Healthy Beverage Initiatives on a University Campus PDF

Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cleaner and Responsible Consumption journal h...

Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cleaner and Responsible Consumption journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-and-responsible-consumption Healthy beverage initiatives: A case study of scenarios for optimizing their environmental benefits on a university campus Kyle Meisterling a, Jacklyn Vo a, Kelly Ann Garvey a, Hallie E. Brown a, Marie T. Tumbleson a, David Arthur Cleveland a, b, * a Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-4160, USA b Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-4060, USA A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: The association between consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) and diseases including diabetes, liver Healthy beverage initiatives disease and dental disease is well known, yet SSBs continue to be aggressively promoted, including on university Beverage environmental impacts campuses. Healthy beverage initiatives (HBIs) are focused on improving health by decreasing consumption of Sugar sweetened beverages SSBs. Some HBIs also aim to improve environmental sustainability, e.g. by substituting tap water for SSBs, Tap water including the HBI on the 10 campuses of the University of California. However, there is no study of HBIs’ potential Plastic pollution environmental benefits. To address this knowledge gap we carried out an environmental life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, blue water use, and plastic pollution for both liquid content and container for the 940,773 liters of beverages consumed in one calendar year at the University of California, Santa Barbara. We found that climate and water impacts per liter for liquid contents of 10 SSB beverage types and the non-SSB versions of these 10 types without added sugar, were very similar and larger than that of the containers. Im- pacts of six container types varied widely, with climate impact highest for glass, and blue water and plastic impact highest for plastic containers, while aluminum had higher climate impact than plastic. We then evaluated the environmental benefits of 12 counterfactual HBI scenarios with different combinations of container types and liquid beverages for SSBs, non-SSBs, bottled water, and tap water. The scenario that replaced all other beverages with tap water eliminated almost all environmental impacts, while scenarios that reduced SSBs but increased beverages other than tap water took back many benefits of reduced SSBs. Our results show that to optimize potential environmental benefits, HBIs need to emphasize reducing consumption of all commercial beverages and replacing them with tap water, which will also optimize health benefits. Our methods and results will be valuable for higher education, other institutions, and communities seeking to maximize both health and environmental benefits of healthy beverage policies. While regions with the highest per capita intakes like North America and Europe, have seen some decrease in SSB consumption in recent decades, 1. Introduction countries with low levels, like China, have been targeted by beverage companies (Greenhalgh, 2019), and are experiencing increasing con- Concerns about the health, equity, climate, and environmental im- sumption and associated diseases (Li et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). pacts of food and beverages increasingly affect choices of eaters and Excess added sugar intake has been shown in many studies to be drinkers, institutional purchasers, public health policy makers, and associated with an increase in the risk of obesity (Alexander Bentley governments (Popkin et al., 2021; Swinburn et al., 2019). et al., 2020) and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) including heart One prominent concern is the effect of added sugar intake, especially disease and hypertension (Pacheco et al., 2020; Xi et al., 2015), stroke, in the form of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs), on health. Yet, while and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) (Huang et al., 2019), non-alcoholic the association between SSB consumption and disease is well known, fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (Vreman et al., 2017), dental disease SSBs continue to be aggressively promoted. This is a global problem, and (Meier et al., 2017), and cancer (Chazelas et al., 2019). Reducing sugar part of the rise of unhealthy diets in the Global North, especially the US, intake has been shown to improve indicators of metabolic health related which is spreading to the Global South (Popkin and Hawkes, 2016). * Corresponding author. Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-4160, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.A. Cleveland). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100049 Received 5 October 2021; Received in revised form 22 December 2021; Accepted 13 January 2022 2666-7843/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). K. Meisterling et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 To address this data gap, we analyzed the direct environmental benefits Abbreviations of 12 counterfactual scenarios for HBIs, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of beverages on the campus of the University of California Santa BiB bag-in-box container Barbara (UCSB). We chose the UCSB campus as the level of analysis because CO2e carbon dioxide warming equivalent of the availability of detailed data, and because our research was begun as GWP global warming potential part of the University of California's (UC's) HBI launched in 2019 as a major HBI healthy beverage initiative focus of the UC Global Food Initiative, with one main goal being the LCA life cycle assessment reduction of SSB consumption on UC campuses (UCOP, 2019). NCD noncommunicable disease Inspirations for the UC HBI included UCLA's elimination of “com- NNS non-nutritive sweetener mercial soda” from a new campus restaurant in 2013, which has been PRC pouring rights contract very successful, with no complaints from students (Slusser and Malan, SSB sugar sweetened beverage 2016), and the UC systemwide smoke and tobacco-free policy imple- UC University of California mented in 2014. The main inspiration was the ban on the sale of all SSBs UCSB University of California, Santa Barbara on the UCSF campus in 2015 in the context of a community public health WFS water filling station coalition (Grumbach et al., 2017). It resulted from UCSF researchers Healthy beverage policies A case study of scenarios for optimizing convincing administrators that UCSF could not ethically profit from their environmental benefits on a university campus selling beverages that its own researchers had shown are a major contributor to NCDs (O’Connor, 2016). The first year of the UC HBI was funded by the UC Office of the President (UCOP) based on its potential to reduce the costs to the UC of the negative impact of SSBs on employee to NCDs (Epel et al., 2020; Ibarra-Reynoso et al., 2017; Lustig et al., and student health. 2016). Because the UCSF SSB sales ban did not result in loss of revenue, since SSBs are the main source (one third) of added sugar in the US diet sales of non-SSBs and bottled water replaced SSB sales after the sales ban (Zagorsky and Smith, 2020), 57% of added sugar (¼ 57.8 g/day, 230 (Basu et al., 2020), the environmental impact of beverages was likely not kcal) for 12–19 year olds, and 55% of added sugar (¼ 48.7 g,/day 194.9 reduced significantly or at all. As a result, the UC HBI's other main goal is kcal) for 20–50 year olds (calculations based on data in Drewnowski and encouraging tap water consumption as a replacement for SSBs to maxi- Rehm, 2014). The global average intake of added sugar/day from SSBs mize environmental co-benefits as well as health benefits (Popkin et al., for 2–18 year olds in 51 countries with high levels of diet-related disease 2010), and in its first year the HBI has focused on installing water filling was estimated at 51 g (204 kcal) (Ooi et al., 2021). The World Health stations (WFSs). A major challenge to the success of the UC HBI is the Organization (WHO) recommended daily intake of added sugar of no pouring rights contracts that 9 of the 10 UC campuses have with more than 10%, and preferably 5%, of calories (WHO, 2015), which Coca-Cola or PepsiCo. means that current average intake of added sugar from SSBs alone is Here we report the results of our LCA of all beverages purchased (and about 2 to 4 times recommended levels, and likely much higher for the consumed) for one calendar year on the UCSB campus for climate, blue highest intake subgroups. water, and plastic pollution impacts. There is also some evidence that the health effects of non-SSBs con- taining sugars other than added sugars, especially when highly processed 2. Methods to remove fiber, e.g. clear apple juice, can be similar to those of SSBs (Pepin et al., 2019). Non-SSBs containing non-nutritive sweeteners We carried out an environmental LCA to assess the impacts of bev- (NNSs), e.g. diet drinks, could also have negative health effects (Pepino, erages from cradle to grave (production through disposal) on greenhouse 2015), and studies have found an association between high intake of gas emissions, blue water use, and