A new University of Maine study *^ has identified what researchers describe as a campus protein challenge . Although students generally consumed adequate amounts of protein, many reported that campus dining halls failed to provide protein choices they considered flavorful, appealing or prepared in ways they viewed as healthful.
Instead of asking for more protein, students described wanting better protein experiences, greater variety, better preparation, higher-quality and less heavily processed protein options and meals they were actually excited to eat.
That distinction could have important implications for campus dining programs, which often evaluate menus based on nutritional adequacy but may overlook whether students perceive those foods as desirable enough to choose.
"Having protein on the menu doesn't necessarily mean students see it as a good option," said Jade McNamara, Ph.D., corresponding author and researcher in the University of Maine School of Food and Agriculture. "Our findings suggest campuses should think beyond simply providing protein and consider whether students have access to protein choices they find flavorful, varied and prepared in ways they perceive as healthful."
Evidence of the campus protein challenge
Researchers surveyed 501 University of Maine undergraduates and conducted focus groups with 20 students.
Students appeared to be meeting protein recommendations. Participants scored an average 4.8 out of 5 on the total protein foods component of the Short Healthy Eating Index, indicating generally adequate protein intake.
However, qualitative research analysis of the focus groups revealed that students repeatedly described campus dining halls as barriers to accessing protein foods they actually wanted to eat.
When describing their experience with protein foods on campus, participants cited:
Limited variety and unappealing options
Heavily processed choices
Fried preparation methods
Inconsistent quality
Flavorless preparations
Limited healthy options
One student described campus dining as having, "…the slim pickings for healthy foods that are protein-rich." Another said, "Even if they do offer more protein-rich options... they're just not appetizing."
Researchers believe the issue may be less about protein quantity and more about protein quality, appeal and accessibility.
The protein challenge reflects broader barriers to healthy eating
Students' frustrations with protein were part of a larger nutrition picture.
The average Healthy Eating Index score was just 47.7 out of 100 in this sample of undergraduate students, and one in three students (33.7%) experienced low or very low food security.
Students described multiple barriers to healthier eating, including
Rising food costs
Limited time
Restricted kitchen access
Minimal cooking equipment
Transportation challenges
Residence hall living
For many students, the reality of campus life meant preparing meals with little more than a microwave while relying heavily on dining halls that often failed to provide protein options they considered appealing.
Students see promise in meal kits
Although nearly 90% of students had never used a meal-kit delivery service, many believed meal kits could help address some of the barriers they experienced.
Students valued:
Convenience
Simple preparation
Portioned ingredients
Customizable meals
Affordability remained the biggest concern, suggesting future campus meal-kit programs would need to balance convenience with cost.
What this means for campus dining
The findings suggest the next opportunity for campus dining may not be serving more protein, but serving protein in ways students are more likely to choose.
Researchers say future campus food solutions should prioritize protein options that are:
Flavorful
Varied
High-quality
Convenient
Affordable
Prepared in ways students perceive as healthful (e.g., not fried, not cooked in a lot of grease)
Easy to incorporate into busy student lifestyles
“The takeaway isn't that colleges need to serve more protein," said Kent Harrison, Assistant Vice President of Channel Marketing at the National Pork Board. "It's that students want protein they'll actually choose to eat. They described wanting options that are flavorful, varied, convenient and prepared in ways they perceive as healthful. That's an important distinction for campus dining programs."
The findings also provide a roadmap for evaluating practical meal solutions designed around students' real-world preferences.
For foodservice operators, that could include building meals around versatile, flavorful proteins that pair naturally with vegetables, whole grains and globally inspired flavors to improve both the appeal and overall quality of campus meals.
Fresh lean pork is one example of a protein that can be paired with vegetables, whole grains and globally inspired flavors to create convenient, appealing meals that align with students' preferences. Designing meals around proteins that complement a variety of ingredients and cuisines may also help increase the appeal of vegetables, whole grains and other foods students are encouraged to eat more often.
About the National Pork Board
The National Pork Board has responsibility for Pork Checkoff-funded research, promotion and consumer information projects and for communicating with pork producers and the public. The Pork Checkoff funds national and state programs in consumer education and marketing, retail and foodservice marketing, export market promotion, production improvement, science and technology, swine health, pork safety, and environmental management and sustainability. For the past half century, the U.S. pork industry has delivered on its commitment to sustainable production and has made significant strides in reducing the environmental impact of pig farming. Through a legislative national Pork Checkoff, pork producers invest $0.35 for each $100 value of hogs sold. Importers of pork products contribute a like amount, based on a formula. For information on the National Pork Board and Taste What Pork Can Do ® redefining how pork fits into the modern meal, visit pork.org .
*This cross-sectional study describes student behaviors and perceptions at one point in time and cannot establish cause and effect. Findings are based on self-reported data from one rural university with a low survey response rate (6.4%) and may not be generalizable to all college students. Meal kits were not tested, so the study cannot determine whether they improve diet quality, food security or other health outcomes.
^The National Pork Board provided funding for this project.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics
Data/statistical analysis
People
Exploring Eating Patterns and Cooking Habits Among Emerging
29-Jun-2026
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding for this study was provided by the National Pork Board.