The School Food Trust: Transforming school lunches in England

Abstract

School food has been provided to pupils in England for many decades. From the mid-1970s, however, both the number of meals provided and the quality of food have declined. Legislation was introduced in 2001 to ensure that school catering services provided healthy options, but surveys of consumption in 2004–2005 and in 1997 showed that improved availability of healthy options in school had little or no impact on children's eating habits.
In February 2005, Jamie Oliver presented a series of television programmes highlighting the poor quality of school food. The government responded by setting up the School Meals Review Panel to make recommendations on how to improve school food and the School Food Trust, a non-departmental public body to promote the education and health of children and young people by improving the quality of food supplied and consumed in schools.
Legislation was introduced in 2006–2008 that set out what caterers could and could not provide for children in schools. At the same time, the Trust worked with caterers, schools, pupils, parents, manufacturers, food distributors, institutions providing further education for catering staff and others in a coordinated programme of change.
This paper reports clear evidence of the improvements in provision, choice and consumption of food in schools following the introduction of legislation and a national programme of work to change catering practices and the attitudes of pupils, parents and others to healthier food provision in schools. It also provides objective evidence of the impact of healthier food on children's learning behaviour in the classroom, and overall costs and benefits. It concludes by outlining the future work of the Trust as it moves from being a non-departmental public body to a not-for-profit social enterprise.

Full text

NEWS AND VIEWS
The School Food Trust: transforming school
lunches in England
M. Nelson
Division of Research and Nutrition, School Food Trust, London, UK
Summary School food has been provided to pupils in England for many decades. From the
mid-1970s, however, both the number of meals provided and the quality of food
have declined. Legislation was introduced in 2001 to ensure that school catering
services provided healthy options, but surveys of consumption in 2004–2005 and in
1997 showed that improved availability of healthy options in school had little or no
impact on children’s eating habits.
In February 2005, Jamie Oliver presented a series of television programmes
highlighting the poor quality of school food. The government responded by setting
up the School Meals Review Panel to make recommendations on how to improve
school food and the School Food Trust, a non-departmental public body to promote
the education and health of children and young people by improving the quality of
food supplied and consumed in schools.
Legislation was introduced in 2006–2008 that set out what caterers could and
could not provide for children in schools. At the same time, the Trust worked with
caterers, schools, pupils, parents, manufacturers, food distributors, institutions
providing further education for catering staff and others in a coordinated pro-
gramme of change.
This paper reports clear evidence of the improvements in provision, choice and
consumption of food in schools following the introduction of legislation and a
national programme of work to change catering practices and the attitudes of
pupils, parents and others to healthier food provision in schools. It also provides
objective evidence of the impact of healthier food on children’s learning behaviour
in the classroom, and overall costs and benefits. It concludes by outlining the future
work of the Trust as it moves from being a non-departmental public body to a
not-for-profit social enterprise.
Keywords: catering practices, food choice, health, schoolchildren, School Food Trust,
school lunches
Introduction
In 1980, the take up of school lunches was on the
decline. The government deregulated the school meals
service, and nutritional standards were no longer
applied to provision. In 1986, 400 000 pupils from low-
income families whose parents were in work lost their
Correspondence: Dr Michael Nelson, Director of Research and
Nutrition, School Food Trust, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith
Street, London SW1P 3BT, UK.
E-mail: michael.nelson@sft.gsi.gov.uk
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389
381

entitlement to free school meals. Compulsory Competi-
tive Tendering, introduced in 1988, meant that local
authorities (LAs) were required by law to tender for
school catering services and to take the lowest bid. By
1990, school food take up had fallen to just over 40%,
and the food provided and consumed was typically high
in fat, salt and sugar, antithetical to government guide-
lines on healthy eating.
In 2000, the government recognised that the number
of children who were becoming overweight and obese
was increasing dramatically, and that the diets of many
children were typically low in foods from specific food
groups (such as fruits and vegetables), deficient in nutri-
ents (such as iron, zinc, folate, vitamin A, dietary fibre,
etc.), and too high in fat, salt and sugar. In an attempt to
harmonise public health messages about healthy eating
with what was on offer in schools, the government
introduced legislation in 2001 (Department of Educa-
tion and Employment 2001) to regulate school food.