plastic pollution. We used impact these beverages and increased risk of total and CVD mortality (Malik factors from the literature which were mostly process based, i.e. they et al., 2019), and T2D (Drouin-Chartier et al., 2019). In addition, measured impacts from the bottom up. Details of methods are in section caffeinated non-SSB energy drinks are associated with abnormal heart SI 1. Data are available on Dryad (Beverage environmental life cycle function and high blood pressure (Shah et al., 2019). assessment for the University of California, Santa Barbara submitted with The main motivation for reducing SSBs in the diet is their well- DOI https://doi.org/10.25349/D98K65), and R code on Github (https established negative health impact, and there is an increasing number ://github.com/kmeisterling/bevLCA-UCSB). of programs and policies aimed at reducing their intake with the goal of improving public health (Krieger et al., 2021). These target pricing (e.g. 2.1. System definition taxes on SSBs), information (e.g. labeling), and the beverage environ- ment (e.g. decreasing SSB and increasing tap water availability). Various We defined the system as beverages purchased by UCSB Dining and combinations of these have been used in healthy beverage initiatives dispensed through vending machines and through general and residen- (HBIs) (Patel and Schmidt, 2021), and results of two university HBIs have tial dining for 12 months, 2018 July 1–2019 June 30, and we used been reported (Di Sebastiano et al., 2021; Epel et al., 2020). environmental impact data for this period, or as close to it as possible. We In addition to the direct health benefits of substituting SSBs and other assumed all beverages purchased were consumed on campus. commercial beverages with healthier beverages, there can be environ- We eliminated a small number of purchased beverages that were mental co-benefits of this substitution (Amienyo et al., 2013), especially returned to vendors. We could not obtain data for beverage sales points if the healthier beverage is tap water, which reduces the impact of on campus for which Dining did not have access: 11 fast food franchises single-use containers as well as the liquid beverages themselves. These and most smaller independent vendors like coffee carts, because they environmental benefits can also have additional health benefits, e.g. have been closed since winter 2020 due the COVID-19 pandemic; the reducing greenhouse gas emissions reduces air pollution (Chang et al., campus Food Bank, because it did not have data about the types of 2017). Documenting these benefits could reinforce the motivation for beverages dispensed; and beverages purchased by departments through policy change, encourage individuals to change their beverage choices, central purchasing, because data were not available (See section 4.). and offset short-term financial costs to institutions of reducing SSB and We defined two separate system components: the beverage to be other commercial beverage sales. However, the potential environmental consumed (“liquid beverage type”) and the beverage container benefits of different ways of implementing HBIs have not been analyzed (“container type”). We used impacts from the literature to calculate im- to date. pacts per functional unit, defined as 1 L of liquid with container. We 2 K. Meisterling et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 compared the environmental impacts of counterfactual scenarios that 100-year global warming potential (GWP), blue (fresh) water use in li- replaced liquid beverages and containers in one or more categories with ters, and plastic pollution, as kg leaked to the environment. those in other categories. We did not include containers into which fountain drinks were dispensed or impacts of packaging other than the 2.3.1. Liquid beverage environmental impacts beverage containers. We estimated “cradle to grave” environmental impacts for the main liquid beverage ingredients using impact factors in the literature 2.2. Categorization of beverages and containers (Table SI.1). We excluded impacts of secondary packaging, refrigeration, any wasted beverage (assuming all purchased beverage was consumed), UCSB Dining data included 1247 purchases (188,701 beverages) for physical infrastructure (e.g. refrigerators, vending machines, fountain 90 vending machines, and 1000 purchases (805,200 beverages) for all drink dispensers), and operations (e.g. refrigeration, labor) because of other food and beverage locations supplied by Dining, including four lack of adequate data (section 3.5). residential dining halls, convenience stores and cafes, restaurants and For tap water we included treatment and delivery