Sometimes, locavorism can almost seem like hysteria. And sometimes, it’s just plain confusing — as in the case of the recent drop of Rookie’s Root Beer from the University of Vermont’s dining options.

Burlington-brewed Rookie’s is no longer on tap at Brennan’s, UVM’s “local and organic dining destination,” where a wall map lists the various farms and producers that populate the menu. Why? 

“Rookie’s Root Beer is a local, Vermont company, but to be considered local by Real Food Challenge standards, products must include at least 50 percent local ingredients,” writes Caylin McKee, UVM’s dining sustainability and social media coordinator, in an email.

In March 2012, UVM became one of the first schools to commit to the Real Food Challenge, a national campaign to shift $1 billion in higher-ed food expenditures to local, “real” options by 2020 — that means foods that are “local, ecologically sound, humane and/or fair,” as McKee writes. 

“Because of the nature of Rookie’s product, the main ingredient being sugar, they do not meet the 50 percent requirement,” she adds.

Corin Hirsch was a Seven Days food writer 2011 through 2016. She was also a dining critic and drinks columnist at Newsday from 2017 to 2022, and contributes to The Guardian, Wine Enthusiast and other publications. She’s spoken often on colonial era drinking and is the author of Forgotten Drinks of Colonial New England, published by History Press in 2014.

27 replies on “UVM Drops Rookie’s Root Beer as Not ‘Real’ Enough for Real Food Challenge”

  2. Maine Root is Fair Trade, and therefore considered Real. That wasn’t made clear in the article. Rookie’s doesn’t use enough local ingredients to be considered Real by the Real Food Challenge standards, which are pretty rigorous, which is why the goal is 20%. The other 80% is just not humane, fair, ecologically sound or local.

  3. I don’t think you disagree, you just don’t really understand. You said liberal, not politically correct. Look up the meaning of the word liberal, the meaning of the word authoritarian, and you might see what I mean when I say one person can’t be both. If you come with a new version of what you meant to say in each reply, I guess eventually you will find a formulation that makes sense. It doesn’t really matter either way to me!

  4. Well, I’m sorry, I disagree. One can be “politically correct” AND authoritarian, i.e., believe that non-politically correct views should not be allowed to be expressed. Welcome to Vermont.

  5. I didn’t make any comment that would require me to know your relative. The components of the phrase “liberal social fascist” are incompatible; and you haven’t fixed the problem by substituting authoritarian. Liberal and authoritarian are not simply incompatible, they are virtually antithetical. One cannot be both. Perhaps you should just stick with interolant; maybe strictly partisan? I know, accurate use of the language is the domain of humanities majors, and what a useless body of knowledge that clearly is.

  6. You don’t know my relative. I do.
    But you’re right. I shouldn’t have used the word fascist. I should have used the word authoritarian. And, yes, she is very much a liberal intolerant authoritarian.
    And, yes, I stand by my comment that many of her professorial colleaguse in the ivory tower, whom I’ve met, are just like her. They don’t believe that conservative opinion belongs on campus.
    So I’ll stand by the gist of my original post, thank you.

  7. One thing those crazy humanities majors might have over you though? The ability to define “fascism.” The fact that you would describe someone as a liberal social fascist suggests that you’re just throwing out labels of things someone told you not to like, without any real understanding of what they mean.

  8. This is ridiculous. They use Coke because they provide a machine? Is Coke a “Real Food” product? Is the “real food” challenge the only circumstance in which UVM will use a local, Vermont product? Is the “Maine Root” root beer made differently somehow? Why would we prefer a Maine product over a Vermont product, anyway? No wonder its confusing for the Rookie folks; it doesn’t make any sense.
    It sounds like they made a business decision and couched it in other language, for no apparent good reason. The whole “Real Food” marketing campaign really needs to be considered, anyway. My first reaction (I work on campus) was – have I not been getting real food this whole time? What about the other 20 percent of the food they have, is that not real?

  9. I think it’s because Maine Root is fair trade and therefore real, but Rookies doesn’t use local ingredients so can’t be considered real.

Comments are closed.