This ensured that catering services in schools provided
healthy options for children, but did not restrict sales of
foods high in fat, salt and sugar, nor actively promote
the healthier options in a meaningful way. A compari-
son of consumption in schools in 2004–2005 (Nelson
et al. 2004, 2006) with that in 1997 (Food Standards
Agency 2000) showed that the increased availability of
healthy options at lunchtime had little or no impact on
children’s eating habits in school (Nelson et al. 2007).
The start of change
In February and March of 2005, celebrity chef Jamie
Oliver presented a series of television programmes on
school food. These graphically showed the British public
that much of what was on offer to pupils in schools was
of poor quality, made from the cheapest ingredients, and
often high in fat, salt and/or sugar. There was a marked
inconsistency between what children were being taught
about healthy eating in the classroom and what was
being offered in the dining room. Packed lunch quality
was no better.
In response to public outcry and Oliver’s Feed me
better campaign, the government [Department for Edu-
cation and Skills (DfES)] set up the School Meals
Review Panel. This body, with representatives from
school food catering (both LA and private catering pro-
viders), food manufacturers, pressure groups promoting
healthier food provision and consumption, academics,
and the government, met between April and August
2005, and in September 2005, made recommendations
to the government about how to improve school food
catering services (School Meals Review Panel 2005). At
the heart of their recommendation was the introduction
of legislation to control what could and could not be
served in schools.
At the same time, the government established the
School Food Trust (SFT) (School Food Trust 2006, http://
www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/).1The trust was given the
unique remit of transforming school food and food skills.
It was set up as a non-departmental public body with £15
million of funding from the then Department for Educa-
tion and Skills (DfES) [replaced by the Department for
Children, Schools and Families and subsequently by the
current Department for Education (DfE)] to promote the
education and health of children and young people by
improving the quality of food supplied and consumed in
schools. The Trust’s remit was to:
• ensure all schools meet the food-based and nutrient-
based standards for lunch and non-lunch food;
• increase the take up of school meals;
• reduce diet-related inequalities in childhood through
food education and school-based initiatives;
• improve food skills through food education, and
school and community initiatives.
Its first task was to work closely with the government
to draft and implement the legislation necessary to
govern catering provision at school. This was intro-
duced in a phased way over 3 years, starting with the
interim food-based standards (Statutory Instrument
2006) and culminating with the final food-based and
nutrient-based standards for all schools in place by Sep-
tember 2009 (Statutory Instrument 2007; The Educa-
tion Regulations 2007). To inform this work, the Trust
undertook two reviews, comparing school food stan-
dards in ten countries (Harper & Wells 2007) and pro-
vision in 18 countries (Harper et al. 2008).
At the same time, the Trust began a structured nation-
wide programme of engagement with the many stake-
holders involved in the provision of school food: cooks,
catering managers, catering companies (both LA and
private) and associations (such as the LA Caterers Asso-
ciation), pupils, parents, Headteachers, school gover-
nors, and others, finding out their attitudes about school
food, their views on what needed to change and how the
changes might be implemented. The Trust developed an
integrated programme based soundly on principles of
behavioural economics delivered within the context of
legislation. It developed a wide range of guidance, prod-
ucts and support services, and training, mostly available
1Although the School Food Trust was established as a legal entity in
April 2005, full-time permanent staff were not in place until April
2006, and the active work of the Trust started from this date.
382 M. Nelson
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

for free, that were designed to underpin the efforts of all
those involved in transforming the school food service
and improving pupils’ eating habits at school. It also
engaged directly with the central government to lobby in
favour of the elements of infrastructure necessary to
deliver healthy meals (adequate kitchens and dining
rooms when planning new schools and refurbishing old
ones, training programmes for catering staff, inclusion
of cooking in the curriculum, etc.). In 2006, the Trust
also started Let’s Get Cooking, a 6-year Big Lottery-
funded programme to introduce and support over 5000
cookery clubs for children, their parents and the com-
munity across England (Carter et al. 2011).
Developing a theoretical framework
The first stage of work for the Trust was to identify who
was involved in either providing or purchasing school
food, to understand their issues, needs and the barriers
to change, to work closely with every stakeholder group
to learn (and provide evidence for) which approaches to
change were likely to be effective, and, finally, to publi-
cise and help to embed this learning. A systems map of
the people and factors (nodes of influence) involved in
promoting healthier eating of food in schools was devel-
oped iteratively over a period of several months (Fig. 1).
The map suggested that there were four key areas of
influence:
• positive customer experience;
• positive mindset;
• economic viability of service;
• positive infrastructure and capacity.
