Everyone's favorite nanny state is back at it making international headlines, as there's a bill before the California legislature that would ban products containing Red No. 3, a.k.a erythrosine, which is used in making everything from marshmallow Peeps to cocktail cherries.

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel [D-San Fernando Valley] is the author of the bill, and as the Associated Press reports, Gabriel's proposed bill suggests banning a group of cancer-causing chemicals that are already banned in Europe, and effectively forcing candy makers to adjust and use different ingredients. But pegged to Easter weekend, it sounds like a story about banning Peeps, and that is turning heads.

In addition to Red Dye No. 3 — which federal regulators banned from use in makeup, but not food, over 30 years ago — the bill would also ban titanium dioxide, which is used to make Skittles and Hot Tamales, and two other additives used in packaged baked goods, potassium bromate and propylparaben, and brominated vegetable oil, which is used in some sodas.

Gabriel says he doesn't want to ban the companies or the products themselves, just these specific, potentially dangerous chemicals.

"They still produce Skittles in other parts of the world. What they do is they take out these toxic ingredients, and they replace them with something else," Gabriel said to the AP. "What we really want is for these companies to make the same minor modifications to their recipes that they made in Europe and elsewhere."

The candy lobby is of course pushing back and saying it's all more complicated than that and it could be cost-prohibitive for small, regional candymakers, etc.

But this is just another example of where California can, and probably should, push the private sector and the federal government to action by threatening them with the loss of an enormous market, which is our state.

The playbook has already been used to force carmakers into lowering emissions across the spectrum of vehicles, and to push more of the country toward adopting electrical vehicles sooner.

As the AP notes, "Consumer safety groups have tried for years to get the [FDA] to ban [Red No. 3] in food to no avail," and "Researchers have since linked the chemical to other health problems besides cancer, including hyperactivity and other neurobiological behaviors in some children."

So, sensational headline aside, we should probably not be eating so many Peeps until this bill passes.

Top image: Cupcakes topped off with Just Born Quality Confections' Peeps in a supermarket in New York on April 3, 2007. 93 year old family owned Just Born Quality Confections has just launched its first digital marketing campaign targeting millennial mothers. The company is hoping for a 10% boost in sales over their usual low single digit growth. (Photo by Richard Levine/Corbis via Getty Images)

Much like the United Kingdom — which, in a bid for zero-emissions, hopes to outlaw the purchase of gas-powered cars by 2030 — Berkeley could ax the selling of cars powered by gasoline, diesel, and natural gas as soon as 2027.

Automobiles account for nearly one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide (and other global-warming gases) for every gallon of gas burned. In California specifically, transportation is the leading source of greenhouse gas pollution in the state — accounting for about 40% of the state's emissions. To curb climate change and help drive down the states’ greenhouse gas emissions, Berkeley’s city council is set to meet next Tuesday to push for a feasibility study that would dive into the reality of a proposed ordinance that aims to "achieve an 80% phase-out of gasoline, diesel and natural gas passenger vehicles" by 2027.

The proposal would also include the end of traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles in the city.

"I am proud to serve as Mayor of a city long been known for being on the frontlines of the fight against climate change," Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin tweeted Tuesday afternoon in support of the proposal. In September Arreguin, released his decades-long plan looking forward to how Berkeley will continue to address climate change, adding "the pandemic has shown that we need to adapt to the new normal of how we use transportation, broadband, and open spaces."

However, the proposed ordinance would not apply to semi-trucks and other utility vehicles; the rule would also only affect cars "worth over $28,000 by 2025, over $23,000 by 2026 and all vehicles by 2027"; the mandate would also see Berkeley move to convert all it’s current fleet vehicles to either electric or hydrogen fuel-celled powered ones.

Though the ordinance is recommended by Berkeley's Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment, and Sustainability Policy committees, it has been met with some criticism.

