Thirsty at Stuy? If you don’t bring a drink with you, you won’t have many options. You can go thirsty. Or, you can drink from one of many public water fountains. But if the water isn’t cold enough or if you just don’t want to drink from a public fountain, it’s understandable. Your last choice is to spend a buck on Snapple bottled water or Snapple 100% Juiced!, sold from five vending machines located around the school.
In 2003, the city decided it needed to replace soda vending machines after sodas were banned from being sold in public schools and municipal buildings. After several companies submitted bids for a deal with the city, Snapple won the contract, and is now part of a five-year contract with New York City that took effect in April 2004.
The deal included giving the city $166 million, which included $60 million for advertisement and $40 million for public schools, the latter mostly for athletic programs. In return, Snapple became the sole provider of fruit juice and bottled water at schools.
While the bottled water is fine, the juices are another story. One of the official reasons Snapple won the contract over its competitors was many perceive fruit juices have more vitamins, less sugar and an overall higher nutritional value than soft drinks. But, depending on the flavor, a can of Snapple 100% Juiced! has 39 to 41 grams of sugar, while a similarly-sized can of Coke has only 39 grams.
Eating a piece of fruit is much healthier and comes without the cloyingly sweet taste of too much sugar.
Why does a product made of 100% juice and fortified with vitamins have the same or an even greater amount of sugar than one that’s nothing but sugar, water and bubbles? Nutritional experts have criticized the city’s decision on just this point since the contract was first signed.
According to “For the City, Selling Snapple Becomes a Glass Half Empty,” a March 9, 2006 New York Times article by Sewell Chan, Snapple has since failed to honor its contract with regard to the city’s share of the money (which is $126 million, separate from the $40 million promised to the schools) because of disappointing sales.
So Snapple changed the agreement, giving New York City is getting only $33 million. While the schools seem almost on target to get their $40 million, a $93 million loss is still a lot to swallow. And most of the money the city has already earned is being used for more marketing projects.
Students were also left out of the negotiations. The competitive bidding process never took students’ opinions into account. Perhaps city officials felt that we weren’t old or experienced enough to decide what we wanted for ourselves. By cutting us completely out of the equation, factors such as students’ desires and nutritional needs were pushed aside in for money.
In April 2009, when the city again begins the competitive bidding process, it needs to fix its mistakes. The bidding process must be open to the public, as we are the ones who have to live with the result. Students should be polled about what drinks they’d like to have available to them in school. If healthy drinks are not an option, at least give us a choice among unhealthy ones. Instead of having the vending machines of only one company, allow different companies to put their products out on the school market.
With its monopoly on drinks in schools and so many healthier choices unavailable to us, Snapple might consider revising the statement that it’s “Made from the Best Stuff on Earth.”