Three in four secondary schools are breaking food rules – can the government fix the problem?

The government is overhauling school food standards – an overdue move, it seems, after research last week revealed three in four secondary schools were serving banned unhealthy options.

Analysis of almost 400 publicly accessible secondary school meals by campaign group Bite Back found 76% contained a violation of standards, with unhealthy options offered during both breakfast and break times.

So what’s going wrong? And can the government’s reforms fix the system?

Under current standards, schools are banned from offering unhealthy snacks such as crisps and branded confectionery at any time.

Following a consultation held in the spring, the government is this month set to finalise new proposals to also ban schools from offering unhealthy ‘grab and go’ options such as sausage rolls and pizza each day, and deep-fried food at any time.

School food experts have long been calling for a change, with the current system “fundamentally failing” children, says Bite Back CEO D’Arcy Williams. He blames “weak and inconsistent enforcement” for the failings exposed in the analysis.

So far there has been no formal national enforcement mechanism to penalise schools that breach standards. But this is also set to change under the proposals, with all schools to be required to appoint a lead governor for food and publish its food policy and menus online.

Chefs in Schools CEO Naomi Duncan says it addresses a lack of enforcement that has made rules implicitly optional.

“Often the easiest solution is to say we’ll just serve non-compliant food because that’s all the kids will eat,” she says.

‘Grab and go’ culture

That has led some secondary schools and caterers to create a culture of “grab and go”, says Myles Bremner, CEO and founder of food policy consultancy firm Bremner & Co and former director of the government’s School Food Plan.

“When food is packaged and easy to take away and consume, has a long shelf life and high supplier and gross margins, it creates a compelling offer for the caterer, school and pupil.”

With schools managing complex budgetary, staffing and procurement pressures, “large catering companies have considerable influence over what appears on menus across hundreds of schools and must take responsibility for meeting the rules”, Bremner adds.

Williams says the creation of a national enforcement mechanism via published menus is a “welcome” step, but its effectiveness will depend on how far the final measures go.

“We need transparent public reporting, consistent and independent checks, and a clear line of accountability when standards are not met,” he says.

“Every school should publish a clear food policy alongside accurate menus showing how they are making sure pupils get good nutrition. This should also include ingredients lists.”

Catering companies should also be held accountable for the menus they design and deliver, he argues. “Contracts and procurement arrangements should make compliance a basic requirement, rather than an optional extra.”

Bremner believes there is a role for environmental health officers and councils, who already visit schools as part of their inspection regime, to put in place an audit mechanism which can feed into Ofsted.

The proposals may provide the framework for making school meals healthier, but much depends on how robustly that is put in place.