to campus. We also coffee shops, a bookstore, coffee carts, catering, concession stands, and included WFSs, which makes our scenarios including tap water conser- the recreation center. vative in terms of the environmental benefits of tap water, since re- We classified each of the 2247 beverage purchases, plus filtered tap frigerators, fountain machines and vending machines were not included water from water filling stations (WFS), by SSB status, beverage type, and for other beverages. WFSs included raw materials, manufacture, trans- container type (Table 1). With hundreds of unique beverages, our 12 port, operation (including electricity), maintenance (including periodic types were a compromise between having too many (making analysis filter replacement, cleaning), and end of life disposal. However, we did prohibitively complex), and too few (making categories too heteroge- not include cooling, as this is not the standard at UCSB, but did estimate it neous). The most diverse types were “soda” and “juice”. (section SI 1.4.3). 2.3.2. Beverage container environmental impacts 2.3. Environmental impact factors We selected container impacts from the literature for the most com- mon container sizes in our data (section SI 1.4.2). We estimated impacts We estimated the life cycle environmental impacts/liter separately for for 5 single-use container types for purchased beverages, and a reusable beverage liquid and container using impact factors from the literature for water bottle (Table 1), using impact factors from the literature greenhouse gas emissions in grams of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), using the (Table SI.2), based on their properties, assuming they are representative (Table SI.3). Table 1 To the extent possible, we harmonized the environmental impacts for Beverage classification and definitions. containers to only include impacts from raw material acquisition, Classification Allowed Definition, explanation manufacturing, transport in the manufacturing supply chain up to the variable values bottling plant, and disposal. We included the impact of recycled content Beverage SSB status SSB beverage containing added sugar; added in manufacturing for plastic, glass and aluminum included in the LCAs we sugar defined per the FDA definition (FDA, used (Table SI.4), but excluded credits (positive impacts) for recycling or 2018) (section SI 1.2) non-SSB versions of the 10 SSBs that do not contain energy recovery at end-of-life. We defined plastic pollution impact as the added sugar mass of plastic from beverage containers leaked to the environment bottled water still water, no added sugar during production, use, and domestic disposal (Table SI.5). We conser- tap water filtered water, no added sugar vatively assumed that reusable stainless steel water bottles were used to Beverage type almond milk milk made from almonds supply 200 L of water before they were disposed of, and washed in a soy milk milk made from soy bean residential dishwasher after every 3 L of water conveyed, adapted from plant milk, all plant-based milks other than almond and (Franklin Associates, 2009). other soy, e.g. oat, rice, hemp animal milk milk from cows, goats, other mammals soda includes soft drinks, seltzers, sports drink, 2.4. Scenarios energy drinks and similar beverages juice vegetable and fruit juices: juice SSBs are We estimated the net change in environmental impact for 12 coun- commonly referred to as “juice drinks" coffee coffee with no milk terfactual HBI scenarios representing different policy options, and coffee þ milk coffee with animal milk; assumed to be 50% compared the results with the baseline, and with each other. The sce- coffee and 50% animal milk narios included different mixes of containers and of liquid beverages. tea tea proper and herbal tea including yerba Our scenarios assumed 100% success of the policies they represented. mate While not realistic, the results can be used as a benchmark to estimate the probiotic kombucha bottled water still water only environmental impacts of partial success, and to compare the effects of tap water filtered water dispensed from water filling different approaches. stations (WFS) into stainless steel bottles; used in scenarios, not present in baseline 2.5. Per capita estimates Container type (all plastic PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic; single use) we assumed all were PET, because 98% of We calculated the per capita environmental impact of beverages on 12,611,565,448 plastic beverage containers sold in California from July 2018 to June campus by first estimating time spent on campus by 3 different campus 2019 were PET (CalRecycle, 2020) groups (first year