The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
home
Thursday, May 24, 11:59 a.m.
Editorials | Opinion

Editorial: SG fast food research misses big picture

Research conducted by two committees and presented by Vice President of Student Government Ross Wolland shows it would be cheaper to buy off-campus fast food than comparable items on-campus.

According to Wolland’s research, annual savings would surpass $950. The research compares item’s cash prices at Memorial Union and Wells Commons to prices at Subway, Burger King, Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell and Dairy Queen.

The first question that must be raised with this kind of research is: What is the goal? In an interview Wednesday night, Wolland said the goal of the research is “to encourage price dropping” at UMaine, with an end goal of UMaine offering “hearty meals at a reasonable price.” This is a laudable goal, and most UMaine students would agree that affordability and nutritional value are key.

But on it’s own, this research proves very little. Comparing only cash prices to fast food prices misses a lot of variables. It sheds no light on the value of meal plans and completely fails to mention the disparity in options between dining at UMaine and dining at fast food restaurants. It also leaves out York or Hilltop commons, where students with meal plans have access to a variety of nutritional choices and all-you-can-eat portions. There are other factors in which the value is not easily represented in dollars, such as the taste and the convenience of buying food on campus.

While some students complain about campus food, to compare it to fast food is to compare apples and oranges. Putting quick-service food prices on a pedestal without considering the whole scope of dining services does little to address whatever imperfections may exist while setting an immeasurably low standard.

The findings of this research are interesting and taken on their own are damning. But they shed light on only a tiny portion of the whole dining services picture. The committees involved are to be commended for looking into ways to improve dining services, but much more work is left to do in order to come up with solutions that address variety, nutrition, taste and convenience — not just price.