1
Evidence based
rationale and public
consultation fndings
to inform the children’s services packed lunch policy guidance
Leeds school meals strategy transforming
school food and drink in partnership
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
Contents

1. What is the problem and is
it signifcant? 9
2. Is it amenable to change? 11
3. Are the intervention benefts
greater than the costs? 13
4. Is there an acceptance for
the intervention? 15
— Public consultation
methodology and fndings 16
— Schools – headteachers 17
— Pupils 18
— Parents 20
— 1. Parent survey 21
— 2. Parent focus group 21
— Leeds partnership groups 22
— Catering Providers 22
— Summary of fndings 23
5. What actions are recommended? 25

3
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
4 5
Findings from the public consultation
suggested that there is a signifcant level
of support, and a growing acceptance of
responsibility from schools, parents and
pupils to improve children and young
people’s diets and ensure parity of provision
of food eaten in schools.
Children’s services ensures its policies
support families and value diversity.
A bespoke resource toolkit has been
developed in partnership with Leeds health
and well-being programme. The toolkit
will be made available to all stakeholders
and will be freely downloadable from the
Leeds school meals web portal. The content
responds to issues and concerns identifed
by the public consultation; utilises national
resources and is informed by three local
pilots conducted in our inner city primary
and secondary schools. It includes a simple
three step implementation guide aligned
to the national standards; local guiding
principles, offering a range of solutions, tips
and guidance including:
• consultation and participation techniques;
• evaluation guides;
• validated surveys;
• games and activities;
• health and safety guidance;
• monitoring tools and techniques;
• affordable menus;
• cultural menus;
• curriculum support (lesson plans); and
• teaching material aligned to the national
healthy eating model ‘eatwell plate’
(FSA, 2007)
The policy aims to inform governing
bodies, who have a key role to play, to
ensure a healthy eating culture is fostered
throughout their school and forms part
of its healthy school ethos.
“The aim of the policy is not to promote
expensive foods or demand wholegrain
bread compared to white bread. Instead
it aims to offer a pragmatic approach to
promote healthier packed lunches aligned
to the national school meal standards
that restrict access to foods high in fat,
sugar and salt in schools. The packed lunch
policy guidance is not mandatory however,
should schools informed by a democratic
process decide to implement a policy, and
this can be achieved through incremental
approach towards achieving parity of quality
and provision. This policy supports the
Leeds school meals strategy that aims to
transform school food and drink, ensuring
equal access to great food consumed in a
happy environment that promotes positive
social interaction and is delivered through a
whole-school approach.”
– Leeds school meals strategic partnership
Note – parent defned as those with legal responsibility to
the child.
pupils in Leeds have the
opportunity to have a
school meal
Executive summary
In September 2006 the
government introduced
mandatory school meal
standards to be implemented
into all local authority
schools by 2009 (DFES,
[now DCSF] 2005).
In response, children’s services launched its
School Meals Strategy (2006) to transform
school food and increase school meal
uptake. In January 2008, the Department of
Health (DH) launched its cross-government
strategy ‘Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives’,
setting out how to promote a culture of
healthy eating. It stated that all schools,
in consultation, are expected to develop
healthy packed lunch policies as part of
whole-school food policy, so that those not
yet taking up school lunches are also eating
healthily (DH, 2008).
It is estimated that 110,332 pupils in Leeds
have the opportunity to have a school meal,
of which 45 per cent choose a packed
lunch. Currently packed lunches provided by
parents are not regulated and there are no
mechanisms for establishing whether packed
lunches meet the nutritional standards
required for school meals (HM Treasury,
2008). This omission is important for some
families from the lower socio-economic
classes who provide a packed lunch, who
are in effect excluded from a major national
legislation and a healthier future, thereby
widening the health inequalities gap.
children’s services recognise our role
in expanding the opportunities available
for people to make the right choices for
themselves and their families; in making
sure that people have clear and effective
information about food and ensuring that
its policies support people in their efforts
to maintain healthy lives. The Leeds school
meals strategic partnership advocate a
local authority endorsed packed lunch
policy guidance that responds to the school
food legislation and seizes the ‘window of
opportunity’ to develop a supportive policy
for our schools and families.
In response, the Leeds school meals
strategic partnership made the decision
to conduct a city-wide public consultation
to assess the need for a local authority
endorsed packed lunch guidance policy
to be implemented at the discretion of
individual school governing bodies. The
decision was based on the premise that in
the short-term the policy (and supporting
resource toolkit) would aim to:
• promote equality, diversity and cohesion;
• provide an opportunity to develop
relationships with schools, pupils
and parents;
• act as a catalyst for schools to review
their whole-school food policy;
• help families make informed, healthier and
affordable choices;
• improve the quality of food brought
from home; and
• promote synergy across the spectrum
of local stakeholders and their health
promotion strategies aimed at supporting
the whole family.
In the long-term, the policy aims to promote
parity of school food provision; increase
school meal uptake; improve health,
attainment and economic outcomes; and
establish long-lasting change by connecting
and supporting with families where a
positive change in eating habits will be
reflected in the home.
The children’s services school meals team
conducted an extensive literature review
to inform the rationale for the advocated
policy. The literature explored and identifed
the problem and its signifcance to schools,
examining how it manifests itself and factors
contributing to its existence. It considered
issues such as social acceptability, cost,
benefts and resources required to take
the policy forward; and assessed the benefts
and the cost associated with implementing
the policy including the impact on the
target community; ethical considerations;
economic costs and usefulness of the
proposed intervention.
110,332
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
6 7
Report
Report to
Prepared by
children’s services executive team
Rosemary Molinari – school meals strategy adviser
Purpose of report
To present the evidence for
a city-wide packed lunch
policy guidance informed by
theoretical ‘policy decision
making’ models. The document
describes the process and
fndings of the local public
consultation for the advocated
policy. The report aims to
inform strategic partnerships
and stakeholders in their
decision-making process
to endorse or reject the
advocated policy.
Background
In September 2006, the government
introduced mandatory school meal
standards to be phased into all local
authority schools (DFES, [now DCSF]
2005). Schools were advised to establish
a secure footing to meet the nutritional
standards and plan to sustain changes
from their core budget. The Government
also identifed school governors as having
the legal responsibility to conform to
the standards. This responsibility has
since been incorporated in the school
self-evaluation form (SEF), as part of the
Offce for Standards in Education (Ofsted)
inspection criteria for assessing pupil health
and wellbeing (Ofsted, 2006). The new
mandatory standards aim to improve health
by: restricting sugary, salty and fatty foods;
imposing bans on confectionery; removing
fzzy drinks from vending machines; and
increasing the availability of fruit, vegetables
and oily fsh.
According to the Department for Education
(DfE), the standards acknowledge the
health problems of today and how school
food and nutrient standards and other
recommendations regarding the wholeschool approach to food can help to halt the
increase in childhood obesity. In addition, the
DCSF acknowledge that children who have
poor nutrition are more likely to have lower
cognitive abilities, reduced attention span
and reduced success intellectually (Benton,
2001). The DCSF state that “What children
receive at home will always be more
important than what they eat at school”, but
recognises that the school setting is crucial
for modelling healthier choices, helping
children learn, and establishing healthy eating
patterns which will last for life schools can
also introduce and reinforce habits (DCSF,
2005). The National Institute for Health
and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance
recommends that all schools should ensure
that improving the diet of children and
young people is a priority to help prevent
excess weight gain (NICE, 2006). The
Department of Health (2005) endorse the
standards as a major public health initiative
to halt the year-on-year rise of childhood
obesity. Since the introduction of the School
Food Standards, the Foresight (2007) report
on tackling obesity acknowledged how
the regulation of school food will support
the local delivery of health targets. In May
2006, children’s services launched its school
meals strategy to transform school food and
increase the uptake of paid and free school
meals (SFT, 2006), the success of which is
dependent upon raising awareness, changing
attitudes and influencing positive behaviour.