Ignoring any one of these elements was likely to result
in stalemate or stagnation at local level. For example,
pupils needed to have a positive experience in the dining
room. So not only was it important to work closely with
school councils (representative student bodies) in each
school to make sure that they understood and commu-
nicated with their peers the need for change, but also to
ensure that the caterers were agreeable to changing
established habits and had the training to do so, that
there were adequate kitchen and dining facilities in the
school, that Headteachers and parents were on board
with the changes, and that ultimately, the service would
be financially viable. Ignoring any one of these spheres
of influence was likely to result in little or no change to
the school lunch food.
Making the changes, therefore, involved undertaking a
large number of parallel or carefully sequenced activities
to engage all of the stakeholders likely to have an influ-
ence at each stage of the change and to understand the
motivations for each stakeholder group. Insights from
psychology, marketing, customer profiling and econom-
ics allowed the Trust to understand better what motivates
decision making and provided a range of possible new
policy design themes that could operate in each setting.
Application of these principles to the design of interven-
tions is embedded throughout the work of the Trust.
A good example can be seen in relation to the needs
that pupils have at lunchtime and how those needs can
be satisfied. Figure 2 shows the results from research
with focus groups of pupils and their parents.
The hierarchy of the needs to satisfy grows increas-
ingly complex as children get older, involving more and
more psychological elements (Ashfield-Watt et al.
2011). At the same time, there is a range of other factors
that may be mediating against adoption of healthier
eating habits at lunchtime. For example, school meals
are seen as ‘expensive’, packed lunches are seen as
cheaper and more likely to satisfy ‘consumption confi-
dence’ (the feeling on the part of both the child and the
parent that the lunch provided will be eaten), and free
school meals, although potentially addressing some of
the financial issues, face barriers in terms of registration
and stigma. Other barriers to choice relate to how foods
are perceived and approved of, the dining environment,
and competition at lunch time from other activities in
school or from the high street.
Demonstrating the impact of the work of
the Trust
Over the last 5 years, the activities of the trust have
contributed substantially to the changes in the provi-
sion, choice and consumption of food in schools in
England. The main responsibility for monitoring
changes in provision and consumption, compliance with
the standards, and assessing the impact of changes on
nutritional status, pupil behaviour and educational
attainment through surveys and intervention studies,
lies with the Trust’s Division of Research and Nutrition.
The outputs of the Division are summarised in the
Research Summary published on the SFT website
(School Food Trust 2010).
The evidence demonstrates how promoting better
feeding practices in schools has made a difference to
take up, dietary intakes and learning behaviours in
school. This provides a powerful message to Headteach-
ers: schoolchildren who eat healthier food in a nicer
dining environment at lunchtime are likely to pay more
attention in their classes after lunch and have higher
levels of wellbeing. This in turn may lead to better
achievement and attainment, although the evidence for
Transforming school lunches in England 383
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

Premises
budget
Premises
regulations
Space for
cooking clubs
Ofsted
Certification
accreditation
Kitchen
build/rebuild/
refurbishment
Kitchen
efficiency
Kitchen
capacity
Dining
space
Packed
lunch Competing
lunchtime
activities
Queuing
Seating
Time
to eat
Dining
environment
Positive
customer
experience MADGe
Pupil choices
and consumption
Consumption
confidence
Desirable
choices
Communities
Families
Lunchtime
supervisors
Catering
managers
Cooks Teachers
Head
teachers
Other
school staff
Healthy
schools
Pupils
Curriculum
School
councils
Healthy
eating
at home FFLP Change
4 Life
School children
eat healthy
lunches
Positive
mind set
Familiarity
Value for
money
Positive
infrastructure
and capacity
Economic
viability
High street
temptation
Dietitians (BDA)
nutritionists
Monitoring
compliance
Working
agreements
Staff
number
Staff
attitude
Staff
training
Compliant and
efficient lunch
service
Training
budget
Funding for
lunch service
LA charge out
price for FSM
Number of
FSM served
FSM
registrations
Price of
school meal
Level of
subsidy
Type of provider
(LA, private, in-school)
Comprehensive
area assessment
Local area
agreements
Central
government
Directors of
health services
SFT
board
Government
office region
Elected
members
Other
stakeholders
Political
support
Governors
Bursar
Research
SFT and other
DCSF
DH
PCTs
Commercial
interests
Media
stories Advertising
Pressures SFT
marketing
Cooking skills
and food
knowledge
Marketing
Parents
Local
authority
Local
strategic
partnerships
School food
ambassadors
Type of lunch
service (break even,
cost-plus, profit)
Single
status Pay
budget
BSF, PFI
TCF, PCP
Staff
efficiency
Preparation
time
Compliant
service
Figure 1 Systems map showing the main spheres of influence and key nodes relating to changes in school food provision and consumption by pupils of healthier food in schools.
