To think that free breakfast at school is a bad idea due to the quality?

[Mushypeass]

Firstly, I fully agree with the principle of free breakfast for all pupils. My reservation comes from the quality of food that is often served up in UK school canteens. Obviously a poor quality breakfast is better than no breakfast at all but AIBU that it could encourage children to eat even more UPFs? For example, children who have may had a relatively healthy breakfast at home may now opt eat UPFs at school with their pals instead.

Seocondly, why is the food so poor in so many schools? How can other countries manage to provide their youth with nutritious and healthy meals but we can’t?

You can take that argument a long way, but shouldn’t parents have responsibility for their children? Is it always a good idea for the state to remove that responsibility?

A few years ago, sugar was the evil everyone was obsessed with, before that it was fat, now it's UPFs.
None of the above are good, obviously but they really are not the be all and end all of life.

Children need a degree of fat in their diet so yes fat is good for them in moderation.

On the other hand, the campaign to get rid of sugar has resulted in them being replaced with dubious artificial sweeteners that are also much sweeter than sugar, encouraging a sweeter tooth.

It’s just so very very sad that the issue of free breakfast is even a thing in a country that is the 6th largest economy in the world. Yet as many as 30% of our sweet children live in poverty 😞
I just pray for governance that succeeds in raising families out of such poverty and provides them with the means to feed their own children. The state feeding them is all very well as a temporary measure but what is the plan going forward?

Look to Japan when we think about what feeding school children should look like
https://www.ordo.com/articles/why-japans-school-nutrition-program-sets-a-global-example

Rather than enriching catering providers and setting up a lifetime of illness for another generation, it would cost the country far, far LESS in the long run to reverse the tide of eating badly in this country if we ensured that food which actually supports health is what is served to everyone in our schools...

Before retiring through ill health I worked in a school. Firstly as a one to one support worker and also in breakfast club.
our breakfast club has been running for 15 years and has always been free.
I live in a deprived area just outside the Rhondda South Wales.
The breakfast club is an essential part of the school day and is usually packed.
We are a small school with just over a hundred children and the breakfast club is attended by at least half of the children. Sometimes more sometimes less.
We serve weetabix, rice crispies, cornflakes, toast, yogurt and fresh fruit.
We don’t put sugar on the cereal and the toast is made from 50/50 bread. We don’t offer jam because of the sugar content.
We give them milk, sugar fruit juices, and water.
We did try porridge at one time but had so few takers due to not adding sugar that we stopped it.
Our lunch menus have been well thought out by dietitians and all the ingredients are measured for the best dietary needs of the children ie all the food groups are present in the recipes.
There is always salad and fruit on offer as well as nutritious sandwiches, rolls and wraps.
I was under the impression that this was the same all over the uk and am genuinely surprised to hear that this isn’t the case.

I often wonder about the lack of quality school meals too, but it’s such an emotive issue. You almost have to present your ‘poor’ credentials before anything you say can be considered on MN which is not helpful.
One issue is that we have devalued food and food production and stopped home economics type lessons. The percentage of wages spent on food is so much less than when I was young - yet we know more about the value of good food and nutrition.
Then there’s the issue of meals not being prepared in schools due to lack of kitchens.
I do wonder if suppliers can be brought on board more, if not by conscience then by tax breaks etc, to get more fresh fruit and veggies made available.
This is going to get me roasted, but I can’t help but wonder if someone like M&S could be partnered with so they supply quality sandwiches for breakfast clubs with therefore protein and not just carbs. Obviously at very subsidised prices to the schools.
Yes, to finalise, I did attend a failing lowest 10% achievement comp with foul school meals, but I genuinely feel food was more prioritised by parents over almost anything else in those days. Not good quality food, but not letting your kids go hungry. Uniforms (esp PE kits) and stationery etc often not supplied, UK camping hols only (if at all), walking everywhere, maybe no tv.
We do need to find a way for children to learn to eat healthier and prioritise food themselves.

I bet the food in Japanese schools is tasty too!
Fixed Menu: All students are served the same balanced meal, with a “you get what you’re given” approach that leaves no option to choose unhealthy foods.
Same in Finland, one meal for everyone (those with allergies are given a version of the meal that fits with their dietary restrictions) so no option to choose something less healthy. But the children serve themselves so can take a small portion if its something they really don't like and fill up on salad and bread.

I’m absolutely amazed at all the posts on here defending shit food in schools. All the “fed is best” crap. Surely in a country as rich as ours it’s not too much to expect children to be both fed and fed healthy?? Let raise the bar a little for gods sake.

I’m not blaming the schools or school staff for it…I’m blaming the government. I wouldn’t expect TAs or teachers (who currently run our schools breakfast club) to get into school early to make porridge and boil eggs etc, then wash it all up. There needs to be enough funding for the school to hire breakfast cooks / staff in the same as at lunch time.

Skimping on school meal nutrition is a false economy. Especially for those “fed us best” children who will most likely also be getting crap food at home. All it does is create unhealthy eating habits, so kicking the financial can further down the line when they are adults with health problems and the NHS has to pick up the pieces.

When I was at primary school all our lunches were made at the school and there was pretty much just one home made choice (roast, cottage pie, lasagne, etc). Everyone ate it. Then I moved to senior school and it was totally different. It was delivered by Brake Brothers each day. Lots more choice, but a lot of food that was very unheathly. Of course no one ate the healthy option, firstly because beige food is designed to be addictive/easy for our palette to love, but also because you would have been teased for it. Everyone on the table going “ewww! Look what gagamamas eating! It makes me want to vom!” Etc. Since when did children get so much power over something that should be decided for them? We don’t let them choose over going to school and learning, or staying at home and playing video games. Same goes for the food. We need to be adults who show them what to eat, and where an unhealthy version isn’t an option.

I would have thought that porridge with a bit of brown sugar, honey or syrup would be better than Rice Krispies or cornflakes which are devoid or anything nutritious (other than added bits and minerals).

I think your missing the point somewhat it's not the government's fault that some parents won't feed their kids
But in those cases surely having a bowl of cereal and a slice of toast even if it, s cheap cereal and bread is better than not eating at all
We got great home made dinners at primary school too this was in the 70 s and 80,s which my parents paid for we also got fed at home.

It is an argument because in this country there's no one with less income than a jobless under 25. You can look up how much less benefits under 25s get, still always had money for 70p cereal. Bullshit on those people claiming they can't afford to feed their kids breakfast.

Given the increasing rates of childhood overweight and obesity I'm pleased to hear the portions are small. A lot parents are massively over feeding their kids, and healthwise that's likely to be as bad as smoking 20 a day. It's crazy to add a universal extra breakfast in - the rates of children being underweight are tiny and show no change in recent decades. I just don't believe the narrative of high numbers of kids going to school hungry.

22% of kids in reception are overweight or obese. That is entirely the fault of their parents giving them too much food. The money would be better spent on interventions to help those families & early safeguarding for underweight kids, not giving the kids more calories.

The latest data shows childhood underweight at 1.2% of children in reception whilst 2.6% are severely obese.

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/obesity-physical-activity-nutrition/data#page/1

We have had 30 years of cuts to budgets that's why- the whole system is predicated on lowest cost. It's the same with most public services- the management style has been cuts since my first job in 1984, many professions only offer promotion to those who save the company money-it has been like that for 2 generations. Other countries like Italy haven't had a functioning government since WW2 and yet can still find the money for public services. We were always told the UK has very little corruption-but I have come to the conclusion the opposite is true, and has always been true, otherwise where did the money go?

I agree OP and I would like to see better school food funded out of general taxation.

Why should children who grow up in poverty be given shit food? They deserve better. Good food and good education, not a fast track to obesity and diabetes.

Whose going to pay for that?
And cheap toast and cereal is better than what some kids were getting which was nothing.

Somebody in the assessment period for UC so has no income yet has less. Somebody whose employer is messing them around with wages has less. Somebody who has been wrongly refused PIP/DLA has less. Somebody who has been sanctioned has less. Somebody on crap pay with massive childcare fees, travel to work and UC has failed to make the childcare element payment has less. Somebody whose landlord has raised the rent far in excess of the LHA has less. Somebody who is an asylum seekers has far, far less. Somebody who loses their job and is No Recourse to Public Funds has far, far less. Somebody in bed and breakfast accommodation with no cooking facilities for the evening meal or lunches has less.

Being in receipt of benefit was an incredibly secure time for me. Once we got past the three months it took them to realise they hadn't ticked a box on the system to entitle me to anything, then dealing with the entire year's council tax still being due, no FSM entitlement, getting eviction notices, knocking the gas and electricity and trying to get hold of food for the months.

Not to turn this thread into a massive sob story but I've been there with most of them things on that list as well. Did you look up how much less under 25s get in benefits than over 25s?
I guess the government assumes no one moves out their parents basement or has children till 25.

Anyway cornflakes are still 70-80p in most supermarkets and most of the people claiming they can't afford to give their kids breakfast are talking out their ass

One of my biggest pet hates is the MN attitude of nobody should get help because I was able to manage and therefore everybody should.

It sounds like you're a good Mum and responsible person and therefore you were able to get by.

Unfortunately there are so so many children who don't have responsible parents who make sure they leave the house with a full tummy. Yes parents should feed their kids, yes cornflakes are cheap but regardless of the reasons why kids aren't getting breakfast the fact remains that lots aren't and you continually pointing out that you had a small amount of benefits because you were under 25 doesn't change that.

I’m not missing the point at all, some children (including mine two days a week) need to be dropped off at breakfast club so that I can drop the third child off on time at a different school and then get to work on time. On those days I just have to accept they will eat crap for breakfast (fine, it’s just 2 days a week). It’s too early for them to eat at home beforehand. Lots of other working parents are in the same position. And lots are working in the first place because only a few people can support an entire family on one wage nowadays.

others will be low income families using the breakfast club for free food. Don’t these children deserve better?

I do agree the kids should get help I'm just saying money is very rarely the reason and sadly I doubt the breakfast club idea will help those kids because the people I know who's kids don't have breakfast don't get to school on time anyway let alone earlier for a club. A lot of these kids breakfast relies on the benevolence of teachers making them toast when they do get there. But as there are many teachers on Mumsnet who point out this takes up time meant for teaching.

I think the only solution to help these kids is social services (and I don't necessarily mean taking the kids into foster care straight away but investigating why they don't give their kids breakfast or get to school on time and try and help )

Many times it isn't about poverty. Many middle class families do not feed their children.

For breakfast? Really?

OP

There are two issues.

Some children will not have eaten since their school dinner yesterday.

Children are not know for trying new foods at school, as you said a bad breakfast is better than none, but you also have to get it in to the child.

It would be fantastic if we had a dietician in every school and budget for organic fresh food. And of course the staff to cook it, the fuel to cook it and someone to clear up afterwards.

I often went to school hungry, not due to lack of money, we would go abroad 2-3 times a year.

Try being on benefits with coeliac disease, we can't buy 70p cereal or dead cheap loaves of bread.

Though I do think its absolutely ridiculous that under 25s get less benefits. Bills and food and rent aren't cheaper when you're 24 and suddenly increase at 25. What a stupid system.

That was my way of looking at it but no we weren’t allowed to sweeten it with anything. In fact sugar or honey wasn’t on the list of things we were allowed to order.
Golden syrup was but that’s because it was an ingredient in the flapjacks that the cook made herself but we weren’t allowed to use it for anything else.
My argument was that they would have had sugar at home anyway but they were the rules.