Although the new legislation focused
on the quality of school meals provided,
packed lunches provided by parents are not
regulated and there are no mechanisms for
establishing whether packed lunches meet
the nutritional standards required for school
lunch (HM Treasury, 2008). This omission
is important for families who provide a
packed lunch especially those from the lower
socio-economic classes, who are in effect
excluded from this legislation and a healthier
future, thereby widening the inequalities gap.
A concern reflected by the School Food
Trust (SFT) support for the introduction
of a packed lunch policy aligned to the new
legislation, believing that “an effective packed
lunch policy which applies similar standards
to those for food supplied by the school
should be an integral part of any school
meals strategy” (SFT, 2007).In support, the
Food Standards Agency have since revised
their packed lunch information to reflect the
legislation and actively encourage the food
industry to meet the demand.
In January 2008, the Department of Health
launched its cross-government strategy
‘Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives’, setting out
how to promote a culture of healthy eating.
It states that all schools, in consultation,
are expected to develop healthy packed
lunch policies as part of whole-school
food policy, so that those not yet taking
up school lunches are also eating healthily
(DH, 2008). The strategy suggests that its
success depends upon the problem being
recognised, owned and addressed in every
part of society, in particular requiring
personal responsibility and action among
individuals, communities, industry, local and
national government. children’s services
understand their role. People have to make
the right choices for themselves and their
families; children’s services wants to make
sure that people have clear and effective
information about food, ensuring that its
policies support them in their efforts to
maintain healthy lives; and respond to
the school food legislation ‘window of
opportunity’ to develop a supportive policy
for families.
As a consequence to school lunches being
required to meet the new standards, the
government introduced a new performance
indicator monitoring school lunch uptake
(paid and free) as a measure of improving
healthy eating among children and young
people, particularly those entitled to a free
school meal (HM Treasury, 2008). Presently,
it is estimated that 110,332 pupils in Leeds
have the opportunity to have a school
lunch, of which 30 per cent choose schoolprovided food and 45 per cent choose a
packed lunch. The remaining either go home
or leave the school premises for local food
retailers – this data represents the national
trend (Nelson and Nicholas, 2006; Gregory
et al, 2000b).
Informed by the above, the Leeds school
meals partnership made the decision to
conduct a city-wide public consultation
to assess the need for a local authority
endorsed packed lunch policy guidance,
to be implemented at the discretion of
individual school governing bodies. The
decision was based on the premise that in
the short-term the policy (and supporting
resource tool kit) would aim to:
• narrow the inequalities gap created by
the standards;
• ensure equality, diversity and cohesion;
• provide an opportunity to develop
relationships with pupils and parents;
• act as a catalyst for schools to review
their whole-school food policy;
• help families make informed, healthier and
affordable choices; and
• increase school meal uptake.
In the long-term it would aim to achieve
parity of school food provision and improve
the health, attainment and economic
outcomes of our children and young people.
The purpose is not about developing
a policy that might suggest parents are
ill-educated and in need of intervention,
conversely it aims to demonstrate good
stewardship and provide a necessary
safeguard (Jochelson, 2005). Ultimately
it aims to effect long-lasting change by
connecting with and supporting families
to effect a positive change in eating
habits reflected in the home. Despite the
importance of national policy, national
indicators and the widening inequalities
gap, this paper sets out the rationale for an
authority-endorsed policy by exploring the
impact of poor diet on health and education
outcomes. The framing of the agreement will
utilise Maycock’s (2001) theoretical ‘policy
decision-making’ model through critical
analysis of the literature to answer the
following fve questions.
1. What is the problem and is it signifcant?
2. Is it amenable to change?
3. Is the intervention benefts greater than
the costs?
4. Is there acceptance for the intervention?
5. What actions are recommended?
Collectively the literature review and
the public consultation fndings aim to
inform the strategic decision for the
advocated policy.
45%
of pupils in Leeds choose
a packed lunch
30%
of pupils in Leeds choose
school provided food
9
This stage aims to identify the
problem and its signifcance
to schools; how it manifests
itself and factors contributing
to its existence.
According to the Department of Health
(DH) obesity is the greatest public health
challenge to emerge in the last two decades
(DH, 2003; Lobstein, 2005; DH, 2006). The
DH consider its impact on social, economic
and health burdens to society as a whole
being signifcant and that ‘doing nothing’ is
not an option’ (DCSF, 2005).
The 2006-2007 data from the National
Obesity Child Measurement Programme
indicates that in Leeds 9.29 per cent of
reception children and 17.82 per cent of
Year 6 children are obese. Achievement of
the Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets
for childhood obesity is dependent on
improving access and acceptability of healthy
affordable food. The delivery of the school
meals strategy is an essential component of
achieving this objective.
What about nutrition, packed lunch and
health? School-aged children and young
people consume around 30 per cent of
their daily nutritional intake at lunchtime
and spend 50 per cent of the year in school
(approx 183 days); therefore, 15 per cent of
a child’s annual nutrition is consumed during
school lunchtime (Gregory et al, 2000).
Studies examining the quality of packed
lunches found improvements being made
in the nutritional quality of school lunches
were often not reflected in packed lunches
brought from home (Evans and Cade, 2007).
Nutrient levels of iron, zinc and vitamin A
remain below recommended levels;
50 per cent had no fruit or vegetables; only
one per cent met the new standards and
overall they were more likely to provide
twice the recommended intake of saturated
fat, sugar and salt (Rogers, 2007; Evans, Cade,
2007). To reduce sugar intake Cade (2007)
suggested removing all drinks from packed
lunches (except water) without influencing
other nutrients.
Currently schools on an individual basis
make recommendations to, and advise
parents on, the packed lunches they
consider appropriate to their school or
community. However, case-studies (SFT,
2007) and casual observational evidence
shows that not only do individual school
guidelines vary greatly; they are also often
misunderstood or ignored. Furthermore,
evidence shows children are influenced by
their peer groups in terms of packed lunch
content (Evans & Cade 2007). This suggests
that parents of these children may also be
influenced by their peers in deciding what
to provide. A recent study highlighted the
importance of peer modelling to support
health policies (Moore, 2008). The guidance
policy would encourage peer mentoring
to achieve parity across all communities
and socio-economic groups thereby
contribute towards closing the health
inequalities gap between school meal and
packed lunch eaters.
9.29%
of reception children are obese
National Obesity Child measurement Programme 2006-2007
17.82%
of Year 6 children are obese
National Obesity Child measurement Programme 2006-2007
30%
daily nutritional intake at
lunchtime by school aged
children and young people
15%
of a child’s annual nutrition
is consumed during school
lunchtime
<< Packed lunches were
more likely to provide twice
the recommended intake of
saturated fat, sugar and salt. >>
(Rogers, 2007; Evans, Cade, 2007)
15%
17.82%
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
8
1.What is the problem
and is it signifcant?
11
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
10
2. Is it amenable to change?
This stage considers issues
such as social acceptability, cost,
benefts and resources required
to take the policy forward.
