PC: Rae Yuan
rina rosnow
The Social Code in Food Spaces on Campus
At many of the recent Haverford events centered around issues such as race and socioeconomic differences on campus such as We Speak and We’re Not Here to Say Thank You, the topic of disrespect for food spaces on campus has been raised numerous times. Many of the concerns raised were regarding the messes left in the Dining Center and Coop as well as the power dynamics that exist between those who work at these establishments and the students who dine there. While some of these issues were discussed at these events, the topic does not generally receive much attention. Yet, there are only a few food spaces on campus, so they play a vital role in shaping the Haverford community. The dynamics in these spaces are heavily influenced by the specific roles of student workers and the staff in the Dining Center and Coop, the demographics of those who work food jobs on campus, and the public image of the food industry.
To read more...click on the button below
To read more...click on the button below
Liz reikowski
EXERCISING FOOD SOVEREIGNTY IN THE HAVERFORD COMMUNITY: THE GOOD FOOD RESOLUTION
“Be it resolved that the Haverford community supports the Food Systems Working Group in their mission to ‘create a food system that is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable’ ” – The Good Food Resolution, 2016
Colleges and universities in the United States collectively spend five billion dollars on food every year (1, 2). Therefore, these institutions are in a powerful position to affect changes in American food systems. In recognition of this, in 2008 a Boston nonprofit organization called the Food Project established the Real Food Challenge. The Real Food Challenge’s primary objective is to shift 20% ($1 billion) of existing university food budgets to local, community-based, fair, ecologically sound, and humane food sources; in other words, to shift university food budgets towards “real” food (2). In 2015 a group of Haverford students attended Real Food Challenge Summit in Baltimore. The students attending the conference were members of a Haverford food justice club, ETHOS (Ethical Transparent Humane Organic Sustainable) Food Initiative. The summit inspired and bolstered ongoing efforts by ETHOS members to alter the sourcing of food served at the Haverford dining center (DC) (3, 4, 5).
When ETHOS members met with the College’s President at the time, Dan Weiss to advocate for Haverford joining the hundreds of colleges already participating in the Real Food Challenge, President Weiss suggested that to gain support from the administration the students first demonstrate widespread support among the student body. Thus, a plenary resolution called the Good Food Resolution was born (3). The Good Food Resolution states, “our current industrial food system exploits workers along the food supply chain, subjects animals to inhumane treatment, threatens the future of our environment, and results in health concerns and unequal access to food among consumers” (1). The Good Food Resolution also points out that “these outcomes are antithetical to our community’s values of integrity, respect, and concern for others” (1). Thus, the Good Food Resolution sets an ethical imperative for Haverford students to take a stance on food justice issues. Furthermore, the Good Food Resolution offers an easy way for students to take a stance on food justice: it provides a mechanism for the Haverford student body to collectively “vote with our forks”.
The Good Food Resolution passed with overwhelming support in the Spring 2016 plenary. The final draft of the resolution pledged that Haverford would shift from currently spending 8% of its dining budget on food that is “ethical, local, ecologically sound, or humane” to spending at least 20% of its dining budget on such foods by 2020. A “real” food percentage of 20% was selected because 20% is the baseline value suggested by the Real Food Challenge and because achieving 20% would be a marked improvement over the 8% calculated at the time (2, 3). An interesting aspect of the 20% goal is that for food to count towards the 20% the food needs to be either ethical, local, ecologically sound, or humane, but not all of these at once (3). Furthermore, food is placed in these categories primarily based on certifications. In addition, any food that contains GMOs in more than trace amounts cannot be considered “real” food according to the Real Food Challenges guidelines (3, 6).
Passing the Good Food Resolution was probably the easiest step in achieving the desired food sourcing changes in the DC. Real food tends to cost more than its industrial food system equivalents; therefore difficult decisions had to be made regarding how best to free up room in the dining budget for the purchase of real food without eliminating many popular food options or drastically decreasing the diversity of available foods in the DC. Immediately after the resolution passed, the DC management decided to stop purchasing the gourmet Hope’s Cookies, a decision that was very unpopular among the student body and perhaps opened people’s eyes to the fact that changing DC food sourcing to be better aligned with our community’s values cannot be done without sacrificing some of our favorite treats (3).
Further challenges in achieving 20% real food have arisen do to recent dining center management changes: the Good Food Resolution was passed during the era of DC manager Anthony Condo; the DC is now managed by Joe Binotto. In addition, DC managers are reluctant to change the DC’s primary distributor, US Foods despite US Foods offering limited options that fall within the guidelines for real food (3). ETHOS member Amelia Keyser-Gibson ’18 also pointed out that students are the primary drivers of changes in DC food sourcing. Students calculate the current real food percentages based on DC invoices and students are responsible for suggesting alternatives to DC managers (3). While it is in the spirit of Haverford to have students driving community changes rather than administration, it is problematic as students must be students first and ETHOS members as an extracurricular activity. No student can afford to make DC food sourcing their top priority. Thus, additional assistance is needed from the administration to identify and enact food-sourcing changes.
College students often profess that eating at a college dining center limits their food autonomy. Individually, students have little ability to influence what food is served at the DC, rather we choose among the options that are available to us to best satisfy our food preferences. However, the Good Food Resolution demonstrated that through collective action we have great ability to influence the Haverford foodscape. However, the Good Food Resolution also demonstrated that continued action from a large group of participants is necessary to advance from a community resolution to true progress. A recent real food calculation for the DC indicated that rather than progressing towards our goal of 20%, the percent of real food served in the DC has dropped from 8% to 5% (3). Whether we achieve our goal of 20% real food by 2020 will likely depend on increasing interest and involvement from students and administrators. Furthermore, if we are successful in reaching 20%, then we must ask, is 20% enough? In the face of the pressing ecological and social concerns associated with industrial food system, should members of a highly educated and relatively economically empowered institution be satisfied with only contributing 20% of the dining budget to real food? Haverford is an institution that prides itself with preparing students to engage ethically in local and global issues; therefore continued discussion and action in relation to these questions is called for in the Haverford community.