The Chronicle was quick to note that an operations manager of the Berkeley-based display car service Buggy Bank LLC said it's not "feasible to think that you can actually end [the use of oil and gas]." Arreguin, himself, even added in his conversation with the newspaper that accomplishing these goals by 2027 might not be a “realistic timeline.”

Currently, there's no set time when Berkeley's council will vote on an ordinance to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles, and it's unclear when the aforementioned feasibility study will be done.

The stated Berkeley directive is a good seven years ahead of California's goal of banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035 — per an executive order signed by Gavin Newsom in September.

Related: California to Ban Sale of Gas-Only Cars By 2035... If We All Make It That Long

Image: Courtesy of Getty Images via Ivan-balvan

The Chronicle's Peter Hartlaub thinks that might be a good idea, at least for a couple of years. In the wake of yesterday's vomit-laced, booze-tinged Bay to Breakers fete, Hartlaub (smartly) suggests, among other things, to give San Francisco's annual race a much-needed rest.

In part, he writes:

From what I witnessed, the scene at the Panhandle has become too large and chaotic to practically enforce the law. Just clearing the crowds off Fell Street and into the park led to palpable tension with the police. Trying to force the issue in the Panhandle would lead to rancor, and at best would push the revelers back out, causing more problems in the neighborhoods.

The Bay to Breakers has become a gangrenous limb of a footrace. So take two years off — insert your own amputation line here — then try to bring the race back in 2017 with a strong campaign promising arrests of anyone drinking in any park along the racecourse. Actually follow up on that promise. Start the race at the crack of dawn, set up bands in the park (Sharon Meadow or maybe Kezar Stadium?) and hope people behave...

Meanwhile, KRON 4′s Stanley Roberts was at Bay to Breakers and caught some participants behaving badly…

Previously: Scenes From Bay to Breakers 2014

And now, your daily Google Glass post: a pet store in the Fillmore has officially banned Google Glass. And they want you to know all about it. The Animal House posted this sign (snapped by @clowntraps) warning customers to remove their Glass before entering the premises.

So there you have it.

Last week, if you recall, SoMa bar The Willows barred Google's fun head gadget from the venue. And as for Molotov's? Don't even think about it.

[h/t: Uptown Almanac]

While the thought of forcing the mixologist community to wear prostate-exam gloves gives one a hardy chuckle rimmed with a touch of bitter schadenfreude, California's AB 1252 has gone too far. At least when it comes to bartenders.

The law, for those unaware, bars hand contact with prepared food in restaurants and bars. This, of course, is insanity. In addition to being costly and impractical, it reverts our relationship with food to a clinical one. Inside Scoop has a slew of (rightly) concerned bartenders who've signed a petition and made thoughtful comments. You should sign it too.

But what about chefs? SFist asked chef Josh Oakley (Tango & Stache) for this input as to why clinical gloves and seasonal fare don't mix. "It's bad for the environment, for starters," he explains, adding, "It's actually less healthy.When gloves are on they can trap bacteria beneath them, especially when you can't wash and quickly put on a new pair."

Again, take a look at the petition and, should the mood strike, sign it.

[Inside Scoop]

If you were totally unaware of the fact that incandescent light bulbs are becoming illegal in the U.S. as of January 1, you're not alone. A recent survey showed that only 4 in 10 people were aware of the ban, meaning that they're the only ones currently stocking up on the warm-glowing, old-fashioned bulbs, in anticipation of their complete disappearance.

Per the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 75-watt and 100-watt incandescent bulbs were already phased out of production this past year due to their energy inefficiency, which is why you haven't been able to find any on store shelves. On January 1, 2014, the same will happen for 40- and 60-watt bulbs, which are the most popular, and they're meant to be replaced by more expensive LEDs, or by the less pleasantly colored compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which are the most readily available now at your neighborhood grocery store or pharmacy.