Local research commissioned to strategically
inform improvements necessary to
transform school food found headteachers
recognise their role as enablers and
role models and prefer to be seen as
policy implementers. The research found
headteachers accept policy that aids
learning and reflects their healthy ethos
(Molinari,2008) This corroborates with
earlier fndings illustrating how headteachers
prefer not to be seen as the ‘policy-maker’
to avoid conflict or accusations of coercion
from parents and pupils (Moon, 1999; Cargo,
2005; Molinari, 2008).
The reasons why children and families
choose packed lunch over school meals
are varied and complex. Evidence suggests
that often parents opt for a child’s ‘needs’
or ‘wishes’ to avoid conflict at home ( Jebb
and Holmes, 2007). These fndings agree
with observational evidence from key
stakeholders, suggesting many parents would
welcome a school packed lunch policy to
avoid conflict at home and support them in
improving their child’s diet.
In 2007 children’s services commissioned
research (Sahota et al 2008), to investigate
barriers to free school meal uptake. It found
that parents choose a packed lunch for the
following reasons:
• special dietary needs;
• quantity (portion size too small);
• quality of menus offered;
• poor choice of school food;
• school lunch runs out of food;
• not enough time to eat school meal;
• packed lunches are more fun;
• parental control over child’s choices;
• competing activities (e.g. play and leisure);
• sitting with friends;
• cultural and religious concerns;
• child and parent preferences; and
• cost of school meal.
Communicating appropriate messages
about healthy eating to parents and pupils
is a major component for any successful
social marketing strategy and should
be considered when structuring local
programmes. A key recommendation
to strategic planners’ focuses on the
understanding that “parents’ exert a
powerful, indirect influence over children
and focus on their happiness, therefore it is
critical that local strategies value their place
on choice and avoid dictatorial approaches
and fnd ways of positive encouragement”
(NNSMC, 2007). Health promotion is
defned by the Ottawa Charter (WHO,
1986) as ‘the process of enabling people
to increase control over and to improve
their own health’ and aims to ensure
that an action or process is done with,
rather than to people. Children’s services
recognises that for some families a packed
lunch policy would be punitive, however
the policy does not aim to remove parental
choice, rather to provide practical support
to those families helping them to make
informed, affordable, healthy choices that
respond to the Leeds Youth Council – ‘Be
Healthy’ Manifesto (2005-2008) requesting
supportive strategies to help families eat
healthier. Schools that choose to implement
a packed lunch policy will be encouraged to
conduct a fully shared consultation process,
engaging the whole-school community to
achieve sustainable outcomes (SFT,2007).
A bespoke resource kit has been developed
in partnership, and is available to be freely
downloaded from the school meals website
www.educationleeds.co.uk/schoolmeals
Its aim is to support families and wider
community partnerships. The content
responds to issues and concerns identifed
during the public consultation by parents,
pupils and key partners. It uses national
resources and is informed by three local
pilots conducted in our inner city primary
and secondary schools. It includes a simple
three step implementation guide and a range
of templates, tips and suggestions including:
• communication;
• consultation techniques;
• questionnaires;
• evaluation guides;
• validated surveys;
• games and activities;
• evaluation techniques;
• advice on food hygiene;
• health and safety guidance;
• tried and tested monitoring tools and
techniques;
• affordable menu ideas;
• cultural proofng methods;
• curriculum content (lesson plans); and
• ‘at a glance’ policy templates for schools
aligned to the national healthy eating
model ‘eatwell plate’ (FSA, 2007) –
Appendix 2.
At the same time, the local authority policy
and the tool kit aim to:
• ensure consistent messages by local
authority partnerships and stakeholders;
• establish guiding principles;
• promote and ensure parity of provision;
• contribute towards the whole-school
healthy ethos;
• align to whole-school food policies; and
• provide support and empower parents
and pupils.
Leeds key stakeholders and partnerships will
be encouraged to utilise the resource kit as
part of their health promotion resources,
to ensure synergy across a spectrum of
health promotion initiatives targeting the
whole family in children centres, schools,
workplaces and other community settings.
12 13
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
3.Are the intervention benefts
greater than costs?
This stage assesses the
benefts and the cost
associated with implementing
the policy and predominantly
includes: the impact on the
target community; ethical
considerations; economic
costs and effectiveness of
the intervention.
The debate on the contribution of diet to
academic performance is nothing new. To
some the impact of diet on educational
attainment remains ambiguous and
therefore may not necessarily motivate
headteachers to implement, especially
considering the view that parents should
be more responsible for their children’s
health (Bannon, 1998; Fox, 1991; Ofsted,
2006). In the past the evidence has tended
to focus on the effect of malnutrition and
micronutrient defciency, as well as the effect
of breakfast on cognition. However, more
recently robust evidence is emerging that
clearly demonstrates a strong relationship
between diet and education attainment. A
recent study found that students reporting
increased diet quality were signifcantly
less likely to fail the literacy assessment. In
particular, students with an increased fruit
and vegetable intake and lower calorifc
intake of fat were signifcantly less likely to
fail the assessment (Florence, 2008). The
city of Hull recently provided every child
a free school meal; evaluation found that
overall pupils’ concentration and readiness
to learn improved (Colquhoun et al, 2007).
Further research has since found school
dinner pupils perform better than packed
lunch eaters (Colquhoun et al, 2008).
Conversely, the research also found, where
consumption of sugary/salty snacks were
restricted through school food policy, it
shifted consumption to ‘on the way home’.
Although this does not address the amount
of calories consumed, it demonstrates how
the standards reflect the whole diet as
illustrated in the government healthy eating
model ‘eatwell plate’ (FSA 2007), whilst
enabling the schools to promote a healthy
school ethos (appendix 2).
Obesity does not affect everyone, but poor
diet impacts on many young people in
terms of both over or under-nourishment
(NDNS, 2004). The socio-economic status
(SES) of pupils is known to be an important
determining element of educational
achievement. Often the school meal is the
only substantial meal of the day (CPAG, 2004;
LACA 2007). Those pupils whose parents
are in unskilled occupations or unemployed
are more likely to eat school dinners than
those from other social groups (Whincup,
2005). Many of Leeds school children eligible
for free school meal (FSM) fail to take their
entitlement and choose a packed lunch, which
often fails to meet their nutrient requirements.
The legislation has unintentionally further
widened this nutrient gap.
Evidence shows a growing awareness among
schools and families of the importance of
improving quality of food brought from
home. A national survey of school meals
found a recovery of school meal uptake
since the ‘Jamie Oliver’ campaign and the
launch of the new standards, showing an
increase in pupil acceptance of healthier
school meals (Prince, 2005; LACA, 2007; SFT,
2007). Many Leeds schools have successfully
implemented a packed lunch policy as
part of the whole-school food and healthy
schools programme. Often parents have
responded positively through their school
consultation processes. Parental involvement
is critical for both schools and parents,
as the evidence demonstrates how parental
involvement in their child’s education, and
the school’s characteristics and policies,
can positively impact on a child from a
lower socio-economic group’s success later
in life (Adamson et al, 2006; Blanden, 2006).
According to Rowling (2006), the role of
the parent in assisting in the design
of effective health-promoting school
programmes is decisive to achieving the
intended health outcomes.