LA, local authority; DCSF, Department for Children, Schools and Families; SFT, School Food Trust; PCTs, Primary Care Trusts; FFLP, Food for Life Partnership; FSM, Free School Meal; DH, Department of
Health.
384 M. Nelson
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

this at the moment is modest (Stevens et al. 2008; Belot
& James 2011).
Annual survey of school lunch take up
Each year since 2006, the SFT has conducted a compre-
hensive survey of school lunch take up and catering
services in all state-maintained schools in England.
Every LA is asked to report take up of paid for and free
school meals for all primary, secondary and special
schools, not only where the LA provides catering ser-
vices but also for services provided by private caterers or
in-school. The survey also asks about meal prices and
costs, catering facilities, factors associated with changes
in take up, financial issues, policy and strategy, staffing
and pay, and progress towards meeting school food
standards.
The 2011 survey (Nelson et al. 2011a) shows that the
recent decline in the percentage of pupils taking a school
lunch has been reversed (Fig. 3). The Trust estimates that
since 2008–2009, take up has increased by 4.8 percent-
age points in primary schools and 2.6 percentage points
in secondary schools, meaning that in England as a
whole, over 270 000 more pupils are now taking lunch at
school. In addition, over two thirds of schools are
reported to be compliant with the three components of
the standards (food-based, nutrient-based and food other
than lunch). Further analysis of the 2010 data (Nelson
et al. 2011b) suggests that support from Headteachers
and governors, use of menu analysis software, and pro-
fessional advice, full-production kitchens and, in addi-
tion in the secondary sector, use of cashless systems,
implementing a stay-on-site policy and not having hot
food transported from elsewhere, were all associated
with higher levels of take up. Further analyses of the 2011
annual survey date will be published in autumn 2011.
Primary school food study
In 2009, the Trust undertook a survey of provision,
choice and consumption in a nationally representative
sample of 136 primary schools in England. Data were
recorded on catering practices and the provision of food
and drink at lunchtime; and the food and drink choices,
Figure 2 Needs that pupils aim to satisfy at
lunchtime.
Hunger satiation, replenishing energy,
sustenance
Pleasure, enjoyment, organoleptics
Refreshed, rejuvenated
Relax Rest, time-out, switch off
Engaging, interacting, communicating
Establishing and nurturing friendships, learning
about others, socialising, moral and interpersonal
Release Freedom; physical, psychological and emotional
self-expression; creativity; autonomy
Refuel
Reward
Re-
energise
Reconnect
Relationship
building
Physiological Psychological
Youn
g
er Older
Figure 3 Percentage take up of school lunches
in schools in England, paid for and free, primar y
and special combined, and secondary,
2004–2011.
43.0
37.6
42.3
44.9
41.3
39.3
41.4
44.1
42.7
44.9
37.7
35.0 35.8
37.6
30
35
40
45
50
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
Yea r
Percentage
Primary
Secondary
Old method
2008- 2010-2009-
2009 2011 2010
Data not comparable with previous
years based on old method
Transforming school lunches in England 385
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

consumption and wastage of food and drink by 6690
pupils having a school lunch and 3481 pupils having a
packed lunch were recorded. The methodology that fol-
lowed was used in a similar survey carried out in 2005
(Nelson et al. 2006). As the school food standards were
introduced in 2006, the recent survey provided the
opportunity to assess the overall impact of the Trust’s
work and that of the catering providers in the 2 years
following the introduction of the standards. Full reports
on the survey’s implementation and findings have been
published (Nelson et al. 2009; Haroun et al. 2010a,
2010b).
