Advancing Health, Sustainability,and Equity at UC Berkeley: ACampus Beverage Redesign

THE COALITION FOR HEALTHY CAMPUS FOOD & BEVERAGES PRESENTS....

CONTRACTS TEAM

To establish a healthier, sustainable,equitable, and responsible beverageportfolio on UC Berkeley’s campus,we will propose an alternativecontract solution that offersmore variety of non-sugarsweetened beverages andmaintains affordability, convenience,and power of choice for students,staff, faculty, and visitors.

Goal

In response to the nearing expiration of the university’s pouring rightscontract with PepsiCo in 2021, our team has sought to redesign abeverage procurement plan over the next ten years.

Project Summary

Research suggests that Big Soda has adverse effects on health, health equity, andenvironmental sustainability. While the consumption of soda has been linked tovarious health conditions including obesity and Type 2 diabetes (1), the industrycontinues to fund scientific research that is significantly more likely to find noassociation between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and thesehealth outcomes.(2) The impact of soda consumption disproportionately impactslower-income communities: the highest rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes are“among groups with the lowest levels of education and income and in the mostdeprived areas" (3). In the realm of sustainability, Big Soda contributed over 5billion bottles to landfill in 2013 and 11.7 million metric tons of carbon emissions in2011 alone. The industry’s production practices are also known to hurt ruralfarming communities (4).  Several universities have already taken steps to work towards a campus beverageportfolio that reflect their core values. In 2012, the University of Vermontdiscontinued their pouring rights contract and instead opted to work with theirdining service provider, Sodexo, to choose their own mix of beverages (5). In ourlocal sphere, San Francisco State University students successfully prevented apouring rights contract with Coca-Cola in 2015 (6). In that same year, UCSF alsobanned all on-campus sales of sugar-sweetened beverages (7).

Key Facts

Hu, F.B. (2013). Resolved: there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption willreduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases. Obesity Reviews, 14(8): 606-619. doi: 10.1111/obr.12040Schillinger, D., Tran, J., Mangurian, C., & Kearns, C. (2016). Do Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Cause Obesity and Diabetes? Industryand the Manufacture of Scientific Controversy (Letter). Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(12): 895-897. doi: 10.7326/L16-0534Drewnowski, A. (2009). Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutrition Reviews, Volume 67, Pages S36–S39.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00157.xHu, F.B. (2013).Nestle, M. (2015). Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning). Oxford University PressReidel, Jon. (2012). UVM One of FirstUniversities to End Sales of Bottled Water, Mandate Healthy Vending Options. UVM Today. Retrieved from:https://www.uvm.edu/uvmnews/news/uvm-one-first-universities-end-sales-bottled-water-mandate-healthy-vending-options.Reidel, Jon (2012). UVM One of First Universities to End Sales of Bottled Water, Mandate Healthy Vending Options. UVM Today.Retrieved from: https://www.uvm.edu/uvmnews/news/uvm-one-first-universities-end-sales-bottled-water-mandate-healthy-vending-options.Associated Students of SFSU (2015). Associated Students Resolution: Pouring Rights at San Francisco State University. Retrievedfrom: https://foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/ResolutionAgainstPouringRightsatSFSU.pdfBole, K. (2015, May 29). UCSF Launches Healthy Beverage Initiative. UCSF Patient Care. Retrieved from:https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/05/129901/ucsf-launches-healthy-beverage-initiative

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

SHORT AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS ON CAMPUS, SOCIETY, AND THE PLANET

Cost-Benefit Analysis

COSTS BENEFITS

Sponsorship fees: $1.3M/year

Diabetes: $327 B/year Obesity: >$160 B/year 

Ocean pollution: $33k/ton Landfill pollution

Improved prestige Athletics/ Rec Sports: $1 MOffset Cal Dining profits

Improved health cost-saving

Mitigate climate change

BusinessPartnerEvaluationCriteria

HEALTH & HEALTH EQUITY

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

UC Berkeley Food & Beverages Choices Policy

Berkeley Food Institute Sustainable andJust Catering Guide

UC Policy on Sustainable Practices UC Sustainable Procurement Guidelines

Hodal, K. (2019, April 4). Marine plastic pollution costs the world up to $2.5tn a year, researchers find. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/04/marine-plastic-pollution-costs-the-world-up-to-25bn-a-year-researchers-find.

American Diabetes Association (2018). Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes care, 41(5), 917–928. doi:10.2337/dci18-0007Trogdon JG, Finkelstein EA, Hylands T, Dellea PS, Kamal-Bahl. Indirect costs of obesity: a review of the current literature. Obes Rev.2008;9(5):489–500Finkelstein EA1, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, Dietz W. Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer-and service-specific estimates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Sep-Oct;28(5):w822-31. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.w822Joyce, C. (2019, July 9). Plastic Has A Big Carbon Footprint - But That Isn't The Whole Story. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/735848489/plastic-has-a-big-carbon-footprint-but-that-isnt-the-whole-story.

Transactional time and fees

Sustainability: $15K/year

¹ Issues that may arise and affect stakeholders and values; derived from general observations, interviews with stakeholders and experts, and student surveys.² Stakeholders and values³ Used criteria that we developed together as a class. The percentage break-downs are how much weight we wanted to give each aspect of our plans. 

10% each: Health, Sustainability, Equity, Corporate Responsibility20% each: Feasibility, Financial Analysis, Inclusivity

⁴ Rating of how likely to happen based on evidence⁵ Metric of risk; = impact on value * likelihood⁶ How our solution will try to mitigate/prevent these issues

Risk Assessment

Multiple beverage and vending machine contracts can achieve sponsorship, and alongside future CalAthletics sponsorship, the university can receive $1M to $1.3M per year. Current Cal Dining commissions barely breaks even. Sales are estimated to increase (> $11,225 peryear) with more beverage variety and student choice. Reductions in dining hall costs are anticipated with the elimination of soda dispensers, syrup bags.Vending costs remain the same with the expansion of the Canteen contract.We anticipate ASUC and RSSP will receive a minimum of $50K per year from Canteen and otherpriority sponsors.

Financial Analysis

UC Berkeley PepsiCo Sales Data, 8/16/18-3/21/19 UC Berkeley PepsiCo Contract

PHASE OUT OF PEPSICO.

Implementation Plan

Proposal

Limit PepsiCo contract to Cal Athleticsand work with Canteen in vending and

retail environments.