LEDs are getting cheaper and more sophisticated, and certainly last longer than standard incandescents (see this documentary for a history of how the lightbulb was one of the first technologies designed with planned obsolescence in mind, in order to make us buy more of them), but a lot of us are still attached to the specific warmth and appearance of incandescent bulbs, regardless of their energy wastage. There's good news there though: At least one American manufacturer, Newcandescent, is capitalizing on a loophole in the law that doesn't ban what are called "rough service" bulbs, originally designed for subways and high vibration industrial situations. They're selling rough service bulbs for residential use in wattages from 25 on up to 300.

The owner of Newcandescent will have you believe that CFLs are actually bad for your health, and somewhere out there are studies that say they trigger migraines.

What of those fancy 30-watt Edison bulbs that are so popular in trendy restaurants nationwide? Those don't appear to be the target of the ban, and are readily available from specialty vendors like this one, and Newcandscent makes a clear, round version as well.

And just to get back to this planned obsolescence angle, there's a lightbulb in a Livermore firehouse that holds the Guinness record for the longest burning bulb in the world. It hasn't burned out now in 112 years, after being first switched on in 1901. No one really understands how or why, except that it must have been made with a really strong vacuum inside, and there's a live cam fixed on it that fans watch a grainy image of on the web. It was once a 60-watt bulb but now burns at about 4 watts. If only they were all made like that.

[Grist]
[The Blaze]
[SFGate]

A city commission is mulling a new law that would ban letting butterflies free that might cause harm to wild butterflies.

Just to be clear, it's a ban on the release of commercially bred butterflies for ceremonial purposes, which, drawing on Native American tradition, has become a thing people do at weddings and other events.

As the Ex reports, a group of local butterfly enthusiasts is calling on the Commission on the Environment to issue a ban on these butterflies, which turn out to be kind of a big business. Butterfly breeders like this one sell and ship live, adult butterflies for $10 apiece.

Local lepidopterist and butterfly rights advocate Liam O'Brien gives a particularly dramatic statement in favor of the ban. "They are not creatures to be owned. They are not party favors for the human circus. We all know the exultation of a butterfly release. But it’s really a hellacious relationship to nature."

He and others argue that "commercial breeding harms wild butterflies with the threat of disease and genetic weakness, and it interferes with scientific studies." And he's had a thorn in his craw on this subject ever since he was forced to watch the release of 500 monarch butterflies to celebrate the reopening of the Academy of Sciences back in 2008.

S.F. is of course fond of such bans, but it would need to go through the Board of Supervisors before being approved. But we'll let you know how this all turns out, and whether it impacts that butterfly habitat at 38 Dolores.

[Examiner]
[CBS 5]

The National Rifle Association is officially not gonna take it anymore when it comes to San Francisco's tyrannical anti-gun agenda. Now, they've taken it upon themselves to sue the city of San Francisco, saying that it's violating citizens' constitutional right to possess arms with a new ordinance that bans the possession of high-capacity gun magazines. The law, which was signed by Mayor Ed Lee on Nov. 8 and goes into effect Dec. 8, prohibits gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The suit is brought on behalf of a group of retired police officers and four San Francisco residents and is sponsored by the NRA, who is just trying to look out for everyone's safety, of course. Per the suit: "Limiting magazine capacity for law-abiding citizens to 10 rounds decreases public safety by giving violent criminals an advantage and thus decreasing the likelihood that a victim will survive a criminal attack."

The magazines in question give machine guns, semi-automatic rifles and some semi-automatic handguns rapid-firing capacity without having to stop and reload. It's unclear just what situation would require more than 10 rounds to be fired, unless in the case of really bad aim (or perhaps a blind gun owner). The suit relies on a 2008 Supreme Court decision stating that law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to possess handguns, and specifically on Justice Antonin Scalia's comment that the government can outlaw "dangerous and unusual weapons." The suit contends the high-capacity magazines can't be considered "unusual," as they are widely sold across the country.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated that his office would aggressively defend the legislation. "I have faith that the federal judiciary will agree that San Francisco’s gun laws protect public safety in a manner that’s both reasonable and constitutional. San Francisco has been one of the NRA’s top targets for years, and I’m proud of the success we’ve made to protect our sensible gun safety laws.”

[SFGate]
[SF Appeal]

This is why we can't have nice things kegs. A year after Fourth of July festivities left Fort Mason's Great Meadow littered with empty 12-packs, glass bottles, and all manner of summer holiday jetsam, park officials have officially banned glass bottles and kegs from the area.

A National Park Service spokesperson cited the mounds of trash left behind last year for the reason, and said that there will be even more trash and recycle bins this to avoid a repeat problem. If you'll recall, last year's cleanup crew had to content with everything from raw meat, three abandoned barbecues, a couch, and terrifying mountains of trash. It was truly a disgusting display of human apathy.

No word on whether actual kegs were left behind at the scene, but we can only assume the ban has something to do with avoiding the blackout drunkenness that makes conscientious recycling a distinct challenge.

Although park officials note that barbecue grills and charcoal have never been allowed on the green, this reporter was on the scene last year and can confirm that the dozens of grills were only outnumbered by the cornhole sets, which made it difficult to navigate without being struck by a wayward bean bag. In light of this, it remains unclear how compliant tomorrow's revelers will be to the new rules.

And now, allow us a short PSA: If you're planning on spending Independence Day drinking and carousing with friends, more power to you. But don't be that dick who leaves mountains of trash behind (or even a few bottles -- still dickish!). Be prepared for that moment when most of your inebriated group has stumbled home and you're left holding the garbage bag. Our advice? Pack some Hefty bags before you get going to make cleanup easier, and gift each departing friend with a bag of trash or box full of empties to dispose of on their way out. A polite but firm, "Don't be a dick, bro" should do the trick.

Previously: Marina Garbage Trashes Fort Mason...Again

[SF Appeal]

The state ban on the possession or sale of shark fins took full effect on July 1, and Chinatown restaurants are none too happy about it. The law, which began to take effect in January, stipulated that shark fins that had been previously obtained by importers could be sold off until the end of June, but that restaurants are not allowed to buy it.

However, confusion around the law has some Chinatown restaurants still selling shark fin soup, which can go for as much as $40 a bowl.

A lawsuit filed a year ago by the San Francisco Chinatown Neighborhood Association and the Burlingame-based Asian Americans for Political Advancement states that outlawing shark fins is discriminatory against Chinese-Americans and points out that shark's fin soup is a ceremonial centerpiece to many meals and celebrations. The group's lawyer has said that one of their arguments concerns the legal status of sharks caught in federal or international waters. Oral arguments on the appeal will be heard on August 14.

Assemblymen Paul Fong, who co-authored the bill with Jared Huffman, said in a statement that the the shark fin industry poses a direct threat to the health of the ocean. “The high value of the fins and the low value of the rest of the shark drive this brutal practice of finning, where sharks are finned and thrown back into the ocean to slowly bleed out and die.”

Previously: All SFist shark fin coverage.

[SF Appeal]
[KQED]

DOMA declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in a 5-4 ruling. The court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act "is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the 5th amendment." And SCOTUSblog Tweeted, "The federal government cannot disparage marriages recognized by the states, says the Court."

Here's the PDF of the Supreme Court's ruling; the Washington Post notes, "Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, wrote the opinion." He wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity... DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote one of three dissents, "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."

Prop 8 ruling to come. (Or not.)

UPDATE: Gay marriage now legal in the state of California.

Sure, people were using the parklet outside Martin Macks gastropub on Haight Street. But not the right kind of people, darling. The Department of Public Works issued the order last week for one unlucky parklet in the Upper Haight.

Perturbed neighbors, it seems, have lodged complaints against the parklet. Such alleged violations as "homeless people" and "illegal behavior" (prostitution? drugs? insider trading?) haver prompted the city to shutter its first parklet.