Compared with 2005, there were statistically signifi-
cant increases in the provision of vegetables and salad,
fruit, starchy foods not cooked in fat or oil, milk, yogurt
and milk-based drinks, water, fruit juice and fruit-based
desserts. There were declines in the provision of starchy
foods cooked in fat (e.g. chips), ‘other’ desserts (not
fruit-based), sandwiches, condiments, ‘non-permitted’
food and drink (sweet and savoury snacks, soft drinks,
confectionery, etc.). These changes were in line with the
published guidance on the standards (School Food Trust
2007). Over this period, the percentage of pupils taking
water increased by over 20%, vegetables and salad by
almost 15%, fruit juice by 9% and fruit-based desserts
by 8%, and other positive changes were seen in relation
to starchy foods not cooked in fat and fruit. Foods
regarded as less healthy, such as non-fruit-based des-
serts, condiments, starchy foods cooked in fat, and non-
permitted food and drink, were all taken less often.
This translated into healthier average consumption
from school lunches. For example, fruit and vegetable
consumption increased by 60% (from an average of 1.0
portion in 2005 to 1.6 portions in 2009). Similarly, the
average nutrient consumption from school lunches
(choice minus plate waste) increased significantly for
vitamin A, zinc, folate and dietary fibre. Non-milk
extrinsic sugar, fat and saturated fatty acids all fell sub-
stantially, and sodium intake went down by almost one
third. Energy intake also fell, which potentially contrib-
utes to healthier weight gain (evidence in relation to
child growth will be published in 2011). Iron intake also
fell, in spite of efforts by caterers to increase the iron
density of many school recipes (Boaden et al. 2008).
Changes of this magnitude on a national scale are
remarkable in such a short period of time. The Trust is
not aware of any other public health nutrition interven-
tion on a national scale that shows such dramatic, con-
sistent and robust evidence of healthier eating in
children over such a short time period. There is also
good evidence of the impact of nutrient-based standards
over and above the impact of food-based standards
alone (Haroun et al. 2011). In terms of the govern-
ment’s current public health programme, school food
standards are a signal demonstration of where regula-
tion is appropriate.
A similar study to assess catering practices and the
provision and consumption of food and drink at mid-
morning break and at lunchtime is currently underway
in a nationally representative sample of 80 secondary
schools in England, which will be comparable with a
study carried out in 2004 (Nelson et al. 2006). The
findings will be reported in late 2011 or early 2012.
School lunch and learning behaviours
There is anecdotal evidence from teachers and parents
that children’s behaviour and academic performance
improve when they eat healthier food, but there is a lack
of robust evidence (Summerbell et al. 2006). The Trust
carried out two randomised controlled intervention
studies, one in primary schools and one in secondary
schools. The hypothesis was that providing and promot-
ing healthier school food at lunchtime and improving
the dining room environment would have a positive
impact on the pupils’ learning-related behaviours in the
classroom after lunch. The interventions were 12–15
weeks, carried out in negotiation with the school, cater-
ers and pupils, and measurements were made on over
130 pupils in each survey. Systematic objective observa-
tions of the pupils’ learning-related behaviours were
carried out in the classroom in the 60–90 minutes imme-
diately after lunch by observers trained in a standardised
technique, at baseline and again after the interventions.
Pupils’ learning behaviours were classified as ‘on-task’
or ‘off-task’ [proxy measures for concentration and dis-
engagement (disruption), respectively] and the ‘social
mode’ was noted, whether the pupil was working alone,
with others or with a teacher.
In the primary school study (four intervention and
two control schools) (Golley et al. 2010), teacher–pupil
on-task engagement was 3.4 times more likely in the
intervention schools compared with the control schools
(controlling for potential confounders2). Teacher–pupil
interaction represents about 80% of the time spent in
primary school classrooms. In secondary schools (seven
intervention and four control schools), intervention
group pupils were 18% more likely to be on-task and
14% less likely to be off-task compared with control
group pupils, again controlling for potential confound-
2Adjusted for class size, presence of additional adults in the
classroom (yes/no), English as an additional language, free school
meal eligibility, sex, special educational need status, ethnicity (White
British or ‘other’) and lunch type (school lunch or packed lunch).
386 M. Nelson
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

ers (Storey et al. 2011). The main contribution to the
on-task behaviours came from pupils working well on
their own (representing about 50% of the time spent in
the classroom). Both studies offer some support for the
hypothesis that a school food and dining room interven-
tion can have a positive impact on pupils’ alertness.
Cost and impact
The SFT received a grant-in-aid from the DfE worth £38
million over the 6 years of its operation to date, £15.4
million in 2006–20083and £22.6 million in 2008–2011.
