Elizabeth R. Berman BS, and Rachel K. Johnson PhD, MPH, RD –
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.
Source: Water Feed
Infrastructure Access Determines Hydration Choices
The University of Vermont study (Berman and Johnson, 2015) provided a natural experiment rarely available in public health research: a policy-mandated removal of a beverage category across an entire campus distribution network. Bottled water sales dropped to zero while sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) and sugar-free beverage shipments increased by statistically significant margins. The intended environmental benefit was not achieved because consumers simply switched container types.
The findings align with established behavioral economics research on substitution effects in food environments. When a preferred, neutral-calorie option is unavailable, consumers do not typically reduce total consumption — they substitute. A 2020 analysis in JAMA Network Open found each additional daily serving of SSBs associated with a 4.7% increase in all-cause mortality risk over 34 years of follow-up.
The policy implication extends beyond campus settings. Hospitals, correctional facilities, corporate campuses, and manufacturing plants face similar infrastructure decisions. Wherever bottled water is removed without installing adequate point-of-use purified water infrastructure, the behavioral response pattern documented at UVM is likely to repeat. The correct sequence is: install reliable purified water access first, then reduce single-use plastic dependence.
AMPAC USA point-of-use and point-of-entry reverse osmosis systems provide the infrastructure replacement that makes water-bottle bans effective rather than counterproductive. Institutional RO systems producing 1,500 to 50,000+ GPD of purified water can feed hydration stations, fountain upgrades, and kitchen or cafeteria supply lines throughout a facility. With TDS reduction exceeding 95% and NSF/ANSI 58 certification, they deliver consistent, palatable water that competes favorably with bottled alternatives on taste.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did removing bottled water from a university campus increase sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?
When bottled water was removed, consumers substituted with available alternatives rather than reducing total beverage consumption. Both sugar-free and sugar-sweetened beverages increased significantly in per-capita shipments. This demonstrates a classic substitution effect: without a convenient, palatable water option, people choose the next accessible beverage, which is typically higher in calories or artificial ingredients.
What is the healthiest beverage to replace bottled water access in institutions?
Purified tap water delivered via point-of-use reverse osmosis systems is the optimal replacement for bottled water in institutional settings. RO-treated water removes chlorine taste, disinfection byproducts, heavy metals, and dissolved solids, producing water that performs comparably to premium bottled brands in taste tests while eliminating plastic waste entirely.
How does water infrastructure affect institutional health outcomes?
Research consistently shows that water availability — measured by proximity, palatability, and convenience — is a stronger predictor of water intake than health education alone. Institutions that invest in upgraded water infrastructure (filtered fountains, hydration stations, RO-fed kitchen supply) see measurable reductions in SSB consumption among occupants.
What flow capacity does an institutional water purification system need for a university or large campus?
Campus-scale deployments typically require central RO systems producing 10,000-100,000 GPD, distributed through building sub-loops or dedicated drinking water lines. AMPAC USA engineers multi-stage systems with permeate storage tanks, repressurization pumps, and UV disinfection post-treatment. Smaller buildings can be served by 1,500-5,000 GPD skid-mounted units feeding local hydration stations.
How does a bottled water ban affect plastic waste outcomes?
The UVM study found that removing bottled water did not reduce plastic entering the campus waste stream because consumers switched to other bottled beverages. True plastic reduction requires replacing the consumption occasion with an alternative that eliminates the bottle entirely. Reusable bottle programs paired with quality filtered water stations have demonstrated 40-70% reductions in single-use plastic in institutional settings.
Are there NSF-certified water purification systems suitable for university food service operations?
Yes. NSF/ANSI 58 certifies reverse osmosis systems for health effects reduction, and NSF/ANSI 42 certifies aesthetic reduction (taste/odor/chlorine). AMPAC USA commercial RO systems carry NSF/ANSI 58 certification and are FDA-compliant for food service applications, suitable for integration with cafeteria lines, beverage dispensing equipment, and ice machines.
What is the cost comparison between institutional RO systems and ongoing bottled water purchases?
Bottled water program costs including logistics, storage, and disposal are significantly higher per liter than point-of-use RO systems produce once installed. Payback periods are typically under 18 months for institutions previously relying on bottled water delivery. AMPAC USA provides lifecycle cost analyses comparing current bottled water expenditure against installed system costs.
AMPAC USA engineers custom water purification systems for commercial, industrial, and emergency applications — from 500 GPD to multi-million GPD. Trusted by municipalities, military, and industry worldwide.
![Reverse Osmosis Membrane Lifespan: How Long Do RO Membranes Last? [Maintenance Guide]](https://www.ampac1.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/membrane-lifespan-150x150.png)
