Beat the Meat

As green becomes the new crimson, Harvard students are asking their dining halls to align with the University’s trend toward environmentalism. Harvard University Hospitality and Dining Services has risen to the challenge in the past, offering local food and organic staples in the salad bar and elsewhere. Now, however, it is time for HUHDS to go one step further: In light of Talia B. Lavin ’12’s recent petition to reduce the amount of meat served at Harvard dining halls, HUHDS ought to follow the petition’s suggestions by limiting its meat offerings and enhancing its available vegetarian options. Doing so would offer a variety of benefits for students, animals, and the environment alike.

By cutting back on the amount of meat that is served and thus reducing its demand, Harvard would be acknowledging that meat production is harmful to the environment. Factory farming, the main source of most of America’s meat, is responsible for significant amounts of carbon emissions and toxic waste. Moreover, animals bred on factory farms are largely treated in a cruel and inhumane manner.

There are, however, very few reasonably priced alternatives to factory-farmed meat that Harvard would be able to implement and sustain on a large scale. The U.S. government heavily subsidizes a great deal of meat production, making it artificially attractive to consumers’ wallets. Family-farmed meat or other forms of meat that are produced in a more humane manner are likely too expensive to bring to the entire campus. As a result, the only option for HUHDS to confront and act upon this problem is to reduce the overall amount of meat that is available.

Lavin’s petition calls for HUHDS to begin by eliminating meat either for one meal a day or one day a week. The petition is right to suggest a decrease rather than an entire elimination of meat altogether, as student satisfaction is an important factor in HUHDS’ services, and many students do not want to become vegetarians. Unlike other types of food that can be replaced with organic or locally grown equivalents, however, there is no viable counterpart for meat that can necessarily satisfy meat-loving students to the same degree. Were HUHDS to eliminate meat entirely, student dissatisfaction would dramatically rise, defeating one of the main purposes of Harvard’s dining services—student contentment.

We therefore suggest that HUHDS serve one lunch per week without any meat entrées. The grills in each dining hall should still provide meat—as always—for those who want it, although it is likely that the resulting long lines will deter those who are unwilling to wait and will prompt them instead to turn to the vegetarian entrées that are available. That said, the quality and taste of vegetarian entrées must improve in order for students to truly enjoy their meatless meals. With better vegetarian options available, students will be even more likely to gravitate toward eating less meat on their own, resulting in a considerable improvement in their consumption patterns and environmental impact.

Yet reducing meat offerings alone is not enough. To make the greatest environmental difference, Harvard must educate the student body on the harmful effects of sustained meat-eating. By the nature of students’ meal plans, most students enter dining halls largely indifferent to the origins of the various food types and do not widely choose what to eat based on price or environmental impact. Many may be unaware of the effects or implications of meat consumption, and raising more awareness on the issue can help them consider their options from a more informed standpoint and with a more open mind.

Even though we recognize that HUHDS is meant to provide students with an enjoyable culinary experience, we believe there is room for less meat and more vegetarian options. Although we do not hope that HUHDS goes entirely meatless, we do wish to see its offerings be meat-less.