Posted on 07/06/2015 8:09:59 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Academics really need to study the effects of unintended consequences more often. When the University of Vermont, one of the greenest campuses in one of the greenest states, banned bottled water, the school gave students an incentive to consumer sugary drinks.
“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,” Elizabeth R. Berman and Rachel K. Johnson wrote in a study which appears this month in the American Journal of Public Health. “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.” Berman and Johnson are with the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Vermont in Burlington.
They found that:
• “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;” and
• “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.”
Oh My Goodness!
That is RICH!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Thank you so much for posting this. It has made my day!
Who cares about sugar and health facts. The only important thing is feelings, and the feeeeeling of self-riiiiiighteousness.
What I would probably do is buy a soda, drink it and then use the empty and refill it with water as needed.
In other words the school conducted human experimentation without the consent of those being experimented upon.
The people responsible should be put to death for their indifference to human life.
“Live Free or Die!”
And thus you’d have consumed a soda which you wouldn’t have otherwise, contributing to the same result the study notes.
I know but I would refill the bottle numerous times thus probably getting cancer to boot.
...unexpectedly...
Can we change this to 2 liter bottles and find a way to use this to drive Mike Bloomberg crazy.
I mean 1 Liter bottles.
STEM types know there are ALWAYS trades to every action.
Libs “know” only symbolism.
First world problem..... All the people in countries where even finding clean water is a miracle would be wondering why any place would ban clean water. It would be wonderful if the people could carry clean water with them but they have to drink out of a dirty tap or from a lake or river.
I’m glad that you feel that way. That was about my reaction when I noticed the sense of wonder at UVM when they saw the effect of the ban.
The people doing the study are probably drinking from either a water bottle or a bottle of soda.
Wrong state.
All 57 states!!!!
LOL. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.