skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Who’d a-thunk it? Unintended consequences from a bottled water ban on a college campus?
From Mark Perry.
"Here’s the abstract of the research article “The Unintended Consequences of Changes in Beverage Options and the Removal of Bottled Water on a University Campus,” which was just published in the July 2015 issue of the American Journal of Public Health (emphasis added):
Objectives.
We investigated how the removal of bottled water along with a minimum
healthy beverage requirement affected the purchasing behavior,
healthiness of beverage choices, and consumption of calories and added
sugars of university campus consumers.
Methods. With
shipment data as a proxy, we estimated bottled beverage consumption over
3 consecutive semesters: baseline (spring 2012), when a 30% healthy
beverage ratio was enacted (fall 2012), and when bottled water was
removed (spring 2013) at the University of Vermont. We assessed changes
in number and type of beverages and per capita calories, total sugars,
and added sugars shipped.
Results. Per capita
shipments of bottles, calories, sugars, and added sugars increased
significantly when bottled water was removed. Shipments of healthy
beverages declined significantly, whereas shipments of less healthy
beverages increased significantly. As bottled water sales dropped to zero, sales of sugar-free beverages and sugar-sweetened beverages increased.
Conclusions. The
bottled water ban did not reduce the number of bottles entering the
waste stream from the university campus, the ultimate goal of the ban.
With the removal of bottled water, consumers increased their consumption
of less healthy bottled beverages.
And here is part of the paper’s conclusion:
The
number of bottles per capita shipped to the university campus did not
change significantly between spring 2012 (baseline) and fall 2012, when
the minimum healthy beverage requirement was put in place. However,
between fall 2012 and spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the
per capita number of bottles shipped to campus increased significantly.
Thus, the bottled water ban did not reduce the number of bottles
entering the waste stream from the university campus, which was the
ultimate goal of the ban. Furthermore, with the removal of bottled
water, people in the university community increased their consumption of
other, less healthy bottled beverages.
The significant
decrease in the percentage of beverages shipped to campus that received a
green (healthy) NEMS-V rating and the significant increase in beverages
receiving a red (unhealthy) NEMS-V rating when bottled water was
removed in spring 2013 as well as the increase in calories per bottle
suggest that consumers not only continued to buy bottled beverages but
also made less healthy beverage choices after the ban was in place.
The
comparison of the percentage of bottles shipped by beverage category
helps to explain the changes in NEMS-V grades. As the shipments of water
decreased to zero, most of the beverage categories remained relatively
constant as a percentage of total shipments. However, the percentage of
sugar-free beverages and SSBs increased, closely matching the decrease
in water. This, paired with the finding that overall shipments increased
each semester, suggests that many consumers who previously drank
bottled water replaced bottled water with sugar-free or sugar-sweetened
bottled beverages.
Ideally, when bottled water was removed, those
who previously purchased bottled water would have adjusted their
behavior and started carrying reusable water bottles. The university
made several efforts to encourage consumers to carry reusable beverage
containers. Sixty-eight water fountains on campus were retrofitted with
spouts to fill reusable bottles, educational campaigns were used to
inform consumers about the changes in policy, and free reusable bottles
and stickers promoting the use of reusable bottles were given out at
campus events. Although these efforts may have influenced some
consumers, the ban does not appear to have achieved its goal of
decreasing the number of plastic bottles entering the waste stream from
the university campus.
Because it appears that many
bottled water consumers instead decided to purchase other bottled
beverages, the best result, nutritionally, would have been for them to
select calorie- and sugar-free options, such as seltzer, unsweetened
tea, or diet soda. However, the data suggest that some consumers
increased their consumption of calorically sweetened drinks, such as
soda and sports drinks, which could add to their liquid calorie and
added sugars consumption, thus increasing the risk of weight gain.
MP:
Wow, nothing worked out as expected by the college administrators at
the University of Vermont: a) the per capita number of bottles shipped
to the University of Vermont increased significantly following the bottled water ban, and b) students, faculty and staff increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages following the bottled water ban. Another great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
And the bottled water ban was not costless – the university paid to
modify 68 drinking fountains, they paid for a publicity campaign, and
they paid for lots of “free” reusable water bottles; and what they got
was more plastic bottles on campus of less healthy beverages!"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.