Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41966175›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2025

Pouring Rights Contracts Between Soda Companies and Public Universities: An Institutional Barrier to Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Reduction.

Luc L Hagenaars, Jennifer Falbe, Gwyneth M Manser, Laura A Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Luc L HagenaarsDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9043-0706
Jennifer FalbeDepartment of Human Ecology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8405-4326
Gwyneth M ManserGeography Graduate Group, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8304-7581
Laura A SchmidtPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4346-7260

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) contribute to obesity, cardiometabolic diseases, and plastic pollution. International health agencies have called upon public-sector organizations to use responsible procurement policies to reduce SSB consumption. Many US public universities cannot do so because of "pouring rights contracts" (PRCs) with Coca-Cola or PepsiCo that grant companies monopoly rights to sell their beverages on campus.

methodsWe investigated why universities participate in PRCs using participant observation of a consortium conducting beverage research on all 10 University of California (UC) campuses. We also conducted two rounds of interviews with public university staff in California whose work involved PRCs (n = 26 and n = 25).

resultsPRCs were polarizing. University managers in health and sustainability generally opposed them, dining managers held mixed opinions, and managers in athletics, procurement, contracts, and business partnerships were generally supportive, valuing the discretionary funding streams PRCs provide. These supportive managers tended to form small, but influential coalitions who internally supported the continuation of PRCs, benefiting from reduced transaction costs for their departments because PRCs streamlined contracting and procurement. These supportive managers often had a market orientation that valued economic freedom, contradicting opinions held by opponents of PRCs who stressed that PRCs create a monopoly. Supportive managers also assumed that consumers, not soda companies, are responsible for SSB-related harms, despite acknowledging that PRCs "hook" students on soda.

conclusionPRCs are an institutionalized barrier to responsible beverage procurement by concentrating interests favorable to PRCs within the university, even when PRCs contradict the broader, but diffuse, interests of the wider campus community. This suggests that health-harming industries only need to target small, strategically positioned groups of stakeholders within public-sector organizations to achieve corporate capture of public procurement. More responsible procurement policies require public-sector organizations to bolster the financial transparency of contracting managers, request for proposals (RFP) processes, and procurement contracts.

Indexed as

Carbonated BeveragesCommerceContractsSugar-Sweetened BeveragesCaliforniaHumansPublic SectorUniversitiesCommercial Determinants HealthInstitutionalizationPrivatizationProcurementPublic-Private PartnershipsStudents

Identifiers

PMID41966175
PMCPMC12958230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.