Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 13, 2026

Murine Drinking Models in the Development of Pharmacotherapies for Alcoholism: Drinking in the Dark and Two-bottle Choice
Published on: January 7, 2019
Pouring Rights Contracts Between Soda Companies and Public Universities: An Institutional Barrier to Sugar-Sweetened
Luc L Hagenaars1,2, Jennifer Falbe3, Gwyneth M Manser4
1Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Background:
Sugar-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.
Methods:
We 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).
Results:
PRCs 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.
Conclusion:
PRCs 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.
Related Concept Videos
Microbes in Beverage Production
Protection of Alcohols
Protection
It defines a protecting group as the masking agent to make the more reactive species inert to a given set of conditions. This concept is depicted via the illustration of liquid flow through different outlets in an assembly of pipes. The analogy helps to understand the role...
Fermentation
Fermentation is a type of metabolic process that occurs in the absence of oxygen, where organic molecules such as glucose are broken down to produce energy. During this process, the...
Drug Control Governance: Regulatory Bodies and Their Impact
Drug Regulation
Gustation