Over this period, it is estimated that nationally, at least
270 000 pupils now take a school lunch (paid for and
free combined) who previously did not.
It could be argued, therefore, that the SFT spend per
new school lunch pupil =£38 million/270 000 =£141/
pupil. If it is assumed that healthier eating habits at
school are likely to have wider impacts on pupils’ eating
habits outside of school and into adulthood, and that
better school food is associated with better learning and
achievement, then this represents a reasonable invest-
ment in the future of each child and is likely to be more
than offset in adulthood by health benefits and employ-
ment opportunities (Conlon 2009).
An alternative mode of costing would be to argue that
on average, children eating a school lunch are likely to
be eating more healthily than in the past. The SFT spend
for pupils to eat more healthily at lunchtime then applies
to just over 3 million school lunches served every school
day in England. The SFT spend per child per year to
have a healthier school lunch then equals £38 million/
(3 million ¥6 years) =£2.11. School catering services
typically provide lunch on 190 days per year, so the SFT
spend per school lunch was £2.11/190 =1.1p/lunch.
This is a tiny amount to have paid to see a dramatic
improvement in the quality of school lunch provision
across England. For both this and the previous calcula-
tion, as the take up of school lunch and the number of
new pupils taking a school meal increase, these esti-
mated costs per pupil or per meal will come down.
Over this same period, the DfE provided a ring-fenced
school lunch grant. From 2005 to 2008, this was £240
million specifically to subsidise ingredients, which
equates to £240 million/(3 million ¥3 years ¥190
days) =14p/meal. Over the 2008–2011 period, the DfE
provided a further £240 million. This money was again
ring-fenced and covered both food and other items (such
as small pieces of kitchen equipment, software for menu
and nutrient analysis, professional support from a nutri-
tionist or dietitian to implement the standards), which
equated to about 11p/meal. The subsidy will continue as
part of the general grant provided to schools by the
central government, but will no longer be ring-fenced.
This support from the central government was a key
element in helping caterers make the transition to
healthier eating (see Fig. 1, upper right-hand corner).
Conclusions
We believe that the introduction of compulsory school
food standards in England has been effective in
improving children’s eating habits only because it was
underpinned nationally and locally by four elements:
ensuring that catering services were economically
viable; making sure that parents, pupils, teachers and
governors understood that healthier eating was desir-
able; engaging with pupils to ensure that they had a
positive experience in the dining room; and working to
develop a positive infrastructure (relating to food pro-
curement, caterer training, etc.) to support the delivery
of healthier food. This included support for audits and
inspection of the service to determine compliance with
the standards.
Looking forward
From 2011, the SFT will no longer be a non-
departmental public body, but will operate as a social
enterprise, being a charity and a company limited by
guarantee. The aim is to provide advice, support, prod-
ucts and services to schools, LA and the central govern-
ment, and to continue to help frame the school food
agenda and conduct research on issues relating to chil-
dren’s nutrition and health.
In 2011–2012, the Trust carried out the sixth annual
survey (covering the 2010–2011 financial year), and
completed the Secondary School Food Survey. It will
also complete three studies in the field: on food pur-
chases and consumption on the journey to and from
school, assessing how changes in diet may impact on
children’s and parents’ ability to detect sweetness in
foods, and an intervention study on how changes in the
dining room impact on secondary pupil’s perceptions
and link to changes in behaviour in the classroom. More
broadly, the Trust will continue its engagement with
stakeholders, providing information and advice to a
wide range of catering service providers and users
(including the government), empowering parents, and
finding ways to support an increase in school lunch take
up. The Trust will continue its commitment to work on
3See footnote 1.
Transforming school lunches in England 387
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

free school meals; to improve efficiency in kitchens,
dining rooms, and in procurement; to support work-
force development and training; and to strengthen the
links between nutrition education in schools with prac-
tice, using Let’s Get Cooking as one of the central
vehicles.
A new focus of the SFT is on early years. The trust has
recently provided secretariat support to the DfE-
appointed Advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition in
Early Years (Advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition in
Early Years 2011), and many of the recommendations of
the advisory panel have been adopted by the DfE (Tickell
2011). Better provision of healthy food in early years
provides a powerful model for engagement with mothers
and families around good nutrition. These recommenda-
tions of the advisory panel will help to address not only
issues relating to healthy food but wider issues of obesity
and dietary balance – a quarter of pupils currently arrive
at reception class in primary school already either over-
weight or obese. Again, there will be a need to evaluate
the impact of the introduction of guidance and relevant
support on practice. To that end, the Trust will be seeking
to undertake a survey of provision, practice and con-
sumption at baseline (i.e. before the introduction of
national guidance) and again 3 years later.
