Did the University of Vermont's bottled water ban successfully reduce plastic waste?

No, the bottled water ban at the University of Vermont did not reduce the number of bottles entering the waste stream from the campus. Consumers simply substituted bottled water with other bottled beverages, such as sugar-sweetened and sugar-free options, negating the intended environmental benefit.

What types of beverages did university consumers choose after bottled water was removed?

Following the removal of bottled water, university consumers significantly increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages. Specifically, sales of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and sugar-free beverages saw a statistically significant rise, indicating a shift towards less healthy alternatives.

How did the removal of bottled water impact the healthiness of beverage choices on campus?

The removal of bottled water significantly decreased the healthiness of beverage choices on campus, leading to higher per capita calorie and added sugar intake. The study observed a decline in healthy beverage shipments and a corresponding increase in less healthy options, demonstrating how water access policies directly influence public health outcomes.

What is a practical solution for universities to reduce plastic waste while ensuring access to healthy hydration?

Universities can effectively reduce plastic waste and promote health by investing in robust, free-access water infrastructure. AMPAC USA, with 30+ years of experience, designs and manufactures commercial/industrial reverse osmosis and water purification systems that provide clean, safe drinking water. Implementing advanced purification systems and water refill stations across campus ensures convenient access to high-quality water, preventing the shift to less healthy bottled alternatives.

The Unintended Consequences Of Changes In Beverage Options

Q: What were the immediate effects of the bottled water ban at the University of Vermont?

The University of Vermont study (Berman and Johnson, 2015) found that removing bottled water led to a significant increase in per capita shipments of bottles, calories, sugars, and added sugars. Sales of sugar-sweetened and sugar-free beverages rose as bottled water sales dropped to zero, indicating a shift to less healthy options.

Quick Answer: Removing bottled water from a university campus without replacing it with equivalent free-access alternatives caused consumers to substitute sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, increasing calorie and added sugar intake while failing to reduce plastic waste. The study demonstrates that water access policy directly shapes public health outcomes: when clean water is unavailable or inconvenient, people choose less healthy alternatives.

Elizabeth R. Berman BS, and Rachel K. Johnson PhD, MPH, RD –

Accepted: January 16, 2015

Published Online: June 05, 2015

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.