Search

Purpose: Many universities maintain pouring rights contracts (PRCs) with beverage companies wherein one company exchanges sponsorship payments for exclusive beverage marketing rights. Separately, universities may have healthy beverage initiatives (HBIs) to encourage healthier choices on campus. This study aimed to assess how and how frequently PRCs included provisions related to health and nutrition to examine how PRCs may support or undermine HBIs. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: U.S. public universities with >20,000 students. Sample: 131 PRCs obtained from 124 of 143 universities in 2019-2020. Measures: Primary outcomes were the presence of provisions that could encourage or discourage promotion of healthy beverages (water, diet soda, unsweetened coffee or tea, and 100% juice), and any other provisions explicitly or implicitly referencing health or nutrition. Analysis: Descriptive statistics. Results: Twelve contracts (9%) had explicit commitments from the company or university to promote healthy beverages or adhere to nutrition standards, including five committing to support HBIs, four committing to healthy vending policies, and three describing activities to promote healthy beverage brands. Ten (8%) had provisions explicitly inhibiting water promotion and 55 (42%) had provisions that could be interpreted that way. Eleven (8%) included other health and nutrition provisions, such as funding for unspecified wellness activities. Conclusion: Most university beverage contracts did not expressly aim to support healthy choices, and more than half had provisions potentially limiting universities' ability to implement HBIs. When present, nutrition standards were weak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess whether and how beverage companies incentivize universities to maximize sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) sales through pouring rights contracts. Cross-sectional study of contracts between beverage companies and public U.S. universities with 20,000 or more students active in 2018 or 2019. We requested contracts from 143 universities. The primary measures were presence of financial incentives and penalties tied to sales volume. 124 universities (87%) provided 131 unique contracts (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi). 125 contracts (95%) included at least one provision tying payments to sales volume. The most common incentive type was commissions, found in 104 contracts (79%). Nineteen contracts (15%) provided higher commissions or rebates for carbonated soft drinks compared to bottled water. Most contracts between universities and beverage companies incentivized universities to market and sell bottled beverages, particularly SSBs. Given the health risks associated with consumption of SSBs, universities should consider their role in promoting them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The internet is drastically changing how U.S. consumers shop for groceries, order food from restaurants, and interact with food marketing. There is an urgent need for new policies to help ensure that the internet is a force for good when it comes to food access, transparency, and nutrition. This article outlines actions that federal agencies-like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)-and state and local governments can take to improve the online food environment. We recommend policies in three settings: online grocery retail, online restaurant ordering, and marketing on social media and other online platforms. For example, USDA could finalize regulations increasing access to online WIC and remove barriers to accessing online SNAP by requiring large retailers to waive online delivery and service fees for SNAP purchases. FDA could improve access to nutrition information by issuing guidance describing what product information should be available at the online point of selection. FTC could give better guidance on appropriate tactics when marketing to children and collect better data on how companies are marketing food to children online. Finally, state governments could pass laws like New York's recently introduced Predatory Marketing Prevention Act to address false and misleading advertising of unhealthy foods aimed at children and other vulnerable groups., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Greenthal, Marx, Friedman, John, Johnson, LiPuma, Nara, Sorscher, Gardner and Musicus.)

Child-targeted marketing can influence children's food preferences and childhood consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with negative health outcomes in both childhood and adulthood. This study explores how beverage companies are using pouring rights contracts (PRCs) with U.S. public universities to market SSBs to youth under 18 years of age. We obtained 139 PRCs (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi, 8 Gatorade) from 132 universities between June 2019 and August 2020. Each contract was coded by two reviewers who extracted quotes relevant to youth-targeted marketing activities. Twenty-two contracts in our sample (16%) contained a total of 25 provisions related to youth-targeted marketing. Nearly all youth-targeted marketing provisions (n = 24 of 25) were tied to university athletics. Most provisions (n = 19) described the marketing of specific beverages or involved the use of brand names that are also beverages (e.g., "Gatorade," "Coca-Cola"). Fifteen contracts included advertising or support for youth summer camps; five contracts allowed the beverage company to sponsor free experiences for children at university athletic events; three contracts allowed advertising at high school athletic events hosted at university facilities; and two contracts established programs for "underprivileged" or "disadvantaged" youth. Five contracts acknowledged that their provisions may be affected by laws or self-regulatory policies that limit advertising to children. Beverage companies should reconsider marketing to youth through PRCs, universities should carefully consider PRCs with youth-targeted provisions, and the government should further regulate and prevent youth-targeted marketing., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s work on university pouring rights is funded through grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies (Grant ID: 71208, www.bloomberg.org) and the From Now On Fund (fnofund.org). None of the authors declare a conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Authors.)