Acknowledgements
The work described has been carried out by many
members of the SFT staff who are too numerous to
thank individually. I would, however, like to make
special mention of members of the Research and Nutri-
tion team whose specific research contributions have
been highlighted: Rebecca Golley,4Research Associate;
Dalia Haroun,4Research Associate; Clare Harper,
Research Nutritionist; Patricia Mucavele, Research and
Nutrition Senior Manager; Jo Nicholas, Research and
Nutrition Senior Manager; Jo Pearce, Research Nutri-
tionist; Lesley Stevens, Research Associate; Claire
Storey, Research Associate; and Lesley Wood, Research
Analyst.
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflict of interest to disclose.
References
Advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition in Early Years (2011) Laying
the table: recommendations for national food and nutrition guid-
ance for early years settings in England. Available at: http://
www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/research/advisory-panel-on-food-and-
nutrition-in-early-years (accessed 13 July 2011).
Ashfield-Watt PAL, Dow B, Abbot R et al. (2011) Improving ado-
lescent nutrition: engaging secondary school children with school
food. Sheffield. School Food Trust. Public Health Nutrition
(submitted).
Belot M & James J (2011) Healthy school meals and educational
outcomes. Journal of Health Economics 30: 489–504.
BoadenD,FrenchC&BaconP(2008) Report on the development
of secondary school lunch recipes with increased iron content.
Sheffield. School Food Trust. Available at: http://
www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/the-standards/the-nutrient-based-
standards/guides-and-reports/iron-enriched-recipes (accessed 13
July 2011).
Carter W, Edwards E, Fanshawe C et al. (2011) Let’s Get Cooking
Annual Report 2009–2010. Available at: http://
www.letsgetcooking.org.uk/Resources/Annualreport (accessed 13
July 2011).
Conlon G (2009) Estimating the economic impact of healthy eating.
Sheffield. School Food Trust. Available at: http://
www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/schools/reports/estimating-the-
economic-impact-of-healthy-eating (accessed 13 July 2011).
Department of Education and Employment (2001) Statutory Instru-
ment 2000 No. 1777. Education (Nutritional Standards for
School Lunches) (England) Regulations 2000. The Stationery
Office: London. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/
20001777.htm (accessed 13 July 2011).
Food Standards Agency (2000) National Diet and Nutrition Survey:
Young People Aged 4 to 18 Years. The Stationery Office: London.
And: Food Standards Agency (2006) national diet and nutrition
survey: young people aged 4 to 18 years: revised consumption
data for some food groups. Available at: .http://www.food.gov.uk/
science/dietarysurveys/ndnsdocuments/ndnsprevioussurveyreports/
ndnssurvey4to18 (accessed 13 July 2011).
Golley R, Baines E, Bassett P et al. (2010) School lunch and learn-
ing behaviour in primary schools: an intervention study. Euro-
pean Journal of Clinical Nutrition 64: 1280–8. Available at:
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/
ejcn2010150a.html (accessed 13 July 2011).
Haroun D, Harper C, Pearce J et al. (2010a) Primary school food
survey 2009 – full technical report. Sheffield. School Food Trust.
Available at: http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-
caterers/reports/primary-school-food-survey-2009-full-technical-
report (accessed 13 July 2011).
Haroun D, Harper C, Wood L et al. (2010b) The impact of the
food-based and nutrient-based standards on lunchtime food and
drink provision and consumption in primary schools in England.
Public Health Nutrition 14: 209–18. Available at: http://
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=7871394
(accessed 13 July 2011).
Haroun D, Harper C, Wood L et al. (2011) Nutrient-based stan-
dards for school lunch complement food-based standards and
improve pupils’ nutrient intake profile. British Journal of Nutri-
tion (in press). Available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/
displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8280137&fulltextType=
RC&fileId=S0007114511002297 (accessed 13 July 2011).
HarperC&Wells L (2007) School meal provision in England and
other Western countries: a review. Sheffield. School Food Trust.
4No longer working at the School Food Trust.
388 M. Nelson
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389

Available at: http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-
caterers/reports/school-meal-provision-in-england-and-other-
western-countries-a-review (accessed 13 July 2011).
