Are Students Paid to Market Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Peers? A Review of University Pouring Rights Contracts

Student Opposition to University Pouring Rights Contracts

Introduction

The majority of large public universities have exclusive pouring rights contracts with beverage companies that produce and market sugar-sweetened beverages. Pouring rights contracts contain provisions that conflict with recommendations from major public health organizations that institutions reduce sugar-sweetened beverage availability, marketing, and consumption. This study assessed the following among students at 3 public universities: student perception of pouring rights contracts (the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts), the association between student socioeconomic characteristics and perception of pouring rights contracts, student estimates of pouring rights contract revenue, and the association between student pouring rights contract revenue estimates and perception of pouring rights contracts. To contextualize results, actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues was estimated.

Methods

A cross-sectional exploratory study was conducted among a convenience sample of 1,311 undergraduate sugar-sweetened beverages-consuming students recruited from 3 large and diverse public universities in Northern California. On an online questionnaire, undergraduate students indicated the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts on a 10-point scale (oppose=1-5, favor=6-10) and provided a numeric estimate of the percentage of total university revenue they thought their university's pouring rights contract generated. Regression models were used to analyze differences in perception of pouring rights contracts by student socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of university revenues generated by pouring rights contracts. In addition, pouring rights contracts and financial reports were obtained from the 3 universities to estimate actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues. Survey data were collected between August and November 2018 and analyzed in August 2022.

Results

A large majority of students (81%) opposed pouring rights contracts, and the opposition did not significantly differ by student socioeconomic characteristics, including by levels of food security, need-based financial aid, participation in federal food assistance or healthcare programs, parental education, or parental income (all ps>0.14). The median student estimate for pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total university revenue was 10%. In contrast, the estimated actual annual revenue generated from the pouring rights contracts ranged from 0.01% to 0.04% at these schools. Revenue estimates were not significantly associated with participants' opposition or favoring of pouring rights contracts (p=0.65).

Conclusions

A large majority of students opposed pouring rights contracts, and this opposition was similar regardless of student socioeconomic characteristics or student estimates of pouring rights contract revenues. Students markedly overestimated (by >100-1,000-fold) the percentage of university revenue that came from pouring rights contracts. University administration should consider student views on pouring rights contracts when deciding whether to exit or continue with pouring rights contracts.

What's to Eat and Drink on Campus? Public and Planetary Health, Public Higher Education, and the Public Good

Public higher education institutions (PHEIs) have a unique and important role in responding to the public and planetary health crisis-they are centers of research on public and planetary health and of learning for young people, and have a public good mission. Yet, PHEI campus food environments are predominantly unhealthy and environmentally unsustainable, and associated with unhealthy food choices and unhealthy students. PHEIs are addressing high levels of student food insecurity (FI) that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable groups. Yet, because student FI is measured as individual access to adequate quantities of food, campus responses to FI often overlook unhealthy food environments. These environments result from neoliberal PHEI business policies that prioritize short-term revenue and encourage superfluous consumption, and unhealthy, environmentally harmful diets. PHEIs need to move beyond neoliberalism to honor their public good mission, including prioritizing health, the environment, and equity, in decisions about food on campus. My goal in this perspective is to encourage inclusive campus discussion about why this change is required to adequately respond to the crisis of student, public, and planetary health, and about how to begin.