The U.S. appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the city’s ordinance requiring health warnings on display advertisements for sugar-sweetened drinks is a violation of the Constitution’s freedom of speech protections. A lawyer for the Washington Legal Foundation told the San Francisco Chronicle that the ruling, by recognizing “the right not to speak,” puts a cloud over government efforts to require labeling of foods made with GMO ingredients.
A federal law requiring nationwide GMO labeling is due to take effect next summer. The law, a compromise between anti-GMO groups and the farm and food industries, has not been challenged in court. The Washington Legal Foundation, which sided with the beverage industry in the San Francisco case, says it defends free enterprise and favors limited government. WLF lawyer Richard Stamp told the Chronicle, “When the government wants to speak, it should do so itself … and not compel other people to speak.”
The San Francisco ordinance, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2015, never took effect because of legal challenges. It says 20 percent of an ad must be devoted to a warning that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages “contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.” The appeals court said the wording was inaccurate and that adding the qualifier “over-consumption” would have been more appropriate. Although the U.S. Supreme Court allows the regulation of advertising, government bodies cannot require businesses “to provide one-sided or misleading messages,” said the ruling by the three-judge panel. Two of the judges indicated the health warning took up too much space. City officials said they were considering their options, including asking for a rehearing before the full court.