HarperC,WoodL&Mitchell C (2008) The provision of school
food in 18 countries. Sheffield. School Food Trust. Available at:
http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/
the-provision-of-school-food-in-18-countries (accessed 13 July
2011).
Nelson M, Bradbury J, Poulter J et al. (2004) School Meals in Sec-
ondary Schools in England. Department for Education: London.
ISBN 1 84478 276 X Ref No: RR557. Available at: http://www.
education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/
RR557 (accessed 13 July 2011).
Nelson M, Nicholas J, Suleiman S et al. (2006) School Meals in
Primary Schools in England. Department for Education: London.
ISBN 1 84478 738 9 Ref No: RR753.Available at: http://www.
education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/
RR753 (accessed 13 July 2011).
Nelson M, Lowes K, Hwang V, members of the Nutrition Group,
School Meals Review Panel & Department for Education and
Skills (2007) The contribution of school meals to food consump-
tion and nutrient intakes of young people aged 4–18 years in
England. Public Health Nutrition 10: 652–62.
Nelson M, Haroun D, Harper C et al. (2009) Primary school food
survey 2009 1. School lunch: provision, selection and consump-
tion. Sheffield. School Food Trust. Available at: http://
www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/
primary-school-food-survey-2009 (accessed 13 July 2011).
Nelson M, Nicholas J, Wood L et al. (2011a) Sixth annual survey
of take up of school lunches in England 2010-2011. Sheffield.
School Food Trust. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodtrust.
org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/sixth-annual-survey-of-take-
up-of-school-meals-in-england (accessed 13 July 2011).
Nelson M, NicholasJ&WoodL(2011b) Fifth annual survey of
take up of school lunches in England 2009-2010: key findings
from further analysis. Sheffield. School Food Trust. Available at:
http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/
fifth-annual-survey-of-take-up-of-school-meals-in-england
(accessed 13 July 2011).
School Food Trust (2007) A guide to introducing the Government’s
food-based and nutrient-based standards for school food. Shef-
field. School Food Trust. Available at: http://www.
schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/resources/guide-to-
the-nutrient-based-standards (accessed 13 July 2011).
School Food Trust (2010) Research Summary. Available at: http://
www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/research (accessed 13 July 2011).
School Meals Review Panel (2005) Turning the tables: transforming
school food. Department for Education and Skills. United
Kingdom. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-
cooks-caterers/reports/turning-the-tables-transforming-school-food
(accessed 13 July 2011).
Statutory Instrument (2006) No. 2381.The Education (Nutritional
Standards for School Lunches) (England) Regulations 2006. The
Stationery Office: London.
Statutory Instrument (2007) No. 2359. The Education (Nutritional
Standards and Requirements for School Food) (England) Regula-
tions 2007. The Stationery Office: London.
Stevens L, Oldfield N, Wood L et al. (2008) The impact of primary
school breakfast clubs in deprived areas of London. Sheffield.
School Food Trust. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodtrust.
org.uk/schools/reports/the-impact-of-primary-school-breakfast-
clubs-in-deprived-areas-of-london (accessed 13 July 2011).
Storey C, Pearce J, Ashfield-Watt P et al. (2011) A randomised con-
trolled trial of the effect of school food and dining room modifi-
cations on classroom behaviour in secondary school children.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 65: 32–8. Available at:
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v65/n1/full/
ejcn2010227a.html (accessed 13 July 2011).
Summerbell CD, Ells LJ & Hillier FC (2006) A Systematic Review
of the Effect of Nutrition, Diet and Dietary Change on Learning,
Education and Performance of Children of Relevance to UK
Schools. Food Standards Agency: London.
The Education (Nutritional Standards and Requirements for School
Food) (England) Regulations (2007) (SI 2007/2359) as amended
by the Education (Nutritional Standards and Requirements for
School Food) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (SI
2008/1800). Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/
uksi_20072359_en_1 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/
uksi_20081800_en_1 (accessed 13 July 2011).
Tickell C (2011) The early years: foundations for life, health and
learning. An Independent Report on the Early Years Foundation
Stage to Her Majesty’s Government. London. Department for
Education. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview
(accessed 13 July 2011).
Transforming school lunches in England 389
© 2011 The Author
Journal compilation © 2011 British Nutrition Foundation Nutr ition Bulletin,36, 381–389