I'm having a Jamie Oliver moment. You're going to cook asparagus withfigs?
No, I'm fretting about the quality of the food on offer at my daughter'sschool.
A great deal has happened since Jamie's School Dinners was televised inMarch and the public outcry began. Almost immediately, the Governmentannounced new money, better training for staff and improved kitchenfacilities.
It promised to introduce minimum nutrient and food standards for schoolmeals in England from September 2006, and to make school food subject toinspection. Now it's issued a report on school food, and a consultationpaper to go with it.
It took a while. Twenty-five years, to be precise. The Education Act1980 removed the local education authority duty to provide a suitableschool meal and sell it at a fixed price, and abolished nutritionalstandards.
Social security changes in 1986 limited the right to a free school mealto families receiving supplementary benefit. The Local Government Act1988 introduced compulsory competitive tendering, which meant that localeducation authorities often awarded the school meals contract to thelowest bidder. And in 1998, funding for secondary school meals wasdelegated to school level, with decisions driven by Best Value (valuefor money) considerations.
Is it all bad news? Then came the inevitable reversals in the policycycle with the reintroduction of statutory minimum nutritional standardsin 2001, and an expansion of the criteria to make more children eligiblefor free school meals. The new proposals do make sense as part of thepolicy climate. Public health is receiving an inordinate amount ofofficial attention. Pupil behaviour is another offshoot since a growingbody of research demonstrates that an improved diet leads to improvedbehaviour. And, of course, the Government wants to see every schoolachieve Healthy School Status by 2009.
What goes up must come down. In this case: body mass index, salt, andsugar. The Government set up a School Meals Review Panel, which hasissued a set of recommendations for 14 nutritional standards and ninefood standards for schools. And they'd like to see it extended topre-school services.
What's the difference? For nutrition, think protein, carbohydrate'sugars, fat, fibre, and sodium. For food, think fruit and vegetables,oily fish, milk, fruit juice, and processed foods. And linked to theseare 35 associated recommendations covering delivery, costs, and themonitoring and evaluation of the new scheme.
So what's on the school food menu? The report offers sample menus andstipulates that every child should be able to choose from all of thehealthy options. But the panel looked at much more than lunch menus.Food available from vending machines and tuck shops is also going tohave to abide by the nutritional guidelines and even the contents oflunchboxes may be reviewed.
This won't come cheap. What of the cost to the public purse of obesity,heart disease and diabetes? The report estimates that, for England, itcould cost an additional 167m in year one, and 159m insubsequent years to implement fully the recommendations. TheGovernment's questions include a hint that parents may be expected tospend more for better-quality and healthier school food.FACT BOX
- About 13 per cent of schools have no catering facilities (School MealsReview Panel)
- Just 47 per cent of schools meet current nutritional standards forschool meals
- Of pupils eating school meals, 48 per cent of pupils choose high fatoptions (Food Standards Agency, 2004)
- Turning the Tables: Transforming School Food is available atwww.dfes.gov.uk/consultations
- Responses are due by 31 December.