TO THE EDITOR:
I have always been told, ‘If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.’
Scoot Food — which has yet to prove the longevity and sustainability of its own business model — was hailed in last week’s editorial for its “business savvy and social awareness” because it plans to donate 50 percent of its profits to charity.
Aside from merely suggesting Scoot Food as a cheaper alternative to Tarheel Takeout, the editorial slammed Tarheel Takeout’s “exorbitant delivery fee.”
While Scoot Food’s goal to commit half of their profits to charity is noble and ambitious, the company will ultimately have to decide in the coming months whether it wants to be a charity or a business.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very much a proponent of charitable giving — as long as it is not a thinly veiled marketing gimmick.
My main issue, however, stems from the repeated claim in both the front page article of the April 9 edition and the April 11 editorial that Scoot Food’s implementation of scooters is somehow better for the environment. Minimal research says otherwise.
In fact, a study published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that motorcycles — which admittedly have greater displacement and more horsepower than scooters, but similar motor configurations and relaxed emissions standards — emit as many hydrocarbons in 10 miles as a typical car driven 850 miles.
Scoot Food uses scooters because they are cheap to buy and own and they are not required to have insurance.