SF Examiner has more:

Vivian Walsh, owner of Martin Macks, said he was not aware of the order and could not comment on the next steps. He said he likes the idea of parklets, but thinks the rules surrounding them could be made clearer.

"We were never given any guidelines or requirements," Walsh said. "For us to comply, you can't smoke in the bar so we have to send people outside, then we go outside and tell them they can't smoke in the park either."

A commenter provides further harrowing details, noting, "I have see people pissing and shitting in this brick and mortar shit house when I have walked by at night. This is a great idea but if no one takes care of it then it's just another place for street people to do whatever they want." Gross.

The parklet behaving badly, however, could be the result of the former management. The bar's new manager, SF Examiner goes on to point out, has have planted flowers in the existing planter boxes and removed the overhead trestle. The business can reapply for parkletship if it wants to retain the mini park.

San Francisco's parklets, we should point out, have been an astounding success for both the City and its residents. In addition to providing a place to rest, creating safer pedestrian environments and encouraging non-motorized transportation, they're downright adorable.

[SF Ex]

With 60% in favor, the Boy Scouts of America voted on Thursday to allow openly gay youth in the Scouts. The 22-year-old ban was based on a quote from the organization's oath, which states, "On my honor I will do my best….to keep myself physically strong, mentally alert and morally straight."

While this is a coup for LGBT youths interested in scouting, it's not an overall win for LGBT rights. The Scouts also voted to continue their ban on gay and bisexual leaders.

"The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue," the scouts said in a statement released after the vote. "While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting. Going forward, our Scouting family will continue to focus on reaching and serving youth in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens."

Reporting on the results, USA Today notes that the Scouts are predominately a faith based organization.

About 70% of all Scout troops are run by faith-based organizations, according to the Boy Scouts of America. About 37% are Mormon, 10% Methodist and 8% Catholic.

The issue has long been contentious. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Scouts could legally bar homosexuals from being troop leaders. The case centered on a gay Scout leader in New Jersey, James Dale, who was dismissed in 1990.

A similar case involving a gay Scout, Tim Curran, made it to the California Supreme. Curran a took a male date to his senior prom. The Mount Diablo Boy Scout Council then barred him from scouting activities and he sued. The California court ruled for the Scouts in 1998.

The proposal, which will go into effect on January 2014, was voted by more than 1,400 members of the organization's national council at a meeting in Grapevine, Texas. Following today's news, the crafty kids at The Onion published a bit featuring Max Lovell, 12, a fictional gay Buy Scout, who says, "This is great. I get made fun of every day for being gay, but now I’ll be called a dork, too."

All previous coverage on the Boy Scouts.

[AP]
[USA Today]
[Onion]

On Friday, officials of the Boy Scouts of America proposed a resolution that would allow openly-gay youth members of the organization with the statement that “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” The resolution would continue to bar gay scout leaders, whose inclusion the BSA estimated could cause defections costing the organization 100,000 to 350,000 members.

The Boy Scouts have been considering a possible change of policy that would lift the ban on openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders, but the organization had delayed a decision on the issue until May, citing "the complexity of this issue". Now, the organization has announced that the new proposal permitting openly gay youth members will be submitted to the 1,400 voting members of its National Council at a meeting in late May.

The resolution comes after the BSA sent out a comprehensive survey to its million members. ABC News reports that respondents supported the BSA's current policy of excluding gays by a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, with younger parents and teens opposing the policy. But the BSA states that "while perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting."

Previously:
Carly-Rae Jepsen And Train Ditch Boy Scout Jamboree Headlining Gig Due To Anti-Gay Policy
Under Conservative Pressure, Boy Scouts Delay Decision on Allowing Gay Members

Boy Scouts Possibly Doing An About-Face On Gay Ban

[NYTimes]
[ABC News]
[Washington Post]