By Emmy van Ingen
Affordability, sustainability, and democratisation. These are the three demands of Antikantine, a group of students who wish to see a less profit-oriented university cafeteria. After their first protest in March last year, the UvA responded to their demands by implementing a cheaper meal option. However, the execution of this plan did not satisfy Antikantine. In early March this year, they staged a second protest against the cafeteria’s high prices by handing out free food at several UvA campuses.
After last year’s protest and the subsequent negotiations between the UvA and Antikantine, the UvA introduced the “basic meal” option in their cafeterias. This would be a cheaper but nutritious option for students to enjoy. However, Antikantine was not quite satisfied with the execution of this option. Matteo Abraham, a second-year PPLE student at the UvA and part of Antikantine’s organising team, says that “the UvA only put [the basic meal] from 17:00 to 19:00, instead of at the agreed normal lunch time,” after which “they kind of got rid of it completely.” And indeed, the price of the basic meal did increase over time, which, in Antikantine’s eyes, defied the idea of a cheap option. The UvA ascribes this increase in price to inflation.
From 4 March to 8 March of this year, Antikantine staged a second protest. This time, they went as far as to cook complete meals, instead of sandwiches. Abraham says that they wanted to “make the actual food that they would like to see in the canteen, and cook it for cheap” to show the university that it’s not hard to provide students with affordable, healthy meals. Johanna, a second-year Sciences major who did not want her last name to be published, was one of the volunteers at the protest. She remarks that there are very few vegan options at AUC’s cafeteria, and that the ones that are there are often expensive. By taking part in the protest, she wants to signal to the UvA that the cafeteria should not be profit-oriented.
Antikantine has several ideas for a fairer university cafeteria. They want nutritious meals to be provided for a maximum of two euros, transparency about the origins of the food offered, and an official student-led “food board” that has formal power over the organisation of the cafeteria. They also want a “plant-based by default” policy. This would ensure that a plant-based version (such as coffee with oat milk) is offered by default, unless a student specifically asks for a non-vegan option (such as coffee with cow milk).
On Tuesday, 12 March, Antikantine’s demands were discussed in a meeting between the Central Student Council (CSR) and the Executive Board (CvB) of the UvA. The CSR stood firmly with Antikantine, arguing for the “plant-based by default” policy, and for the de-privatisation of the cafeteria. However, the CvB seemed to have a different view on the issue. Whereas Antikantine and the CSR see the provision of food as the responsibility of the university, so that students can focus on their studies, the CvB seems to think of it as the responsibility of the students themselves. The CvB mentioned that providing students with meals may be something that happens in other countries, but that it is simply not part of the Dutch culture: here, students are supposed to take their own lunch with them to campus. With regards to the plant-based by default policy, they also mentioned not wanting to impose “food ideas” on students.
Nonetheless, the CvB seemed willing to discuss other options during the tendering process that is to take place approximately a year from now. CIRFOOD, the company that is currently regulating the cafeteria, has a contract with the UvA until the summer of 2026. The tendering process will take place before that, and during this process, the university will reconsider this contract and possibly look at other food distributors, or, as Antikantine and the CSR would like to see, completely different forms of cafeteria governance.
On 22 March, the CvB released a written response to the CSR’s advice. In it, they repeat their standpoints: that the university is not allowed to fund the cafeteria, that they will investigate the possibility of a different form of catering in two years, and that they already try to be more sustainable, but that “nudging” people to eat less meat-based protein is a better way to reach this goal than to “limit their freedom of choice.”
All in all, the outcome of the second Antikantine protest is yet to be determined, but one thing is certain: their fight for a fairer university cafeteria continues.
The Herring 