For a list of references, open the file below
Colleges and universities in the United States collectively spend five billion dollars on food every year (1, 2). Therefore, these institutions are in a powerful position to affect changes in American food systems. In recognition of this, in 2008 a Boston nonprofit organization called the Food Project established the Real Food Challenge. The Real Food Challenge’s primary objective is to shift 20% ($1 billion) of existing university food budgets to local, community-based, fair, ecologically sound, and humane food sources; in other words, to shift university food budgets towards “real” food (2). In 2015 a group of Haverford students attended Real Food Challenge Summit in Baltimore. The students attending the conference were members of a Haverford food justice club, ETHOS (Ethical Transparent Humane Organic Sustainable) Food Initiative. The summit inspired and bolstered ongoing efforts by ETHOS members to alter the sourcing of food served at the Haverford dining center (DC) (3, 4, 5).
When ETHOS members met with the College’s President at the time, Dan Weiss to advocate for Haverford joining the hundreds of colleges already participating in the Real Food Challenge, President Weiss suggested that to gain support from the administration the students first demonstrate widespread support among the student body. Thus, a plenary resolution called the Good Food Resolution was born (3). The Good Food Resolution states, “our current industrial food system exploits workers along the food supply chain, subjects animals to inhumane treatment, threatens the future of our environment, and results in health concerns and unequal access to food among consumers” (1). The Good Food Resolution also points out that “these outcomes are antithetical to our community’s values of integrity, respect, and concern for others” (1). Thus, the Good Food Resolution sets an ethical imperative for Haverford students to take a stance on food justice issues. Furthermore, the Good Food Resolution offers an easy way for students to take a stance on food justice: it provides a mechanism for the Haverford student body to collectively “vote with our forks”.
The Good Food Resolution passed with overwhelming support in the Spring 2016 plenary. The final draft of the resolution pledged that Haverford would shift from currently spending 8% of its dining budget on food that is “ethical, local, ecologically sound, or humane” to spending at least 20% of its dining budget on such foods by 2020. A “real” food percentage of 20% was selected because 20% is the baseline value suggested by the Real Food Challenge and because achieving 20% would be a marked improvement over the 8% calculated at the time (2, 3). An interesting aspect of the 20% goal is that for food to count towards the 20% the food needs to be either ethical, local, ecologically sound, or humane, but not all of these at once (3). Furthermore, food is placed in these categories primarily based on certifications. In addition, any food that contains GMOs in more than trace amounts cannot be considered “real” food according to the Real Food Challenges guidelines (3, 6).
Passing the Good Food Resolution was probably the easiest step in achieving the desired food sourcing changes in the DC. Real food tends to cost more than its industrial food system equivalents; therefore difficult decisions had to be made regarding how best to free up room in the dining budget for the purchase of real food without eliminating many popular food options or drastically decreasing the diversity of available foods in the DC. Immediately after the resolution passed, the DC management decided to stop purchasing the gourmet Hope’s Cookies, a decision that was very unpopular among the student body and perhaps opened people’s eyes to the fact that changing DC food sourcing to be better aligned with our community’s values cannot be done without sacrificing some of our favorite treats (3).
Further challenges in achieving 20% real food have arisen do to recent dining center management changes: the Good Food Resolution was passed during the era of DC manager Anthony Condo; the DC is now managed by Joe Binotto. In addition, DC managers are reluctant to change the DC’s primary distributor, US Foods despite US Foods offering limited options that fall within the guidelines for real food (3). ETHOS member Amelia Keyser-Gibson ’18 also pointed out that students are the primary drivers of changes in DC food sourcing. Students calculate the current real food percentages based on DC invoices and students are responsible for suggesting alternatives to DC managers (3). While it is in the spirit of Haverford to have students driving community changes rather than administration, it is problematic as students must be students first and ETHOS members as an extracurricular activity. No student can afford to make DC food sourcing their top priority. Thus, additional assistance is needed from the administration to identify and enact food-sourcing changes.
College students often profess that eating at a college dining center limits their food autonomy. Individually, students have little ability to influence what food is served at the DC, rather we choose among the options that are available to us to best satisfy our food preferences. However, the Good Food Resolution demonstrated that through collective action we have great ability to influence the Haverford foodscape. However, the Good Food Resolution also demonstrated that continued action from a large group of participants is necessary to advance from a community resolution to true progress. A recent real food calculation for the DC indicated that rather than progressing towards our goal of 20%, the percent of real food served in the DC has dropped from 8% to 5% (3). Whether we achieve our goal of 20% real food by 2020 will likely depend on increasing interest and involvement from students and administrators. Furthermore, if we are successful in reaching 20%, then we must ask, is 20% enough? In the face of the pressing ecological and social concerns associated with industrial food system, should members of a highly educated and relatively economically empowered institution be satisfied with only contributing 20% of the dining budget to real food? Haverford is an institution that prides itself with preparing students to engage ethically in local and global issues; therefore continued discussion and action in relation to these questions is called for in the Haverford community.
For a list of references, open the file below
liz_references.docx | |
File Size: | 14 kb |
File Type: | docx |