students, non-first year students, and staff and faculty) glass glass bottle as a proxy for the number of meals eaten on campus (Table SI.14). We aluminum aluminum can or bottle assumed that the proportion of beverages consumed on campus and their carton gable-top-style carton, made primarily of environmental impacts of each group were equal to the proportion of printed paperboard (80%) and polyethylene plastic coatings (20%) total meals eaten on campus by each group (first year students 44%, all bag-in-box plastic bag in cardboard box other students 43%, faculty and staff FTE 14%). We then multiplied the (BiB) proportion of the environmental impact for climate, blue water and stainless steel reusable, with plastic cap; used in scenarios, plastic for each group by the total environmental impact, and divided the bottle not present in baseline result by the total number in each group to find the per capita 3 K. Meisterling et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 environmental impact (Table SI.15). Using this calculation, the propor- climate impact/liter, and plastic (35.9% of volume) the highest blue tion of per capita beverage environmental impact attributable to each of water and plastic pollution impact/liter. Bag-in-box (BiB) containers those groups was 64% first year students, 15% all other students, and (33.3% of volume) had lower climate and blue water impacts/liter than 21% faculty and staff. We also calculated total on- and off-campus im- either plastic or aluminum, and lower climate impact/liter than glass. pacts of the campus population groups by multiplying the per meal rate Aluminum accounted for 11.7% and carton 11.8% of total beverage by total meals per calendar year, assuming 3 meals/day. volume. The reusable stainless steel bottle used for tap water had the lowest impacts. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Campus beverage consumption 3.3. Base line impacts of beverages and containers consumed on campus Fig. 1 shows the baseline beverage consumption at UCSB for each The baseline impact of the beverages consumed on campus was 491 beverage type, SSB status, container type, and purchase location (dining tonnes CO2e/year (68% from beverages and 32% from containers), 118 or vending). Of the 940,773 L of beverages consumed on campus, 67% million liters of water (97% from beverages, 3% from containers), and was SSBs, 22% non-SSBs, and 11% bottled water. The beverage volume 422 kg of plastic pollution (100% from containers) (Fig. 4). The distri- in counterfactual scenarios was the same as baseline, but volume distri- bution of impacts for SSBs, non-SSBs and bottled water was 64%, 31% bution over beverage and container types was different for each scenario and 5% for climate, 66%, 33% and 1% for blue water, 41%, 32% and (Fig. SI.1, Table SI.9). 27% for plastic pollution. Although beverage sales data were not available for the 11 fast food franchises on campus, Dining provided gross sales for 9 of these for 3.2. Beverage and container impacts per liter 2018–19, $2.9 million. Assuming $5–10 per purchase, and one 12 oz beverage/purchase, the total volume of beverages consumed, and their Climate and blue water impact/liter for liquid SSB and non-SSB environmental impacts, would add 11–22% to the baseline. versions of each beverage type (Fig. 2) was highest for animal milk, The climate impact/capita for first year students was 42.2 kg CO2e/yr juice, and coffee with milk. Soda's impact was much lower, since soda's (Table SI.15), a small proportion (2.4%) of the US diet mean for main ingredients are sugar and water. The impacts/liter of the SSB and 2005–2010 (Heller et al., 2018). However, compared with other food non-SSB versions of each beverage type were very similar, since sugar has environmental impacts on campus, the impact of beverage consumption a relatively small impact. can be large. For example, first year student per capita beverage impact The impact/liter of the 6 beverage container types were quite was 167% of per capita CO2e emissions from 100% beef burgers in UCLA different (Fig. 3): glass (7.3% of total beverage volume) had the highest dining halls (Cleveland and Jay, 2021). Fig. 1. Baseline volumes and container types of beverages consumed on campus, total and separately for campus dining and vending. Data in Table SI.8. 4 K. Meisterling et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 Fig. 2. Climate and blue water impacts per liter of beverage (liquid contents only). Data sources in Table SI.1, data in Table SI.6. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) The per capita blue water impact of all beverages consumed on Plastics in marine environments leach chemical additives, transport campus for first year students was 10,094 L/yr, 13% of the median blue toxins, metals, nonnative species, and pathogens, and cause physical water use for North American diets (220 L/day) (Harris, F. et al., 2020), harm to marine fauna, from physiological effects to fatalities from and 26% of the total per capita water use in student residential housing ingestion, entanglement, and smothering (Jacob et al., 2020). Plastics in and dining at UCSB (used mostly by first year students) (https://hdae. terrestrial environments can negatively affect soil and nutrient cycling ucsb.edu/about/sustainability). (Xu et al., 2019). The plastic pollution from beverages consumed on campus was 36.2 Our estimates of plastic pollution are conservative because we used g/capita/year for first year students (Table SI.15), which was 16.6% of only domestic leakage rates for the US (Table SI.5). Even though US the rate we estimated for just plastic beverage containers for California plastic waste exports were greatly reduced after China instituted its Na- (CalRecycle, 2020), though the UCSB data included litter from all tional Sword policy in 2017, which effectively banned plastic waste beverage container types on campus (Table SI.7). The extrapolated total imports, the US remains the world's leading plastic waste generator, and on- and off-campus was 54.4 g/cap/yr (Table SI.15), which was 24.9% millions of kilograms of US waste continue to be exported to countries that of California. The relatively low rates for UCSB were due to the with poor waste management and high plastic leakage rates (Dell, 2020; relatively low per capita plastic beverage container consumption rate, Law et al., 2020). 18.9% that of California (section SI 2.3). Global plastic pollution is increasingly recognized as a problem that 3.4. Impact of counterfactual scenarios spans multiple ecological scales, yet has not been adequately incorpo- rated in LCAs (Woods et al., 2021). Single-use plastic bottles, including Compared to baseline, some scenarios (Table 2) significantly reduced beverage containers, are an important source of plastic pollution—while environmental impacts and others increased them slightly (Fig. 5, data on the proportion from plastic bottles in all plastic pollution are not Table SI.11). The scenario results are for 100% effectiveness, but the available, plastic bottles rank 1–4 among most common plastic items in effect of any per cent success can be directly derived because the scenario aquatic environment litter globally (Morales-Caselles et al., 2021). effects on environmental impact are linear. Compared with climate and blue water impact, plastic pollution's po- tential impact on the environment, biodiversity and human health can be 3.4.1. Scenario 1, all beverages replaced with tap water more direct and local. Plastics have been found everywhere from oceans, Replacing all beverages consumed on campus with filtered tap water to some of the most isolated areas of the United States (Brahney et al., from water filling stations dispensed into reusable stainless steel bottles 2020), to the stomachs of marine and wildlife, to human organs (Cox et al., (scenario 1), estimated the maximum net environmental and health 2019). The impacts of microplastics on human health are just beginning to benefits of an HBI. Scenario 1 reduced impacts 95% for climate, 99% for be understood, but may be substantial (Vethaak and Legler, 2021). blue water, and 98% for plastic. While HBIs don't seek to replace all 5 K. Meisterling et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 4 (2022) 100049 water consumed on campus (scenario 2.1) estimated the environmental impact of HBIs that focus on decreasing or eliminating SSBs, but do not consider beverages that replace them. This scenario increased impact over the baseline for climate 9%, blue water 7%, and plastic 79%. The large increase in plastic pollution is mostly because 43% of SSBs are in BiB containers, compared with 21.6% of non-SSBs (Table SI.8), and BiB containers have only 26% of the plastic content/liter of plastic containers (Table SI.3). In addition, all bottled water was in plastic containers. Replacement of SSBs with the non-SSB version of the same beverage type (scenario 2.2) estimated the environmental impact of just removing added sugar from campus beverages. Climate impact decreased 3% and blue water impact 20% from baseline, reflecting the average impacts/ liter for non-SSB beverages (liquid contents) of 92% of SSBs for CO2e, and 64% for blue water (Fig. 2). Plastic pollution increased 24% because a larger proportion of some non-SSB beverage types were in plastic con- tainers compared with SSBs. Replacement of SSBs with bottled