Objective

There is a lack of qualitative research developing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) warning labels with their intended end users. We sought to identify promising SSB warning elements for improving label effectiveness and for future testing in policy and institutional settings.

Design

Mixed methods design using ten focus groups, a design task and a survey. The design task was used to generate ideas for an icon that would dissuade SSB consumption. The survey and focus group guide assessed participant perceptions of SSB warning label mock-ups of text (loss frame, gain frame and loss frame with attribution), colour and icon options.

Setting

Three large public universities in California from February to March 2018.

Participants

Young adult SSB consumers (n 86) enrolled in one of three diverse California public universities.

Results

Participants perceived the following elements as most effective for reducing SSB consumption: loss-frame text with attribution to a credible source, yellow and red colour for label background and an image or icon to accompany the text. Preferred images included sugar near or inside of an SSB, intuitive shapes like a triangle with exclamation mark or octagon and a visual indicator of SSB sugar content compared with recommended limits. Support was high for using SSB warning labels in university cafeterias and on bottles/cans.

Conclusions

Loss-frame text with a credible source, yellow or red label colour and icons could potentially enhance effectiveness of SSB warning labels and warrant further testing.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of large public universities have exclusive pouring rights contracts with beverage companies that produce and market sugar-sweetened beverages. Pouring rights contracts contain provisions that conflict with recommendations from major public health organizations that institutions reduce sugar-sweetened beverage availability, marketing, and consumption. This study assessed the following among students at 3 public universities: student perception of pouring rights contracts (the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts), the association between student socioeconomic characteristics and perception of pouring rights contracts, student estimates of pouring rights contract revenue, and the association between student pouring rights contract revenue estimates and perception of pouring rights contracts. To contextualize results, actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues was estimated. METHODS: A cross-sectional exploratory study was conducted among a convenience sample of 1,311 undergraduate sugar-sweetened beverages-consuming students recruited from 3 large and diverse public universities in Northern California. On an online questionnaire, undergraduate students indicated the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts on a 10-point scale (oppose=1-5, favor=6-10) and provided a numeric estimate of the percentage of total university revenue they thought their universitys pouring rights contract generated. Regression models were used to analyze differences in perception of pouring rights contracts by student socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of university revenues generated by pouring rights contracts. In addition, pouring rights contracts and financial reports were obtained from the 3 universities to estimate actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues. Survey data were collected between August and November 2018 and analyzed in August 2022. RESULTS: A large majority of students (81%) opposed pouring rights contracts, and the opposition did not significantly differ by student socioeconomic characteristics, including by levels of food security, need-based financial aid, participation in federal food assistance or healthcare programs, parental education, or parental income (all ps>0.14). The median student estimate for pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total university revenue was 10%. In contrast, the estimated actual annual revenue generated from the pouring rights contracts ranged from 0.01% to 0.04% at these schools. Revenue estimates were not significantly associated with participants opposition or favoring of pouring rights contracts (p=0.65). CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of students opposed pouring rights contracts, and this opposition was similar regardless of student socioeconomic characteristics or student estimates of pouring rights contract revenues. Students markedly overestimated (by >100-1,000-fold) the percentage of university revenue that came from pouring rights contracts. University administration should consider student views on pouring rights contracts when deciding whether to exit or continue with pouring rights contracts.