Over the past decade headteachers have
been required to consider the health of the
child, in addition to education. This transition
began in the late 1980s in response to the
focus of health promotion, shifting away
from behaviour of the individual towards
the environment in which they live (WHO,
1986). Furthermore, the literature clearly
illustrates the proposed policy guidance has
the potential to influence economic, social
and physical environments on health and
enable people to lead healthy lives (WHO,
1988; Milio, 2001).
<< Parental involvement in
their child’s education, and the
schools characteristics and
policies, can positively impact
on a child from a lower
socio-economic group’s
success later in life. >>
(Adamson et al, 2006; Blanden, 2006)
15
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
14
4. Is there an acceptance for
the intervention?
This stage responds to the
framing of the agreement for
the advocated policy based
on opposing or accepting the
intervention.
The evidence so far clearly demonstrates
how, the advocated policy offers a ‘one-off’
intervention with sustainable benefts to the
population as a whole as its key strength
(Oliver, 2003; Joffe, 2004). As gatekeepers to
policy implementation (Herbert, 2000) it is
anticipated that headteachers will recognise
the policy’s contribution towards improving
learning and achieving education standard
outcomes. Collectively demonstrating a duty
of care and ethical responsibility to develop
and implement the policy, reflecting DCSF
(2005) fndings that ‘doing nothing’ is not an
option’, and clearly demonstrating benefts
that outweigh the cost.
To establish whether headteachers in
Leeds would welcome a local authority
endorsed packed lunch policy, children’s
services conducted a public consultation.
Respondents were provided with a
background rationale paper and the national
School Food Trust (SFT) at a glance pack
lunch policy (appendix 1) document.
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
16 17
Table 1 Primary and secondary school responses
Public Consultation Schools – Headteachers
Respondents were asked to respond with a
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ response.
Invited comments were from the following
groups and stakeholders:
• Schools
– headteachers, school council and governors
(Table 1)
• Secondary school pupils
– conducted via various focus groups including:
• Leeds Youth Council – ‘Be Healthy’
group and two large inner city secondary
schools (Table 2)
• Parents
– via questionnaire and a focus group of
parents participating in local support group
for obese children
• Local stakeholders and key partnerships
– children’s services; extended services;
Primary Care Trust; education and
universities; environmental health; children
and social care and others
• School meal catering providers
– local authority; opted out schools
(self catering schools) and private
sector providers
Approximately 260 Leeds schools were contacted, of which 109 responded,
informed by the school council and governors.
Schools
Response
Yes
Comments
No Don’t know
Primary
Secondary
92
6
62
30
Don’t know
No
Yes
1. Agree in theory with sentiments, in reality policing is controversial, but would welcome practical suggestions to
move this forward.
2. Prefer LCC guidance, we would include in prospectus. Telling people what they have to put in packed lunch
infringes civil liberties.
3. Diffcult to monitor.
1. Advice for parents is helpful, policy suggest must be adhered to, happy to encourage healthy eating but
do not want to criticise content.
2. Content of child’s packed lunch is the responsibility of the parent.
3. We are leaders in healthy eating and enjoy a high school meal uptake and believe in education not issuing
instructions, strongly opposed to prohibition.
4. Discussed and decided against it, we are proactive if giving suggestions. We are happy with the system we
have in place.
5. Governors do not want to adopt a ‘big brother’ approach.
6. It is not the heads’ job to monitor, cost is restrictive measure for quality, government should give free school
meal to all (if they were serious).
7. Punishing measure for some families – nanny state.
1. Publicity should come from children’s services for credibility amongst parents.
2. Greatest hurdle is the ethnic minority and lack of understanding as to what a packed lunch is.
3. Would open dialogue with parent – ‘this is the future’.
4. Need packed lunch policy aligned to school meal standards.
5. As long as it is guidance and not mandatory.
6. Concern for parent reaction – they need educating.
7. Half of our children eat poor packed lunches, many of which are entitled to free school meals.
8. We need control, guidance is worthless, and how will it have punch!
9. The standards help resolve and clarify defnitions (especially confectionery and snacks).
10. Much needed and long awaited – thank you.
11. Parents and pupils bow to peer pressure opting for expensive high-fat foods.
12. Despite standards, school meals take-up continues to fall, with pupils choosing packed lunch.
13. We anticipate a few issues to start with, but eventually pupils and parents will conform, same as school
uniform policy.
14. Yes, Yes, Yes, this is a major stumbling block for healthy schools programme.
15. City-wide approach gives positive message that we are trying hard to promote and give more clout.
16. Coming from children’s services this will give more clout with parents.
17. Support must be available for families who choose packed lunch as an affordable option.
18. It would give us something tangible to fall back on.
19. Needs to be well publicised with a launch campaign to alert parents and pupils.
The consultation asked respondents the following question:
Would you welcome city-wide packed lunch policy guidance?
18 19
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
Leeds – Youth on Health
(YoH!) is a children and young
people’s consultative and
participatory health forum
managed and co-ordinated by
Leeds Healthy School Standard
– The Project, and supported
by Primary Care Trusts and
The Leeds Children Fund.
Represented by fve groups of primary
school children and one group of secondary
school pupils from across the city, its
purpose is to provide the city with a
democratic, consultative forum on health for
and run by young people.
Over 112 YoH! representatives engaged in
the packed lunch public consultation from
53 schools. Using creative art techniques
YoH! representatives were divided into two
groups; those with a packed lunch policy and
those without. The consultation aimed to
raise awareness, develop understanding, aid
learning, assess their views and acceptance
of the proposed policy and seek their
advice to inform next steps. The following
questions were asked and through creative
arts they designed lunch boxes that included
their captured responses (right).
The fndings demonstrated a sound
understanding of what the ‘packed lunch
policy’ aims to achieve and its role in
teaching healthy eating messages to families.
Both primary and secondary school pupils
supported the policy – their opinions, views
and recommendations are summarised in
Appendix 5.
Groups
With packed lunch policy group:
Response Without packed lunch policy group:
Yes
Comments
No Don’t know
LCC Youth Council
– Be Healthy
Secondary schools
41
16
Yes
(LCC Youth
Council
– Be Healthy)
Yes
(Secondary
schools)
• Monitoring: How will it be done and will it cause bullying?
• Affordability: Recommend pilot in deprived communities.
• Communications: How will it be communicated to parents?
• Support: Will parents be trained about what should be in packed lunches?
• If school food decent we would not need to eat packed lunch.
• Necessary to do packed lunch when doing sport, would like to pre-order grab bags.
• Packed lunches should be same as school meal standards.
• It’s unfair, students can eat chocolate if in their packed lunches but we can’t buy from the school.
• Pupils would resist at frst but soon get used to it.
• Grab bags should include drink and be reasonably priced, then parents would opt for school packed lunches.
• Meal of the day should include a drink, then we would eat more school meals.
Pupils
Extensive pupil consultation was not conducted based on the premise that should schools opt to
implement the policy; pupils’ views will be captured at school level. Three focus groups however
were conducted to offer some insight, these were:
• Secondary pupils in two inner city schools
• LCC Youth Council – Be Healthy
• Youth on Health (YOH!) primary and secondary
The group discussions were informed by the rationale paper, a vote was not taken, therefore
the responses reflect the spirit of a general agreement and the fact that their concerns
were addressed.
• What do you know about it?
(Tell us about your policy)
• What do you think? Does it work?
• Were you or your families asked about it?
• How does the school make sure it
happens?
• Do you know what a healthy packed
lunch policy is? What is it?
• What do you think about the idea?
• Who and what should we be asking?
Packed lunch consultation with children and young people
Over 112
YoH! representatives engaged
in the packed lunch public
consultation from 53 schools
Table 2 Pupils focus groups
21
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
20
Parents/Carers
Parent survey
Parent – focus group
The public consultation did not include a
city-wide mail out to all parents for the
following reasons.
• The policy is not mandatory.
• Implementation is at each school discretion.
• Parental geographical variations would not
represent local needs.
• Headteachers agreed that each policy would
be informed through local consultation with
families to reflect local needs.
However, samples of views were captured by:
• Survey questionnaire investigating why
children do not take school meals
(free and paid) in fve primary and
fve secondary inner city schools; and
• Focus group of parents representing
obese children.
Surveys were conducted
across 11 Leeds inner city
schools investigating a range
of issues related to school
meal uptake, of which packed
lunch was included.
Parents completing the questionnaire did
not have access to the background rationale
paper and were asked the following three
basic questions:
• Would you like advice about what makes
up a healthy packed lunch?
• Would you like dietary advice?
• Do you think all schools should have a
packed lunch policy i.e. say what is allowed
or not allowed in packed lunches?
Responses from primary schools
250 questionnaires were distributed and
78 responded, of these, 30 chose a packed
lunch for their children. Here are the
following reasons:
• Dislike school dinners (11 comments).
• Cheaper than school dinners
(8 comments).
• Aware of what child eats (6 comments).
• I can provide a healthy meal (3 comments).
Of the responses:
• 43 per cent would like ideas on packed
lunch (13 responses).
• 38 per cent like dietary advice
(11 responses).
• 34 per cent think schools should have a
policy (10 responses).
Responses from secondary schools –
parents of pupils in year 8
773 questionnaires were distributed and
123 responded, of these, 72 chose a packed
lunch for their children. Here are the
following reasons:
• It is cheaper/school meals are too
expensive/I can’t afford school meals.
• My child does not like school dinners.
• The queues are too long for my child to
wait in them.
• I have more control over what my child is
eating/I know they are getting a balanced,
healthy meal.
• I know they have had enough to eat – my
child won’t go hungry.
• My child is a fussy eater and won’t try
what is on the school menu.
• My child prefers packed lunches/
sandwiches.
• Sometimes my child has a packed lunch
and sometimes a school meal.
• Not entitled to claim free school meals.
• More convenient.
Of the responses:
• 28 per cent would like ideas on packed
lunch (20 responses).
• 24 per cent like dietary advice
(17 responses).
• 26 per cent think schools should have a
policy (19 responses).
Parents attending a local
community support group
for their obese children were
engaged in a small and brief
discussion seeking their opinion
on the advocated policy.
The group included six parents whose
children were aged between 9 and 14; the
group contributed the following response:
• All expressed their concerns that packed
lunch children were often discriminated
against; often made to eat lunch in a poor
eating environment and children have less
time to eat packed lunches compared to
school lunch eaters.
Of the six parents their initial response
was divided
• Three were annoyed, citing more rules
and regulations, and were concerned how
it would be monitored, and that healthy
packed lunch would be expensive.
• Three welcomed the help and guidance
especially guidance on portion size for
packed lunch. They were not sure what
to put in a packed lunch, many used
dairy products. Concerns regarding peer
pressure and competition for branded
goods were discussed.
However, in conclusion, the group
collectively agreed to the policy, stating
they would welcome the policy, they
acknowledged how the new government
standards restrictions were necessary, and
that it was unfair that packed lunch eaters
were not restricted to the same standards.
250
questionnaires were distributed
to primary schools
773
questionnaires were distributed
to secondary schools
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
22 23
Leeds – school meal catering providers
Leeds catering providers of school meals
invited to comment include:
1. Local Authority – Catering Agency.
2. Scolarest.
3. Taylor Shaw.
4. Carillion.
5. Edwards and Ward.
All the catering providers welcomed
the proposed policy and offered the
following comments:
• Catering staff should not be responsible
for monitoring.
• Important to provide supportive
resources and marketing targeting parents.
• Welcomed opportunity to develop
product to meet pupil and parent needs
in grab bag packed lunches.
• Include information in their
communication literature to parents
promoting affordable packed lunches
aligned to the standards.
• Must not discourage uptake of
school meal.
Summary of fndings
In principle the majority across all respondents welcomed the policy guidance, the following
summarises the general fndings:
Headteachers
Welcomed the proposed policy to support
their health ethos. Some heads expressed
concerns regarding parent reaction, and
requested tailored support for families
choosing the packed lunch as an affordable
option and ideas on what constitutes a
healthy school meal. They agreed that
the policy should not be mandatory, and
requested high level publicity to launch the
policy to inform and prepare pupils and
parents of the policy guidance.
Parents
The primary schools fndings suggest greater
support for a policy compared to secondary
school responses. However, the majority
supported the advocated policy, recognising
the need for parity and fairness. Their
concerns tended to focus on affordability
and they would welcome advice; concerns
were raised regarding monitoring processes
and procedures.
Pupils
The pupils welcomed the advocated
policy providing that their concerns were
addressed, of particular note; monitoring
– they were worried that if done
inappropriately it could cause bullying and
discrimination of pupils. They highlighted
the need for support for children from
low-income families who are not entitled
for free school meal. They agreed that there
would be some resistance at frst from
pupils and parents, but felt after time that
they would get used to it. They all agreed
that it was only fair that packed lunches
should eat healthily, the same as the
school meals.
Conclusion
The fndings demonstrate a signifcant level
of support, illustrating a growing acceptance
of responsibility from schools, parents and
pupils to improve children diets. However,
the fndings raise important concerns, many
of which were highlighted by the literature
review, observational evidence and captured
in local research. These valuable insights will
be incorporated into the comprehensive
toolkit and policy recommendations to
ensure local needs are met.
Leeds strategic stakeholder/partnership groups
A cross-section of local
organisations, partnerships and
strategy groups were invited
to respond from the following:
• Community dieticians.
• Public health practitioners.
• Primary Care Trust – Leeds childhood
obesity prevention strategy group.
• Children social care.
• Environmental health.
• Neighbourhood and housing.
• Extended services.
• Leeds food matters strategy group.
• Community sector.
• University academics (childhood obesity
reader and behavioural psychologists).
• Healthy schools health and wellbeing
programme.
• Leeds school meal strategy group.
• Others.
All of the above stakeholders responded
in agreement to the advocated policy (in
principle), endorsing the concept based
on its capacity to support families and
improve children’s health and wellbeing.
They contributed the following
statements.
The policy document should:
• act as catalysts for schools to review
whole-school food policy;
• highlight association between diet,
attainment and inequalities;
• make clear school expectation on policy;
• make clear monitoring procedures
between school and families; and
• support families and children to make
healthier choices.
The resource kit should:
• support ‘hard to reach’ schools;
• be underpinned by the ‘eatwell plate’
(FSA, 2007); and
• consider food safety and hygiene.
General comments included:
• concern that over zealous children
copy and could cause bullying if failure
to comply;
• encourages schools to agree in clusters to
promote parity within communities and
boundaries;
• bring about signifcant increase in school
meal uptake;
• vital to help encourage and guide
parents to understand the impact of
poor nutrition;
• change invokes reluctance, correct
resources to support transition will bring
about positive change;
• in favour of supportive guidance for
schools on packed lunches;
• risks parents feeling powerless and
incompetent;
• what provision will be available for the
‘fussy eaters’?;
• ensure guiding principles for failing to
thrive children; and
• welcome the provision of useful
information for schools to provide
foster carers.
24
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
25
5.What actions are
recommended?
The literature review and the consultation
fndings clearly demonstrate that senior
decision-makers should endorse and
promote the advocated policy for its
benefts to children’s health and economic
well-being, ensuring no child is left behind.
The advocated policy provides a timely
opportunity to involve parents and pupils,
through a unique supportive policy,
education and advice to effect change
towards a sustainable cultural shift; ‘making
the healthier choice the easier choice’
– DH Public Health White Paper (DH, 2004).
The application of Halls’ (Halls, 1975, cited
in Walt, 1994 p54) policy making theory
informs the fnal decision based of three
policy-setting concepts legitimacy, feasibility
and support drawing on the literature
review and the public consultation which
concludes the following:
1. Legitimacy – the new standards widened
the inequalities gap in food brought
from home.
2. Feasibility – Headteachers are prepared
to implement policy that aids learning;
promotes health ethos; support
Ofsted targets and avoids accusations
of coercion.
3. Support – The public consultation clearly
demonstrates support for the policy.
“Should schools decide to implement a
packed lunch policy, there is no expectation
that schools should implement the packed
lunch policy aligned to the new standards in
its entirety. Schools can decide to adopt an
incremental approach. The local authority
policy is not mandatory, and should be
implemented at the schools discretion
informed by local consultation. This policy
should be considered in the wider context
of the Leeds school meals strategy – action
plan. That aims to ensure access to great
food in a happy environment promoting
happy social interaction – delivered through
the whole-school approach.”
– Leeds school meals strategic partnership
The Leeds school meals strategy action
plan includes a range of major strategic
interventions to across all schools, pupil
referral units and special inclusion learning
centres investing national 5a standard grant
funding to deliver a sustainable school meals
service targeting:
1. Free school meals – to ensure all eligible
children enjoy their FSM.
2. Training – develop capacity of
under 1000 catering staff to deliver
new standards.
3. Dining room – invest funds to improve
social experience and environment.
4. Catering equipment – to prepare
fresh ingredients.
For more information about free school
meals see www.educationleeds.co.uk/
schoolmeals
What we have done so far
The school meals team in partnership
with key stakeholders will coordinate and
facilitate the following:
1. Form a strategic partnership to
develop and guide the policy document
(appendix 1).
2. Form a operational partnership
to develop a practical resource kit
(appendix 2).
3. Pilot a packed lunch policy in three innercity schools.
4. Obtain strategic endorsement by the
chief executive team – children’s services
and director of children services.
5. Develop and deliver comprehensive
training programme.
The next steps
6. Disseminate free resource toolkit (CD
and PDF format available on website).
7. Promote the policy guidance for
implementation at the schools discretion.
8. Implement a city-wide communication
marketing strategy to raise awareness of
the policy to parents.
9. Promote and embed policy and toolkit
in major stakeholders working with
children and young people e.g. early
years, extended services.
10.Engage with local and national retailers
to support product development aligned
to the Leeds policy.
Note – parent defned as those with legal responsibility to
the child.
27
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
26
References
Adamson, G. Mcaleavy, G. Donegan, T and
Shelin, M. (2006)
Teachers’ perceptions of health education
practice in Northern Ireland: reported
differences between policy and non-policy
holding schools.
Health Promotion International,
Vol. 21 (2) 113-121
Blanden, J. (2006)
‘Bucking the trend’ What enables those who
are disadvantaged in childhood to success
later in life?
Department for work and pensions.
Internet available at:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/WP31.pdf
Cargo, M. Salsberg, J. Delormier, T.
Desrosiers, S. Macaulay, A. (2005)
Understanding the social context of school
health promotion program implementation.
Health Education. 106: (2) 85-97
Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) (2006)
Recipe for Change: A good practice guide to
school meals.
Poverty Publications. London CPAG.
Colquhoun, D. (2007)
Calmer classrooms in Hull thanks to
school meals.
Internet available at: www.hull.ac.uk/05/pdf/
aboutus/news/may07/healthymeals.pdf
Colquhoun, D. Wright, N. Pike, J. Gatenby, L
(2008)
Evaluation of ‘Eatwell Do Well’ Kingston Upon
Hull’s school meal Initiative.
Internet available at: www.hull.ac.uk/05/pdf/
aboutus/news/may07/healthymeals.pdf
Cummings, C. Dyson, A. Muijs, D. Papps, I.
Pearson, D. Raffo, C. Tiplady, L and Todd, E.
with Crowther, D. (2007)
Evaluation of the full service extended schools
initiative: Final report
Brief No: RB852. ISBN 978 1 84478
963 4 on behalf of DCSF available at:
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_fles/
ED450720936C70378865D812AA087FF9.pdf
Department of Health (2004).
Public Health White Paper – Choosing Health.
London. Crown. Department of Health.
Department of Health (2006), London Joint
Health Surveys Unit. Zaninotto P, Wardle H,
Samatakis E, Mindell J, and Head J [Internet]
Forecasting Obesity to 2010.
available at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/
Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/
PublicationsStatistics/DH_4138630
Department of Health and Department for
Education (DfE) (2008) Cross Government
Obesity Unit (2008)
Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross
Government Strategy for England.
London
Department for Education and Skills. (2005)
Turning the Tables – Transforming School Meals.
HMSO London, Department for Education
and Skills.
Department for Education and Skills.
(2005a) Partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA).
Proposal to develop and Implement Nutritional
Standards for School Lunches.
Internet available at: www.food.gov.uk/
multimedia/pdfs/targetnutrientsria.pdf
Department for Education and Skills (2003)
Healthy Living Blueprint for Schools.
Available at: www.teachernet.gov.uk/
healthyliving
Department of Health, (2003).
Health Check on the state of the public health:
Annual report of the Chief Medical Offcer.
London: DH. available at:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/
Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/
AnnualReports/DH_4006432
Department of Health (2006)
Measuring Childhood Obesity: Guidance to
Primary Care Trusts.
London. Internet available at:
http://www.dh.gov.uk
Emmett, P. (2007)
What our children eat in school?
Network Health Dietitians, 29:10-11
Evans, C. and Cade, J. (2007)
Packed Lunches in Primary Schools in the UK.
A cluster randomised control of a ‘Smart’
lunchbox, designed to improve the content
of primary school children’s packed lunches
in the UK: Part 1 Results of baseline survey.
Florence, M. Asbrudge, M. Veugelers, P. (2008)
Diet Quality and Academic Performance
Journal of School Health
78 (4) p 209
Food Standards Agency (2004 and 2006)
Food Standards Agency N14005:
A ‘Smart’ Lunch Box Template Intervention.
University of Leeds. Available at:
www.food.gov.uk/science/research/
researchinfo/nutritionresearch/foodchoice/
n14programme/n14projilist/n14005/
Foresight, (2007)
Tackling Obesities; Future Choices
– Lifestyle Changes – Evidence review
Available at:
www.foresight.gov.uk/obesity/obesity.htm
Gregory et al (2000)
National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Young
People aged 4 to 18 years.
London: The Stationary Offce.
Health in England (1996).
A study of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour
among adults aged 16 to 74 living in private
households in England.
Offce for National Statistics and The Health
Education Authority.
Healthy Schools Programme (2007)
Available at:
www.healthyschools.gov.uk/News/Default.as
px?ContentType=5&ContentId=178
Herbert, D. (2000) School Choice in
the Local Environment: headteachers as
gatekeepers on an uneven playing
Journal of School Leadership and Management
20, (1): 79-97.
Jebb, S. Steer, T. Holmes, C. 2007)
(The ‘Healthy Living’ Social Marketing Initiative:
A review of the evidence. An independent report
commissioned by the DH
Conducted on behalf of Department of
Health [Internet] available at: www.dh.gov.
uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/
PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_073044
pg 23
Joffe, M. Mindell, J. (2004) A tentative step
towards healthy public policy.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
58: 966-968
Lobstein, Y. Baur, L. (2005)
Policies to prevent childhood obesity in
the European Union. European Journal of
Public Health.
15, (6f): 576-579.
Local Authority Catering Association (2007).
National School Meals Survey.
Internet available at: www.laca.co.uk/pdfs/
LACASurvey2007.pdf
Maycock, B. Howat, P. Slevin, T. (2001)
A Decision-making model for health promotion
advocacy: the case for advocacy of drunk driving
control measures.
IUHPE – Promotion and Education.
Vol. VIII/2 59-64
Meat Products (England)
Regulations (2003)
Available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/
si2003/20032075.htm
Milio, N. (1988) Making healthy public policy:
developing the science by learning the art:
an ecological framework for policy studies.
Health Promotion,
2 (3): 263-274.
Mintel International Group Ltd (2004).
Children’s Packed Lunches UK
Molinari, R. and South, J. (2008).
Exploring the preparedness and willingness
of school headteachers’ to sustain the
implementation of the 2006 mandatory school
meal standards policy: a qualitative study.
Unpublished research for Leeds
Metropolitan University Masters
(Molinari nee Denison)
Moon, A. Mullee, M. Rogers, R. Thomson, L.
Speller, V. Roderick, P. (1999)
Helping schools to become health-promoting
environments – an evaluation of the Wessex
Healthy Schools Award.
Health Promotion International.
14: (2) 111-122
Moore (2008) Director, Cardiff Institute for
Society, Health and Ethics (CISHE)
Available at: www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/
the-key-to-success-in-increasing-childrensfruit-consumption.html [May 29 2008]
Moss, P. (2006) Farewell to Childcare?
National Institute Economic Review
195; 70
Nelson and Nicholas (2006).
First annual survey of take up of school meals
in England.
Accessible at: www.schoolfoodtrust.org.
uk/UploadDocs/Library/Documents/sft_
baseline_survey.pdf
National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence (2006).
Obesity: the prevention, identifcation,
assessment and management of overweight
and obesity in adults and children.
Internet available at:
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.
jsp?action=download&o=30361
National Social Marketing Centre (2007)
How to use social Marketing to promote
healthy lifestyles and reduce overweight and
obesity in children.
Report produced for the Department
of Health
OfSTED (2006)
Healthy eating in schools. Healthy eating:
who is responsible?
Internet available at: www.ofsted.gov.uk/
assets/4167.pdf
Oliver, A. and Nutbeam, D. (2003)
Addressing Health Inequalities in the United
Kingdom: a case study.
Journal of Public Health Medicine,
24. (4): 218-287
Prince, R. (2005)
Jamie Oliver – School Meals are better
in Soweto; Chef Blasts Junk Food Menu.
Political Correspondent.
The Mirror
July 27, Wednesday 2005 Pg. 16
Rogers et al (2007)
Quality of food eaten in English primary schools:
school dinners vs. packed lunches.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
61: 856-864
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
28 29
Sahota, P Woodward, J. Bowyer, S (2008)
unpublished fndings – research commissioned
by children’s services (School Meals
Department)
Investigating why eligible pupils fail to take
FSM allocation.
School Food Trust (2007)
First annual survey of take up of school meals
in England
Internet available at: www.schoolfoodtrust.
org.uk/UploadDocs/Library/Documents/
sft_baseline_survey.pdf
School Food Trust (2007a)
Available at: www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/
index.asp
School Food Trust (2007b)
A guide to the Government’s new food-based
standards for school lunches. Revised.
Sheffeld: School Food Trust.
School Food Trust (2007c)
Packed Lunches
Available at: www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/
content.asp?Contentid=505
School Food Trust (2007d)
Documents and Resources. Case Studies.
available at: www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/
casestudy-detail.asp?caseid=1,2,4,5,6,70,92.
School Meals Review Panel (2005)
Turning the Tables – Transforming School Food:
The Development and Implementation of
Nutritional Standards for School Lunches.
Available at: www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/
UploadDocs/Library/Documents/SMRP_
Report_FINAL.pdf
The Caroline Walker Trust (1992)
National Guidelines for School Meals. Report
of an Expert Working Group.
London. The Caroline Walker Trust.
The Caroline Walker Trust (2005)
Eating well at school. Nutritional and
practical guidelines.
London. The Caroline Walker Trust.
University of Leeds, (2007)
National Foundation for Educational Research
Commissioned by the Foods Standards
Agency. Accessible at: www.food.gov.uk/
multimedia/pdfs/smartlunchbox
Walt, G. (1994) Health Policy:
An Introduction to Process and Power.
London, Zed Books.
Whincup P H, Owen C G, Sattar N,
Cook D G (2005) School dinners and
markers of cardiovascular health and
type 2 diabetes in 13-16 year olds:
cross sectional study.
British Medical Journal
331;1060-1061
World Health Organisation. (1986)
Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.
Geneva, World Health Organisation.
World Health Organisation. (1988)
The Adelaide Recommendations: Healthy
Public Policy.
Geneva, World Health Organisation and
the Commonwealth of Australia
World Health Organisation (2007)
Nutrition-Friendly Schools Initiative (NFSI).
Accessible
Appendices

children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
30 31
Appendix 1 — School Food Trust at a glance — Pack lunch policy
For a balanced packed lunch select these healthier foods and drinks:
†Be aware of nut allergies. Refer to the school policy on nuts or visit www.allergyinschools.co.uk for more information
Avoid including these foods in packed lunches:
Fruit and
Vegetables
Oily Fish
Starchy Food
Milk and
Dairy Food
Drinking Water
Healthier
Drinks
Snacks
Confectionery
Meat Products
Meat and
Alternatives
Include at least one portion of fruit and one portion of vegetables
or salad every day.
Including oily fsh, such as salmon, at least once every three weeks.
A starchy food such as any type of bread or pasta, rice, couscous,
noodles, potatoes or other cereals, should be included every day.
Include a dairy food such as semi-skimmed or skimmed milk, cheese,
yoghurt, fromage frais or custard every day.
Free, fresh drinking water should be available at all times.
Including only water, still or sparkling, fruit juice,
semi-skimmed milk, yoghurt or milk drinks and smoothies.
Snacks such as crisps should not be included. Instead, include nuts†,
seeds, vegetables and fruit (with no added salt, sugar or fat). Savoury
crackers or breadsticks served with fruit, vegetables or dairy food
are also a good choice.
Confectionery such as chocolate bars, chocolate-coated biscuits and
sweets should not be included. Cakes and biscuits are allowed but
encourage your child to eat these only as part of a balanced meal.
Meat products such as sausage rolls, individual pies corned meat and
sausages/chipolatas should be included only occasionally.
Meat, fsh or another source of non-dairy protein should be
included every day. Non-dairy sources of protein include lentils,
kidney beans, chickpeas, hummus, peanut butter† and falafel.