water (scenario 2.3) estimated the effect of removing almost all environmental impact of SSB liquid beverage, but not the impact of containers. It would reduce climate impact 35% and blue water impact 62%, but would increase plastic pollution 123% because 100% of bottled water was in plastic bottles. Replacing SSBs with tap water (scenario 2.4) estimated the maximum environmental benefit of removing added sugar, the key health goal of HBIs. It would reduce climate and blue water impacts 62% and 65% respectively, and plastic pollution 40%, with almost all remaining impact from non-SSBs and bottled water. These scenarios illustrate that for HBIs to have major environmental benefits, and likely to maximize health benefits, they need to include reducing non-water commercial beverage sales, not just reducing SSBs; and to reduce plastic impact need to promote tap water over bottled water. However, this has not been true in the past. For example, the UCSF SSB sales ban did not reduce commercial beverage sales (Epel et al., 2020) (section 1), a healthy food policy at UC Berkeley increased “healthier” beverages sold from vending machines by 4%, but increased total beverage vending sales by 15% (Rickrode-Fernandez et al., 2021), and although the University of British Columbia HBI promoted tap water, beverage sales did not decrease (Di Sebastiano et al., 2021). 3.4.3. Scenarios 3.1 – 3.2, all SSBs and non-SSBs replaced with water Fig. 3. Climate, blue water, and plastic pollution impacts per liter of beverage Replacing all SSBs and non-SSBs with bottled water (scenario 3.1) container (not including the beverage). Data sources in Table SI.2, data in estimated the environmental impact of overall maximum health benefit Table SI.7. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the without maximum environmental benefit. This would reduce climate reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) impact 56%, blue water impact 94%, but increase plastic pollution 145% because 100% of bottled water containers were plastic. commercial beverages because of personal and cultural preferences, this Replacing all SSBs and non-SSBs with tap water (scenario 3.2) esti- scenario provides a reference point for estimating the maximum benefits mated the environmental impact of overall maximum health benefit, of an HBI. Along with scenarios 3.1 and 3.2, it also eliminated all bev- while maintaining current levels of bottled water sales. This scenario erages other than water, which provides the maximum health benefit. would reduce climate impact 91%, blue water 98%, but plastic only 72% WFSs with free tap water are a popular component of HBIs, as are free because bottled water sales were unchanged. refillable bottles (Patel and Schmidt, 2021). However, the extent to These scenarios illustrate why increasing access to WFSs is critical for which tap water can replace commercial beverages may be limited by reducing single use plastic consumption, for example UC's single-use individuals’ concerns about water quality. Such concerns may include plastic ban phase-out, while supporting a healthier, more environmen- the perception that tap water tastes bad (i.e., that aesthetic or organo- tally sustainable campus beverage environment. leptic qualities of water, including odor, color or taste, are unappealing), and misperceptions about tap water safety (for example, people moving 3.4.4. Scenario 4, all bottled water replaced with tap water from other countries where tap water may be unsafe, may assume it is Bottled water comprised 11% of the volume of commercial beverages unsafe in California (Auger-Velez et al., 2019; Wang, 2020)). However, consumed on campus, but accounted for 5%, 1%, and 27% of the baseline even when tap water from the treatment plant to a home or campus meets impact of all beverages for climate, blue water and plastic pollution all safety standards, it can become contaminated on site, for example if (Tables SI.8, SI.10). The impact/liter of tap water in a reusable stainless lead is present in old water pipes or solder. In our scenarios, tap water is steel bottle as a proportion of bottled water in a single-use plastic bottle filtered to improve palatabilty and safety (including lead removal), was 10% for CO2e, 29% for blue water, and 0.1% for plastic pollution although tests have found no lead contamination of UCSB tap water (Tables SI.6, SI.7). As a result, replacing bottled water with tap water (section 3.4.4). (scenario 4), which estimated the comparative environmental impact of the two types of water on campus, would reduce baseline impact for 3.4.2. Scenarios 2.1 – 2.2, all SSBs replaced with alternative beverage types climate 4% and blue water