Program is more greedy than green

Citing environmental and health benefits, UCLA Dining has introduced its latest “Sustainable Dining Practice” in the form of “Beef-less Thursdays” in its four residential restaurants ““ De Neve, Rieber, Covel and Hedrick.

This initiative is not only flawed in its estimation of Bruin environmentalism and patronizing in its claims of health-motivated concerns, but it is also unethical from a business perspective.

Dining Services should have notified on-campus residents about this practice and given the option of opting out of the program when they signed their housing and dining contracts. Not doing so indicates that trendy environmentalism and positive publicity have replaced customer service as a priority.

When I came to UCLA three years ago, our dorm food was the (perhaps overhyped) talk of the college world ““ from pho to sushi to teriyaki burgers, UCLA’s dining options are among the best in the collegiate world. It is thus disappointing to see that this sort of variety has been cut down with the loss of what can only be called a staple: the dorm burger.

In my treatment of today’s issues, I’m wary of being dismissed as yet another eager liberal ready to tear down all of society’s comforts. This policy offends both the gastronomical and fiscal senses.

It takes a bit of craftiness to calculate the actual cost of a meal in the dorms, as meal plans are tied to housing contracts. But the separate, off-campus meal plans provide the necessary raw figures.

These plans cost $1,228 and $1,175.15 for the “Blue 14″ and “Cub 11″ “Non-Resident Dining Plans,” respectively. With 11 weeks and a loss of four meals for breakfast and lunch on the Saturday and Sunday following finals week, that leaves 150 meals per quarter for the Blue 14 plan and 117 meals for the Cub 11. Dividing the cost by the number of meals reveals that each Blue 14 meal costs $8.19, and each Cub 11 meal costs $10.04.

Students who are paying around $10 for every single meal are doing so for the convenience of a full buffet.

If Dining Services had the foresight to reduce meat to only one dining hall on Thursdays (using the option-based tactic they employed in their tray-less dining, which currently only exists in Hedrick), it could have demonstrated a commitment to the environment without disregarding the tastes of its customers.

And as with the tray-less situation, it is unclear where the money being saved is going: UCLA Dining’s Web site touts that 6,300 gallons were saved in Hedrick in the month of January alone, but students are seeing no benefits of this lightened expenditure.

The saved money should be kicked back to the students who paid for a meal plan that includes beef entrees and the convenience of tray dining.

According to an April 2 Daily Bruin News article, UCLA’s Housing and Hospitality Services’ sustainability coordinator, Robert Gilbert, said the dining halls aim to save about 1,000 pounds of beef every Thursday night.

The saved money, according to Gilbert, will be funneled into more sustainability projects, such as cage-free eggs. It’s clear the university is moving forward with an agenda that has little consideration for its high-paying customers: students.

Claims that the elimination of red meat from residential halls was motivated by a concern for student health are patronizing at best and offensively disingenuous at worst. Given the offerings in the dorms and cafes around the hill, it is clear that a commitment to student health is lacking.

Take the “Southwestern Chicken Wrap” at Bruin Café, which offers an unsatisfying 352 calories while slamming its consumer with 30 percent of the recommended daily value of fat (16 percent saturated) and almost half of the day’s recommended sodium (44 percent).

Or consider the deceptive yogurt parfait, which offers 597 calories and 19 percent of the day’s saturated fat before you’ve even completed your morning walk to Bunche.

And don’t forget the Chinese Chicken Salad (39 percent of the day’s fat) or the epic “Muffalatto Sandwich,” the latter of which hits you with its amazing triplet of 74 percent, 75 percent and 91 percent of the daily value of fat, saturated fat and sodium, respectively.

This is not to vilify these food options. The point is that they are just that: options. Students have paid for the right to exercise their diets.

Being environmentally friendly is always a heartwarming enterprise, but not when it comes at the expense of a manipulative bait and switch that smacks more of corporate greed than a thirst for all things green ““ except money, of course.

E-mail Makarechi at kmakarechi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *