APPENDIX 7
Memorandum from Milk for Schools
SUMMARY
Re-introduce free primary school milk
Re-introduce subsidised secondary school milk
Ban-Fast Food outlet style catering
Ban divisory sandwich bag provision for the
poor
Bring back substantial hot school meals as standard
If the EC scheme is saved reinstate the catering,
secondary school milk and cheese subsidies
If the EC scheme is withdrawn introduce a free
British primary school milk programme and a subsidised secondary
milk scheme
Ban inappropriate sponsorship
Ban carbonated drink vending from school catering
"OUR HEALTHIER NATION"
OBSERVATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
First Issue: Two age groups: Primary and Secondary
* to improve the health of the worst-off
in society and to narrow the health gap between rich and poor
by the positive intervention of providing daily FREE school milk.
Target Group: 5.4 million primary aged children
to improve the calcium intake of secondary school
children by the re-introduction of subsidised school milk Target
Group: between two to three million children attending secondary
schools.
Issue two:
To consider "bad practice" which results
in degradation of deprived children who are legally entitled to
free school meal/refreshments: The sandwich bag providers—system
and content.
To consider the implications of Fast Food outlets
replacing school canteens: Sponsorship by carbonated drinks manufacturers;
limited menu; nutrition guidelines; drop in school milk consumption;
lack of cutlery; vulnerable Income Support children being placed
at increased nutritional risk?
ISSUE ONE:
PRIMARY SCHOOL
FREE MILK
1.1 Milk For Schools is a voluntary independent
registered charity which since 1994 has researched in depth into
the provison of milk and supplemental nutrition available within
the UK school system. As a parent organisation it represents those
who pay for school milk and meals—the consumer. As consumers,
this group is often ignored and expected to accept indifferent
service; poor quality; lack of choice and lack of information.
1.2 The charity has produced five reports:
The Sins of Omission—which showed the total inadequacy of
school milk distribution;The Hunger Within—which showed
the deplorable condition of school children from the lower end
of the social scale and the inadequacy of school nutrition provision
for this group; . . . By Bread Alone 1998 which discussed concerns
about too narrow a field of vision regarding dietary requirements
of malnourished children. In short for hungry children; fat content
and vegetable promotion should not be the only considerations.
Under-Milked Woods (Welsh data); Bones of Contention 1999 both
of these demonstrate the appalling lack of milk availability.
1.3 Milk For Schools acts as a consultant
for several government departments and local authorities. It has
produced "Parent Action Packs" and leaflets for schools
and LEAs wishing to introduce school milk painlessly: Milk Without
Tears, one and two.
1.4 Milk For Schools is active within the
European Union and is currently pressing the EU Commissioner for
Agriculture to maintain direct grant subsidy aid; also to raise
semi-skimmed subsidy to the same level as for whole milk and to
retain the EC school milk direct grant aid subsidy scheme so that
more eligible beneficiaries can benefit.
1.5 Milk For Schools' largest beneficiary
group is deprived children. This document aims to show why the
provision of daily free primary milk should be an essential part
of the prevention of low bone density and prevention of the onset
of osteoporosis in later life.
1.6 Osteoporosis costs the NHS nearly one
billion pounds a year, an increase of 27 per cent on the previous
estimate. (Source: NOS) Deprived children are at the greatest
risk of malnutrition there are upwards of four million of these
children in Britain's classrooms. (Source: Chancellor Exchequer,
July 99).
1.7 Research has shown these children are
at the greatest risk of hunger—malnutrition—being
stunted in their growth—being under-weight—having
low bone density—being anaemic—being deficient in
essential minerals and vitamins. In trials where malnourished
children were weighed and measured these facts were born out.
(Source: The Hunger Within report—research carried
out by Huddersfield University in Kirklees area).
1.8 The financial cutbacks and restraints
on local education authorities in particular the withdrawal of
European subsidy aid ie for cheese/catering and secondary school
milk has had a devastating effect.Some LEAs made little attempt
at all, some ceased catering and shame deprived pupils by providing
jamsandwiches in brown paper bags.
1.9 A London School of Economics report
in 1997 stated that before education standards could improve,
poverty first had to be tackled.
1.10 Milk For Schools is of the belief that
before health/education standards can improve, school nutrition
standards have to be addressed.
1.11 Milk For Schools has received feedback
from areas where school breakfast programmes and playtime milk
have been introduced. This information has been provided by head
teachers/teachers/catering directors. It seems there is an upturn
in class behaviour patterns and class output when school nutrition
is improved by the provision of milk.
1.12 It is an obvious fact to those involved
with the teaching of deprived children, that many of them may
not have eaten or drank for 15 or 16 hours by lunchtime. Hungry
children are either lethargic or disruptive.
1.13 A disruptive child can influence the
teaching of 30 or more children for as long a time as its needs
are not met. Late morning has even been described as a "war
zone" by some stressed teachers. This is the time when sugar
levels are lowest in hungry children and thus when those hungry
children are most aggressive and difficult.
1.14 Many primary schools only provide water
fountains in toilet blocks. It would be a physical impossibility
for every child to drink from such inadequate facilities in a
short morning break.
1.15 Even in enlightened local authority
areas where playtime milk is provided, virtually none provide
free playtime milk for deprived children. Local authorities have
the legal capability to provide free milk for income support pupils,
but as this is a discretion rather than a mandatory obligation,
is does not happen.
1.16 In areas which are improving their
playtime milk provision by increased school promotion, many schools
are refusing to bring in playtime milk on the grounds that the
high numbers of income support children, who are the most in need
of the calories, proteins vitamins and minerals in the milk are
too impoverished to be able to afford to buy it. (Source: Lincoln
pilot scheme and Durham LEA).
1.17 Head teachers foresee a situation where
those most in need would be forced to watch those more affluent
drinking the milk which their parents cannot afford to buy for
them.
1.18 The Framework and Standards Act contains
a clause which releases local authorities from the time restriction
for which free milk could be provided. Until 1998 local authorities
could legally only provide Income Support milk at lunchtime. The
removal of this restriction meant that free milk could be given
with a free breakfast or discreetly at playtime so that peer group
members would not be aware that a deprived child was being so
provided with milk without a parental contribution.
Regarding health action in the past
1.19 The promotion of good health and the
benefits of a healthy diet are, of course, a sound method of providing
the public with messages which could influence their health. But,
pamphlets and leaflets and posters extolling the virtues of school
milk and benefits to their children by drinking it are not much
use to impoverished families who simply do not have the money
to pay for it.
1.20 Many poor families have large numbers
of school age children, even at 55p per week many such parents
could not afford to pay for the beneficial milk. It makes sense
for society to protect the "at risk" child. One child
in three goes to school without food; not all of these children
are from "poor" families, many have working parents
who leave the home too early to attend to a child's breakfast.
1.21 Not all families rich or poor have
an ideal or responsible attitude towards their children's wants
or needs. No amount of money provided in child benefit is necessarily
going to be spent on the improvement in child diet. This is a
sad fact but one long accepted. It seems far more cost effective
for school based supplemental provision to be drastically improved
for deprived children.
1.22 A targeted approach could put the money
directly where it is needed, without waste. If in Health/Education
Action Zones, as a pilot basis for national provision in due course,
free playtime milk could be introduced for all children and playtime
subsidised milk sales be provided—by mandate for the school,
but optional for the child—for all secondary school pupils,
then much could be achieved.
1.23 The inadequacy of the non-catering
areas has to be viewed to be believed. Milk For Schools recommends
an enquiry team from the Department for Health/Education be charged
with the investigation into the health of deprived children within
non-catering counties, with regard to the adequacy of their school
dietary provision and the subjection of small children to the
stress of stigmatisation by the socially divisive handout bag
system. The weight and measurement of the deprived children should
be ascertained and compared to the national average.
Free School Milk: who foots the bill?
1.24 Free milk for primary children need
not place a huge financial burden on the state!
There are several factors to be considered.
— Split responsibility—split
budgets. No one ministry need be totally responsible for the provision.
1.25 If local authorities are proven to
be inadequate for the task of school milk provision a national
umbrella school milk authority could provide milk. Thus money
for milk could be spent on milk and much of the suspected misapplication
would cease.
1.26 If primary aged children were provided
with a third of a pint (189ml) of free milk daily, some things
are obvious:
— bulk purchase would mean the wholesale
price would drop;
— packaging costs would drop;
— the EC school milk subsidy scheme
could offset the cost if still in operation after July 2000 or
a UK internal programme could replace it. For the under fives
the regulations for the Welfare Scheme could be amended; and
— rough cost guide: free primary school
milk at 100 per cent=£119 million at today's figures.
View this cost against promotion leaflets which
have little or limited impact.
1.27 Thus for as little as 55 pence a week
a child could be provided with the calcium needed to help protect
its growing skeleton against low bone density. An offshoot of
improved diet could also be improved immunity to infectious disease.
Milk and vitamin supplements are being used in many parts of the
world to combat the resurgence of tuberculosis.
1.28 The benefits of increased playtime
milk intake, especially if this leads to a reduction in the consumption
of other forms of soft drinks, could also have a pronounced effect
on the dental health of deprived children. There is already considerable
documentation on the deterioration of dental health amongst children
in areas of socio-economic deprivation, since the loss of free
school milk. (Source: Liverpool University dental health
pilot projects involving school milk.)
Recommendations
1.29 All primary children, especially those
from families in receipt of Income Support, should be provided
with daily free milk at school—starting by using the Health
and Education Action Zones as pilot areas. School breakfast programmes
and morning playtime milk provision in schools should be encouraged.
1.30 Subsidised milk should be available
in every secondary school. These costs to be offset by full usage
of European school milk subsidies and reinstatement of the discretionary
elements of the EC School Milk Subsidy Scheme. (Support by government
for Milk For Schools proposal to the EU to raise semi-skimmed
milk subsidy to the same level as for whole milk could ensure
better choice in school of the type of milk being provided.) If
the EC scheme is abolished, a UK scheme should be introduced by
September 2000.
1.31 School based nutrition should be improved
for primary school children. Pricing should be investigated.
1.32 What should be avoided is untargeted-health
promotion expenditure—health messages by leaflet for those
too impoverished to be able to implement the recommendations.
1.33 Positive, tangible, "drinkable"
intervention is what is required. A photo of a glass of milk cannot
provide the benefit of an actual daily carton of milk. Developing
the milk habit as part of a pleasurable peer group activity whilst
at school and whilst laying down lifetime food preferences, is
probably the only opportunity for thousands of children to taste
milk. Thus positive intervention could effectively improve the
dietary choices of generations of children.
1.34 Responsibility and funding for hands
on preventative positive intervention by daily provision of free
milk could be shared between several ministries—Education—Health—MAFF
and local authorities.
1.35 The implications for improvement in
the dental health of deprived children by the positive intervention
of free school milk should not be overlooked.
1.36 The under fives and children in special
schools are target groups in dire need of immediate improvement
to free milk access.
Britain cannot afford NOT to provide primary children
with free school milk
1.37 The Welfare State scheme which provided
free milk for 92 per cent of the school population between 1945
to 1980 was a brilliant, preventative measure. However, there
were drawbacks—it was wasteful and untargeted—refrigeration
was completely inadequate—choice of milk type was non-existent.
A return to such a poorly organised system is not ideal, nor appropriate.
Though the clamour for the return of free school milk for all
children is growing ever louder in the field of child poverty.
1.38 It is a truth—the health of deprived
children has declined in several key issues since the stoppage
of daily free school milk. They are showing nationally poor dental
health and low bone density, which has resulted in stunted growth
in many children. The NHS budget is picking up an ever-increasing
cost caused by the loss of free school milk as an effective preventative
health measure. Osteoporosis treatment now costs £970 million
per annum and is increasing by £110 each year. The time to
address this problem by the return of the FREE primary school
milk is now.
SECONDARY SCHOOLS:
ISSUE 1
1.39 It is a sad fact that the vast majority
of secondary schools have installed carbonated soft drink vending
machines. These are often installed on exclusive long-term contracts
which prohibit other vending machines being allowed in the same
premises.
1.40 This means that although secondary
schools may preach healthy eating they do not provide a healthy
alternative to carbonated full sugar drinks which often contain
acidic phosphates which can leech calcium from bone and damage
teeth.
1.41 Vending machines can now provide: whole
plain fresh milk; semi-skimmed plain fresh milk; flavoured whole
milk; flavoured semi-skimmed milk; UHT flavoured semi-skimmed
milk (all of which could attract subsidy, at differing rates)
also water and fruit juice and diluted fruit juice drinks.
1.42 Since 1996 secondary school children
have not been able to access subsidised milk due to the withdrawal
of secondary school subsidy by the Tory government.
1.43 Twenty-three per cent of school milk
subsidy was lost when the Tories removed catering and secondary
school subsidy in the budget of November 1995 which came into
disastrous effect in April 1996. School milk prices doubled in
some areas and several authorities ceased to provide school milk.
New Labour, prior to the general election in May 1997, pledged
to return these subsidies. They have failed to do so. (Source:
IBAP)
1.44 A report from Sheffield University
in 1997 drew the conclusions that the intervention of drinking
milk every day would positively affect the density of bone in
teenagers.
Key messages included:
— maximising peak bone mass at skeletal
maturity may be one of the most protective measures against fracture
in later life;
— adolescence is a critical time for
bone mineral acquisition;
— an increase in milk consumption amongst
adolescent girls resulted in significant gains in bone mineral
density over an 18 month period, and
— simple intervention indicates that
increased milk consumption may be associated with higher peak
bone mass.
(Source: Cadogen et al 1997—Increased
milk consumption significantly enhances bone mineral acquisition
in adolescent girls and could favourably modify attainment of
peak bone mass.)
Recommendations
1.45 That EC secondary school milk subsidy
be re-instated, or if the EC scheme is withdrawn that a UK secondary
school milk subsidy scheme be introduced:
— that "exclusive" vending
carbonated drinks contracts be outlawed or preferably that carbonated
drinks be banned from school buildings; and
— that every secondary school should
be encouraged to provide access to subsidised milk preferably
by refrigerated milk vending machines or other refrigerated systems.
ISSUE TWO:
INCOME SUPPORT
CHILDREN
2.1 There are several sub-issues within
this category:
— low uptake of school meals;
— stigmatisation of impoverished children-system
for school free food distribution;
— content of "refreshment boxes/bags"
in non-catering counties;
— lack of provision of daily free milk;
— fast food zones—a cheap way
of providing free school meals—but is it healthy? and
— assessment of nutritional risks.
Guidelines . . . a waste of breath?
Low uptake of free school meals
2.2 The difference between those entitled
to a free school meal and those actually eating a free meal or
refreshment is staggering.
2.3 It varies from local authority to local
authority with the non-caterers showing the lowest uptake. As
many as 16,000 children in one region did not take up their entitlement
in one year. (Source: N. Ireland Office.)
2.4 The lack of a school meal has a two
fold detriment, the level of benefit is provided net of school
meal costs and in an ideal world the balanced nutrition found
in a meal would offset the poor quality of nutrition provided
in many financially deprived homes.
2.5 The home diet for many children living
in families reliant upon state benefit has a high fat and sugar
content. (Source: Out the Frying Pan: the true cost of
feeding a family on low income, Save the Children 1997—this
report recommends the return of untargeted free school milk).
2.6 The reasons for low uptake are many
and diverse however, the system of catering on offer and the distribution
of free food are obvious factors.
2.7 Non-catering authorities, West Sussex
being the latest to abandon school catering in favour of bagged
free provision, are increasing alarmingly. With the devolution
of catering budgets in 2000 an even worse scenario is anticipated
when school governors have to choose between books, teachers and
free food when allocating their budget.
2.8 Some schools in particularly bad areas
would obviously benefit from freedom from dreadful contracts but
those which enjoy a reasonable catering standard especially in
areas with a high percentage of free entitlement will suffer greatly.
2.9 Non-catering authorities provide food
prepared usually at a central kitchen and delivered in boxes or
bags. The content of the boxes is appalling. When researching
the Hunger Within report, Milk for Schools invited non-caterers
to provide a meal cycle menu of the box contents. Very few non-catering
authorities were prepared to do so but those that did said the
following:
— milk provided: one carton once a
week, or maximum two days a week, the majority had no milk at
all;
— drink provided usually diluted squash;
— dry plain biscuits = pudding;
— crackers with vegetable extract;
— meat ration: one slice of luncheon
meat one day a week or one slice of liver sausage one day a week.
Usual in majority of cases; and
— one caterer boasted of free thin
sliced white bread and margarine to "fill them up,"
direct quote.
2.10 None of these authorities seemed to
have issued guidelines regarding the avoidance of stigmatisation
of the recipient child. Repeatedly Milk For Schools pleaded with
West Sussex not to abandon and when this failed requested assurances
that a divisory and discriminatory system would not be introduced
when the boxed system is introduced in September 1999.
2.11 A letter was received stating that
the method of distribution was at the discretion of the head teacher.
An assurance that guidelines for head teachers would be issued
by the LEA was not forthcoming neither was a daily menu despite
three requests this information. It seems that now a paid meal
boxed service will not be provided and only free issue boxes will
be available.
2.12 It had been the intention of Milk For
Schools to have the box contents independently analysed to establish
their nutritional content.
2.13 For a child entitled to free food it
is humiliating to have to queue up for a plain box of uninspiring
contents. It spells out to all his/her peer group that the child
is from a family reliant upon state benefit; or from a child's
perspective, is "poor". This kind of humiliation is
long term, it can last forever.
2.14 One of the board of trustees of Milk
For Schools—a person in their fifties can still recall vividly
that in the 1950's they had to queue separately for their free
meal after all the paying children had eaten and gone out to play.
Forty years later this totally unacceptable discriminatory provision
is still happening.
2.15 Even in catering areas the distribution
systems for free food distribution leave much to be desired and
are often transparent to the peer group of the child. The stigma
attached to obvious free food provision is one of the main reasons
that entitled children will skip school canteens and head for
the corner chip shop.
Lack of Free School Milk Provision for Income
Support Children in England and Wales
2.16 The lack of free milk for this sub-group
because of the discretionary nature of its provision is nothing
short of a national scandal. (See Bones of Contention/Under Milked
Woods reports for provision figures—Appendix A)[1]
2.17 Income support family children are
recognised as being the ones most likely to be at nutritional
risk. It was for that reason that this sub group was deemed to
be a special case and enabled to be legally provided with additional
free milk on a daily basis by local authorities when free milk
provision for all groups was legally rescinded.
2.18 However, the provision was at the discretion
of the LEA and could only be provided in the middle of the day.
This term was widely interpreted by the few, very few—less
than 10 per cent—benevolent authorities which did provide
daily free milk. The majority of the free provision authorities
were in Scotland.
2.19 This year the Standards and Framework
Act has finally recognised the stupidity of the time restriction
and amended it so that Income Support free milk can now be provided
at any time of the school day. However, to our knowledge although
the legality of provision is now improved no new authorities have
introduced free milk.
2.20 It is not that catering authorities
cannot afford to provide free milk many of them can do so. As
an example Staffordshire CC Catering Services demonstrated a huge
profit in excess of £1,000,000 yet twice refused to provide
free income support milk. To provide free milk in Staffordshire
for the 30 per cent eligible would cost £500,000 (SCC figure)
2.21 Thus it can be seen, discretion, the
willingness to do and ability so to do are not the same. Discretion
means no provision in the vast majority of Britain. This is disgraceful
and should be rectified.
Fast Food: Fuel Zones or Fuel dumps? A Fast Food
sell out for a Fast Buck?
2.22 Local authorities would agree that
the provision of free food for income support children is high
on their agenda when it is time for budget analysis.
2.23 Many are waiting with avaricious glee
for the time when they can off load this drain on their budgets
on to the shoulders of school governors. Some LEAs have as many
as 70 per cent of children entitled to free meals in socio-economically
deprived areas within their catchment.
2.24 A new alternative to non-catering has
recently been launched—FAST FOOD Fuel Zones. These outlets
sponsored by commercial interests have sparked controversy over
both their ethics and the actual food being provided.
(See press cuttings enclosed. Appendix B)
2.25 Glasgow, a city which is reported to
have the worst child dental record in all Europe, has introduced
this system in its secondary schools and intends to convert its
primary schools as well.
2.26 This will mean children as young as
four years of age being subjected to aggressive brand imagery
in the school dining area.
2.27 Should schools be a haven away from
the maelstrom of inappropriate commercial advertising, where the
food available should be a healthy option choice? Is it morally
acceptable for commercial interests to be able to target this
vulnerable group of hungry children in such an aggressive manner?
2.28 The menu is limited to Fast Food type
cuisine, paper disposables are often used instead of plates and
cutlery. Forget any notion of table manners, instruction in the
use of cutlery or social meal time interaction.
2.29 In Glasgow 41 per cent of its children
were entitled to free school meals a further 9 per cent paid for
their dinner. (Source: Scottish Office School Meals statistics)
The city claims that free meal uptake has increased since the
conversion, but at what nutritional cost?
2.30 Is it ethical to supply deprived children
with a daily menu choice centred around burgers, chips, fizzy
pop and doughnuts?
2.31 Fast food outlets demonstrate a retrograde
step in school catering, a downturn in operative skill levels.
They seem to fly in the face of nutrition guidelines and more
importantly seem to encourage deprived children to eat a diet
high in fat and sugar on a daily basis as if it is acceptable
as a health message that burgers, pop and chips are OK.
2.32 That school milk consumption dropped
dramatically is a disaster. One school is widely reported to have
switched from milk to cola. The figures are staggering, a drop
from 640 glasses of milk per day down to 12 glasses and an increase
to 900 x 12oz glasses of cola per day.
Recommendations
2.33 As a first preference: Fast Food types
of sponsored outlet be banned:
— that as damage limitation: all Fast
Food schools must provide, and actively encourage, milk consumption
early in the school day, ie breakfast time or mid morning break
to offset the negative nutrition message provided at lunchtime;
and
— carbonated drink vending/sales should
be banned in the Zones.
2.34 That all local authorities should be
required to provide free daily school milk for both their primary
and secondary Income Support children.
2.35 That daily free milk should be a separate
free issue and not included as part of the meal cycle. Provision
of free milk should take place early in the school day to offset
the hunger and thirst of children sent to school without food.
2.36 That free milk provision should be
a legal obligation and not a discretion.
2.37 That local authorities be allowed legally
to increase free school milk provision to all primary school children
and should be encouraged verbally and financially to do so.
2.38 That all free school milk should be
served properly refrigerated to below 5 degrees C as a legal requirement.
2.39 Unbelievable though it seems hundreds
of schools with LEA milk providers are still not refrigerating
milk, even though refrigeration costs are fully recoupable from
the sale price under the EC scheme guidelines on maximum sale
prices. (Source: (IBAP) Intervention Board for Agricultural
Products 1M(L)20)
A Food for Thought—Cheese
2.40 If the EC School Milk Subsidy Scheme
is maintained it would be sensible and highly desirable to reinstate
the discretionary cheese element.
2.41 Many local authorities used to provide
cubes of cheese after the school meal until 1993 when the last
government withdrew this element. British children used to consume
5,000 tonnes of subsidised cheese which was a vital component
of the protein and calcium content of school nutrition. (Source:
DIF)
2.42 Last year French children enjoyed 12,600
tonnes of subsidised cheese—British children had none. (Source:
EU Commission DGVI)
2.43 The EC cheese subsidy was a financial
safeguard for local authority catering budgets and its return
would be greatly welcomed by LEAs. (Source: The Hunger
Within report—MFS)
2.44 Cheese is a food approved by dentists
and dietitians alike and would vastly improve school catering
nutrition standards if again made available at subsidised prices.
(Appendix C)
THE DFEE'S
INGREDIENTS FOR
SUCCESS? REALLY
2.45 How effective are guidelines?
2.46 How many authority catering organisations
will actually follow them?
2.47 Who is monitoring these guidelines?
2.48 Does anyone envisage mass prosecution
or penalties for authorities or schools not following them?
2.49 The Fast Food Zones claim to be following
the guidelines. Yet they have a narrow menu based on fast food,
serving up a daily diet of burgers, chips and pop as provided
by the sponsors of their kitchen conversions.
2.50 What about guidelines for the free
sandwich boxes/bags for non-caterers?
2.51 Has anyone thought of guidelines to
avoid division, humiliation and stigmatisation of thousands of
children whose only "crime" is to be born poor and unlucky
enough to live in a non-catering area?
Recommendations
2.52 Non-catering should be banned:
— boxed/bagged provision should be
banned;
— fast food sponsorship should be banned;
— guidelines should be monitored; and
— failures to provide adequate and
substantial nutrition should be monitored and penalties imposed
upon any providing body failing to meet the required standards.
WHY THE
EDUCATION SUB
COMMITTEE SHOULD
ACT ON
THESE HARD
HITTING RECOMMENDATIONS
2.53 Consider this: A third of UK children
go to school hungry many without even a drink for 15 or 16 hours.
What is the point of spending millions of pounds on computers
when the child at the keyboard is unable to concentrate because
of hunger? (Source: UN FAO School Milk Conference S Africa
1998)
2.54 If education standards are to rise,
first poverty and child hunger must be addressed. Hungry children
are not necessarily restricted to Income Support families.
2.55 If malnutrition is not addressed then
education standards will continue to fail to maximise potential.
The prediction from those at the sharp end is that the devolution
of catering budgets will be a nutrition disaster. School catering
has already declined dramatically, or been virtually abandoned
in some areas, since the inappropriate profit based system was
introduced.
2.56 The new trend towards Fast Food outlets
is an absolute catastrophe which will spread like wild fire if
not blocked now. Local authorities are lining up to take the sponsorship
money on offer, which they may see as a cheaper way of feeding
those entitled to free food. (Source: Local Authority Catering
Assoc)
Milk for Schools
July 1999
1 Appendices not printed. Back
| 
