William Saletan in Slate has a well-written column on the L.A. fast-food ban:

A fellow council member explains: "The over concentration of fast food restaurants in conjunction with the lack of grocery stores places these communities in a poor situation to locate a variety of food and fresh food." Supporters of the moratorium call this state of affairs "food apartheid."

It's an odd slogan. As the encyclopedia Africana notes, apartheid was a racially discriminatory policy "enforced by white minority governments." Opening a McDonald's in South-Central L.A. is not government-enforced racial discrimination. But telling McDonald's it can open franchises only in the white part of town—what do you call that?

I just don't see how banning one kind of food business encourages other types to open. And the idea that poor people are too stupid to make their own choices about what to eat is outrageous. These days almost every national fast-food chain offers options like salads and yogurt, so this actually limits fresh-food choices along with burgers and fries.

The University of Connecticut is latest of a group of colleges that is banning, not food, but the trays to carry it on, according to the Hartford Courant. The idea seems to be that if they make it hard for students to lug food away from the cafeteria line, they'll eat less and waste less.

The UConn plan, which forces students to juggle plates, drinks and silverware as they move through the cafeteria line to their tables, has been embraced by some who believe the environmental rationale and criticized by others who dislike the inconvenience and worry about dropped plates and spilled drinks.

Students, particularly those on all-you-can-eat meal plans, are often tempted by the great variety of dishes offered these days in many dining halls, from home-cooked mac and cheese to grilled hamburgers and Chinese food.

"People eat with their eyes. They go through the line and they just load up and then sit down," Dennis Pierce, director of dining services, said.

It will certainly put an end to what was a popular use of cafeteria trays back in my days at the University of Michigan -- using pilfered trays to go sledding down the hill.

LAZ wrote:The University of Connecticut is latest of a group of colleges that is banning, not food, but the trays to carry it on, according to the Hartford Courant. The idea seems to be that if they make it hard for students to lug food away from the cafeteria line, they'll eat less and waste less.

There was actually a study by ARAMARK that showed that trayless cafeterias reduce waste by up to 30 percent.
http://www.wastedfood.com/2008/07/24/br ... study-out/

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:

LAZ wrote:The University of Connecticut is latest of a group of colleges that is banning, not food, but the trays to carry it on, according to the Hartford Courant. The idea seems to be that if they make it hard for students to lug food away from the cafeteria line, they'll eat less and waste less.

There was actually a study by ARAMARK that showed that trayless cafeterias reduce waste by up to 30 percent.
http://www.wastedfood.com/2008/07/24/br ... study-out/

Best,
Michael

Fascinating. It never occurred to me that this could be an issue warranting such in-depth analysis, but I respect Aramark and the campuses for taking it on. That said - as a veteran of the pharmaceutical industry, I'm pretty good at spotting self-serving reports that are disguised as neutral "studies". I'd venture to say that the group with most to gain out of trayless cafeterias is Aramark itself, as the reduction in food waste directly affects their bottom line - much more than reduction of water waste and waste removal costs would benefit the campus, the students, or the planet.

And it's hard to imagine a more poorly designed, biased survey question than the one they asked students in an effort to "prove" that people actually want this change: “Would you accept the removal of trays from all dining locations in an effort to reduce waste on campus?” It's quite a stretch to use answers to that loaded question to then make the claim that "Respondents clearly favored trayless dining." "Accept" is not a synonym of "Favor", and the question neglects to include the important detail I noted above. I doubt the answers would be the same if they had asked "Would you favor the removal of trays in an effort to help Aramark increase its profits?"

Kennyz wrote:

eatchicago wrote:

LAZ wrote:The University of Connecticut is latest of a group of colleges that is banning, not food, but the trays to carry it on, according to the Hartford Courant. The idea seems to be that if they make it hard for students to lug food away from the cafeteria line, they'll eat less and waste less.

There was actually a study by ARAMARK that showed that trayless cafeterias reduce waste by up to 30 percent.
http://www.wastedfood.com/2008/07/24/br ... study-out/

Best,
Michael

Fascinating. It never occurred to me that this could be an issue warranting such in-depth analysis, but I respect Aramark and the campuses for taking it on. That said - as a veteran of the pharmaceutical industry, I'm pretty good at spotting self-serving reports that are disguised as neutral "studies". I'd venture to say that the group with most to gain out of trayless cafeterias is Aramark itself, as the reduction in food waste directly affects their bottom line - much more than reduction of water waste and waste removal costs would benefit the campus, the students, or the planet.

Kenny,

I think pretty much anyone who can read can recognize that Aramark has something to gain from trayless dining. But does this discount the value? Would they be compelled to fabricate the results of their study if the results were not in the favor of going trayless? I don't think so. It's not as if they are studying ill health effects of a new, cheap food they want to release. They only stand to gain (significantly) if going trayless truly does reduce food waste. It's a lot less suspicious when a company is trying to prove a positive than dis-prove a negative. I think "self-serving" is a tad strong.

