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: Taking bottled water off a university campus without giving people easy, free access to other water options actually made them drink more sugary and artificially sweetened drinks. This meant more calories and added sugar, and it didn’t even cut down on plastic waste. This study shows that how you handle water access directly affects public health: if clean water isn’t there or is a hassle to get, people will pick less healthy stuff.

\\nElizabeth R. Berman BS, and Rachel K. Johnson PhD, MPH, RD –\\n

Accepted: January 16, 2015

\\n

Published Online: June 05, 2015

\\nObjectives. We wanted to see how removing bottled water, plus a rule for a minimum amount of healthy drinks, changed what university students bought, how healthy their drink choices were, and how many calories and added sugars they took in.\\n\\nMethods. We looked at shipment data to guess how many bottled drinks people consumed over three semesters: first, a baseline (spring 2012), then when a 30% healthy drink rule started (fall 2012), and finally when bottled water was removed (spring 2013) at the University of Vermont. We checked for changes in the number and types of drinks, and the calories, total sugars, and added sugars shipped per person.\\n\\nResults. When bottled water was removed, shipments of bottles, calories, sugars, and added sugars per person all went up significantly. Healthy drink shipments dropped a lot, while less healthy drink shipments rose significantly. As bottled water sales hit zero, sales of sugar-free and sugar-sweetened drinks both increased.\\n\\nConclusions. The bottled water ban didn’t actually reduce the number of bottles ending up in the university’s trash, which was its main goal. When bottled water was gone, people just started drinking more less-healthy bottled drinks.\\n\\nSource: Water Feed\\n

Good Water Access Shapes Your Drink Choices

The University of Vermont study (Berman and Johnson, 2015) gave researchers a rare chance to see a real-world policy change in action: a campus-wide removal of a whole drink type. Bottled water sales went to zero. At the same time, shipments of sugary drinks (SSBs) and sugar-free drinks jumped by a lot. The environmental benefit they hoped for didn’t happen because people just swapped one type of container for another.

These findings make sense when you look at how people behave around food. If their favorite, calorie-neutral option isn’t there, people usually don’t just stop drinking. They pick something else. A 2020 study in JAMA Network Open found that every extra sugary drink you have daily could mean a 4.7% higher risk of death from any cause over 34 years.

This policy lesson applies everywhere, not just on campus. Hospitals, prisons, company offices, and factories all face similar decisions about their water setup. If you take away bottled water without putting in enough purified water stations, you’ll probably see the same behavior we saw at UVM. The right way to do it is simple: first, install reliable purified water access, then cut back on single-use plastics.

AMPAC USA point-of-use and point-of-entry reverse osmosis systems give you the infrastructure you need to make water-bottle bans work, not backfire. Our institutional RO systems can produce anywhere from 1,500 to over 50,000 gallons of purified water daily. This water can feed hydration stations, upgrade fountains, and supply kitchens or cafeterias throughout your building. They cut over 95% of TDS and are NSF/ANSI 58 certified, meaning you get consistent, great-tasting water that easily competes with bottled options.