even have to

debate with so many folks on this issue, but there are the votes necessary to bring it to the voters and i think that this issue is different from so many others that we bring with unanimous support and that's, again, why i'll be picking a decenting vote, but this doesn't go against, i think the work of the advocates and our sponsors, even supervisor wiener was emailing me late last night with more information and research. i really appreciate that. i read through much of that and want to make sure that we are having the right conversation and moving forward. >> president chiu. >> thank you mr. chair. first of all, i want to eks press my strong support with the support of this measure.

ing soda licenses in our neighborhoods. at the end of the day though for me, it's about facts. i know there's been some suggestions about what causes diabetes and obesity and the fact that one out of two kids today is going to get type two diabetes. we've seen a 300% increase in adolescent obesity over the last three decades. wut one out of three of our kids are obese. if you're wondering why this is caused we know plenty of folks

who have it what didn't physicians here in this chamber, we have the san francisco medical society, we have hospitals, we have healthcare experts who have told us repeatedly they know these empty sugars are kling our kids. at the end of the day i think we have to set an example and i appreciate the idea if we could do this nationally, at the state level, if we didn't have to be the only jurisdiction leading on that issue, i would agree with that. but at the end of the day congress has not acting, the state legislature has not acted and san francisco sets examples. people wanted to do it nationally, people wanted to do it at the state level it wasn't about to happen. before the idea of living wage or environmental protections we set a standard so i think we're going into new territory. we are starting and incredible conversation about how we ensure that the next generation of our kids does not have to go

through what diabetes patients today have to go through, but i think we have an responsibility to try new things and fight the fight and see where this goes, but to ensure that we are steeped on our side with the facts and science and i think that is important for us to remember as well. again, i want to thank the coalition that's come together, i want to thank supervisors mar, wiener, cohen and avalos for your leadership and look forward to encaging in this conversation in the coming months. >> thank you. . supervisor breed. >> thank you. i have said from the very beginning i had serious concerns about this ballot measure. you specifically voted to support this measure in committee and i supported moving it to the full board for decision. at the time i made it clear i didn't support it and today unfortunately i won't be supporting it because i don't want my name