Aramark does address the economic gains head-on in the whitepaper they published on the subject. They're clearly not trying to hide the fact that there is money to be saved.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:
Kenny,

I think pretty much anyone who can read can recognize that Aramark has something to gain from trayless dining. But does this discount the value? Would they be compelled to fabricate the results of their study if the results were not in the favor of going trayless? I don't think so. It's not as if they are studying ill health effects of a new, cheap food they want to release. They only stand to gain (significantly) if going trayless truly does reduce food waste. It's a lot less suspicious when a company is trying to prove a positive than dis-prove a negative. I think "self-serving" is a tad strong.

Aramark does address the economic gains head-on in the whitepaper they published on the subject. They're clearly not trying to hide the fact that there is money to be saved.

I guess I'm more of a cynic than you, but I disagree with your claim that they address economic benefits head-on. The benefits are all phrased in terms of benefit to the college. They talk about money saved from disposing food waste (a cost paid by the colleges, not Aramark), not money saved from reducing the waste itself (savings that go to Aramark, not the colleges).

I've always taken it as a given that the value of studies conducted by parties with a clear bias concerning the results should be discounted. That doesn't mean the studies have no value, but the value is certainly lower than those conducted by neutral parties. Do I think they would fabricate the results if the results were not in favor of going trayless? No, that would be unethical. I'm accusing them of lousy study design, not lousy ethics. They designed the study in a way that assured them that they'd get the result they wanted. Do I discount the value of that kind of study? Of course.

Kennyz wrote:I'm accusing them of lousy study design, not lousy ethics. They designed the study in a way that assured them that they'd get the result they wanted. Do I discount the value of that kind of study? Of course.

But my question is, why do they want that result? They want to go trayless even if it doesn't reduce waste?

Furthermore, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs if a company can't conduct inquiries into their own practices with efforts towards reducing costs and waste without being hit with accusations of being self-serving and valueless. Just because a company makes money, doesn't make them evil. We should be encouraging food service companies to be more introspective about issues like this, not discounting their efforts.

eatchicago wrote:
But my question is, why do they want that result? They want to go trayless even if it doesn't reduce waste?

Furthermore, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs if a company can't conduct inquiries into their own practices with efforts towards reducing costs and waste without being hit with accusations of being self-serving and valueless. Just because a company makes money, doesn't make them evil. We should be encouraging food service companies to be more introspective about issues like this, not discounting their efforts.

"Valueless" and "evil" appears nowhere in this thread except in your own post. In fact, I said that I respect Aramark for taking this on. I meant that. And I don't discourage them from conducting inquiries like this. They can and should do whatever they think makes sense for their business. Perhaps our disagreement is a semantic one. You seem to take "discount" to mean "don't count" whereas I just take it to mean "count it less".

I would assume that going trayless would result in less food being consumed, which with current obesity trends, would not be a bad thing. The one part of the equation that I haven't seen is how going trayless affects what Aramark charges the colleges. Clearly, from their studies, traylessness leads to less packaging and less wasted food, which should reduce Aramark's cost of doing business. Are those savings passed along to the colleges, and ultimately the students, or are they used simply to increase corporate profits? (If it's the latter case, much of the blame must go to the college officials who administer the foodservice program.)

nr706 wrote:I would assume that going trayless would result in less food being consumed, which with current obesity trends, would not be a bad thing.

Perhaps they should just eliminate cafeteria lines altogether and just serve a once daily helping of low-fat gruel.

eatchicago wrote:Furthermore, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs if a company can't conduct inquiries into their own practices with efforts towards reducing costs and waste without being hit with accusations of being self-serving and valueless. Just because a company makes money, doesn't make them evil. We should be encouraging food service companies to be more introspective about issues like this, not discounting their efforts.

As an undergraduate many years ago, I spent hours working the dishroom at the university I attended (independently operated). The amount of waste was incredible. On hot dog days, most of the guys would take two hot dogs and about 30% of all the hot dogs hit the trash. The director of food services asked us to track the number of tossed hot dogs. They ended up buying a smaller hot dog to reduce waste.

ARAMARK, Sodexho, and the like are going to price their product to make their profit. The real beneficiary of this program are the students who will see a smaller percentage of increase in their board rates.

In a related subject, I have been pretty impressed by a lot of the food I have seen on college campuses the past five to ten years. The choices are much greater and a lot more of the food is prepared fresh and in smaller batches.

nr706 wrote:Are those savings passed along to the colleges, and ultimately the students, or are they used simply to increase corporate profits? (If it's the latter case, much of the blame must go to the college officials who administer the foodservice program.)

Most contracts for universities (and hospitals) are competitively bid on a periodic basis - sometimes every 3-5 years. Price is an important factor BUT generally, there is a bias for keeping an incumbent when all parties are very satisfied and when the operator is getting good ratings by the students.

When the operator reduces waste, it benefits ALL parties.

Will you pay more for ‘The Pause That Refreshes’? wrote:If a group of Illinois food nannies including the Illinois Public Health Institute have their way, you might soon be paying a fat tax on those $1 Cokes at McDonald’s, not to mention your rum and Coke at Cafe Laguardia....

And, for that matter, your specialty sodas.

For those of you who drink soda pop, if such a tax raised prices, would you be more likely to shoulder the increased price and buy pop anyway or drink something cheaper instead?