Nick Horbowy ’17 The much beloved tradition of easy and inexpensive takeout of food from the cafeteria has been made problematic with the replacement of inexpensive takeout containers with costly environmentally-friendly ones.
There is much to commend the use of ecologically conscious containers, but the issue arises at the exorbitant price tag of eight dollars for a glorified plastic box. Because students would be foolish to buy these high priced containers every day, the students are intended to take them home, wash them, and reuse them, and as John Familetti, Director of Dining Services, says, “This makes the price almost negligible since it’s spread out over the course of the year.”
But as we have experienced, almost nobody except for the faculty uses the takeout containers because they are inconvenient. The consensus is that if students have to make preparations at home for a meal during the day, they might as well pack their lunch.
Phil Tobar ’17 summarizes how many students feel, noting, “The price makes them too inconvenient. Just bring your lunch.” He elaborated his view further saying, “I miss the cheaper ones because they made going to lunch clubs easier. Often I’m deterred to go to the lunch clubs that I would like to participate in because the price of that plastic box is high and it’s not worth it.” Many students have interests in clubs that meet during lunch, but if they have no good means to both eat their lunch and attend the club, they will be forced to miss out on their extracurricular activities.
When asked why he charges so much for the containers, Familetti responded, “Because they’re expensive for us. They’re made of recycled materials, which are not inexpensive. And, we’re also trying to get away from people using to-go containers.” The high price reflects the high cost of the materials rather than the dining service pricing the container high to make a profit. Granted, they could purchase cheaper containers and lower the price, but that would avoid solving the environmental problem.
The high price serves as a deterrent from students who would simply purchase a new “reusable” container every day. In a way, the boxes have served their purpose excellently because they have minimized the trash produced from takeout containers, although they have perhaps been too effective.
Widespread dissatisfaction surrounds the idea of reusable takeout containers, and most students would be happy to see a more convenient system reinstated. To be fair, the Styrofoam containers needed to go, as they generated an inordinate amount of trash. Even so, most users of the containers simply care more about convenience than environmental correctness. Dallas Ryan ’18 reflects the view of the majority, explaining “They [old containers] were easier, we could just throw them away when we were done. I do care if they’re bad for the environment, but not enough to stop using them.” Many students think the same way, and while this thinking may be arrogant, using environmentally containers is less appealing to hungry teenagers than giving up the convenience of using less expensive, throw-away containers.
A balance must be met between caring for the Earth and satisfying the people that pay $30,000 every year. If we have the option to carry our food where we would like, we deserve a viable method of doing so. Recyclable containers are an option; they do still generate waste but they avoid contributing to filling landfills. Even something as simple as having receptacles in the lounges for dishes would work. This would remove the trash problem and create a convenient system.
It is true that the Episcopal dining service makes an effort to be environmentally conscious, but there are areas to improve. To name a few, the community has made a half-hearted attempt at water conservation through “Trayless-Tuesdays.”
Nevertheless, something must be changed about the expensive takeout containers. Clearly the current plan is ineffective, as it is completely disregarded by the student body. Whether the containers are reduced in price, replaced, or compensated for is beside the point; the bottom line is that a better, working arrangement needs to be established that both allows students to conveniently eat their lunch and satisfy the environmentalists among us.
ECONOMICAL OR ECOLOGICAL?: In the ongoing battle between balancing cost and eco-friendliness, the Episcopal Academy community is still unsure which should take priority in our school’s cafeteria.
Photo Courtesy of Jenna Cooley ’16