Appendix 2 — illustrates how national and local packed lunch guidance policy
fts into the ‘eatwell plate’ model and the whole diet
Fruit and vegetables
Any fruit and vegetables
can be included, try
to include at least one
portion a day.
Foods high in fat
and/or sugar
Small amounts of food
high in fat and/or sugar
can be eaten in a balanced
diet, but should not
be included in packed
lunches. We ask that they
are eaten outside school.
Drinks high in fat and/or sugar
Schools may choose to implement a
‘water only’ policy. To meet standards
fresh drinking water should be available
at all times and all fzzy drinks including
sugar-free and diet should be barred.
Bread, rice,
potatoes, pasta
All varieties of starchy
foods are acceptable, try
to include wholegrain
when possible.
Milk and dairy foods
Try to include dairy food
every day.
Meat, fsh, eggs,
beans
Either meat, fsh, eggs or
another source of nondairy protein should be
included every day.
The eatwell plate
Use the eatwell plate to help you get the balance right. It shows
how much of what you eat should come from each food group.
Fruit and
vegetables
Bread, rice,
potatoes, pasta
and other starchy foods
Meat, fsh,
eggs, beans
and other non-dairy
sources of protein
Milk and
dairy foods
Foods and drinks
high in fat and/or sugar
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
32 33
Without policy group:
Do you think a healthy packed lunch policy
is important?
• It would be fair, because packed lunches
should be healthy too.
• Yes, a balanced packed lunch.
• Encourage people who eat packed
lunches to eat more positively.
• Yes, people need to be healthy; we all
need to be healthy.
• But some schools might be healthier than
others.
• No, they should be allowed to have some
fzzy pop and sweets.
• We should have a balanced diet.
• Yes, if you eat a healthy pack up we will all
be healthy at school.
• They shouldn’t just get rid of all unhealthy
food; they should have a balance of
healthy and unhealthy food.
• We should be able to have healthy
and unhealthy, as long as we don’t
have too much.
• Create a food pyramid to show us what
we can or can’t eat.
• To encourage all young people to
eat healthily.
• Yes, it encourages people to eat healthy
foods, and no because it’s complicated…
some people might not agree. It gives a
balanced diet but only if we make sure
people know what that means.
• You won’t have a healthy heart if you
don’t have a balanced diet.
• It’s up to the people who make the
lunch it’s their fault if they eat bad food
and get poorly or fat.
• It’s important because school dinners
have a policy so packed lunches
should too.
• Pupils will be encouraged to have healthy
food but still have a choice.
• The policy is important if it is an
agreement.
• Could create school pack ups like
grab a bag.
Who and what should we be asking?
• We should be asking children and young
people and parents to see if they think it
would be a good idea.
• Parents and children, could you help
with the plans for the children’s
healthy lunches.
• Parents, dinner ladies, headteachers
and young people. We should ask what
children like i.e. fruit? If they agree with it
and why?
• Teachers, parents and dinner ladies. Can
you provide a healthy packed lunch?
• Does it make a difference if some kids go
home and eat junk food.
• Teachers, dinner ladies.
• We think it’s good to make the whole
city healthy.
• Ask the children – what they like and
dislike and if they have any allergies.
• Ask parents, teachers etc – what they
think about it (dietary requirements) give
more choice of drinks.
• Teachers should get involved, parents and
young people too.
• They should do questionnaires so people
can have a choice of what they want.
• Find out the most popular types of food
and the least popular by drawing a chart
with all foods.
• Having a parents evening for pupils and
parents to give advice on lunches.
• Parents, teachers, young people, dinner
ladies, governors, and YoH staff team.
• Send a leaflet out to say what is healthy
and what’s allowed.
• How can we make sure it works?
• Make it simple.
• Chocolate days for example.
• We should ask how parents will
react to it.
• Parents, teachers and children if they
don’t know what it is they can’t do it.
• Ask the people who make and eat the
packed lunches.
What do you think about it being a
citywide policy?
• We think it’s a good idea to not just get
rid of everything unhealthy, it should be
about a balanced diet.
• Its okay but the children will still eat
chocolate on a night.
• I agree with the policy because it will help
children to not get fat.
• It’s a good way to encourage young
people to eat healthily.
• It’s good that it’s city-wide because it
means that the whole city will be healthy.
• Because it’s important for the children to
have healthy diets and they can keep up
to having a healthy life. Also have an affect
on people who aren’t as healthy
as others.
Appendix 3 — children’s services, Two-tier strategic planning group Appendix 4 — glossary of terms
Policy guidance strategic group: to inform content of guidance policy.
Name
Rosemary Molinari
David McDermott
Jackie Moores
Alison Cater
Wendy Kershaw
Anne Cowling
Liz Messenger
Charlee Bewsher
Sally Bavage
Christine Morton
Kevin Metcalf
Joanne Nunnery
Mandy Snaith
Maureen Park
Lisa Mallison
Martyn Stenton
Alan Sherwood
Lesley Reed
Liz Messenger
Christine Morton
Emma Strachan
Tabassum Hussein
Sue Mulligan
Jo Loft
DCSF
DH
FSA
PL
SFT
FSM
Profession/Partnership
Healthy schools and wellbeing programme (chair)
Extended cluster manager (Farnley)
PCT healthy improvement specialist – food
Healthy living network – Leeds
Environmental health – health improvement team
Environmental health – health improvement team
Department for Education (DfE)
Department of Health
Food Standards Agency
Packed lunch
School Food Trust
Free school meals
Operational group: to develop resource kit.
(informed by three pilots – two primary schools and one secondary school).
Appendix 5 — Youth on Health consultation
School meals strategy adviser (chair)
Children’s services
Childhood obesity professional development
Childhood obesity strategy manager
Healthy schools and wellbeing programme
Healthy schools and wellbeing programme
Healthy schools and wellbeing programme
The project, West Yorkshire youth association
Extended services
Extended services
Extended services/cluster manager
Scolarest catering – PFI
LCC catering agency
Children’s centre improvement manager
Healthy Leeds partnership – children’s social care
Neighbourhood and housing – partnerships
Environmental health
Senior youth worker – learning and leisure
children’s services > Leeds school meals strategy
34
Appendix 5 — Youth on Health consultation (continued)
• You should ask professionals and families.
• I think the idea is good because it will
stop children from eating junk food.
• Having a balanced diet is good, to
encourage all young people to spread out
the fats and health.
• We think it’s pretty cool.
• I think it’s good because it will help
children to be healthier as they get older.
• Good because if its city-wide everyone
can be doing it.
• In one way it’s good because people know
that everyone can do it so one school
isn’t healthier than the other. But on the
other hand people like free choice and
might not agree.
• We think more people will use the policy
because there will be examples to follow
and it will be city rules.
• People might not follow it.
• It’s a great idea to have guidelines but you
need to work with us and make them
flexible.
With policy group:
What do you know about it?
Tell us about your policy.
• We don’t know much about it.
• I know that in our school we are only
allowed one chocolate bar and no
fzzy pop.
• We think that the healthy eating policy is
very good and a lot of kids are interested
in it and it defnitely works, we all have a
healthier life style now.
• You need some vegetables and fruit.
Sandwich, salad bowl, pasta or samosa. You
get detention if you just bring chocolate
and fzzy pop.
• Fruit and vegetables – limit on sweets.
Fruit juices and healthy drinks.
What do you think? Does it work?
• Maybe, but people still bring in sweets.
• No sweets allowed on days except Friday.
• I think it’s a bad idea. It doesn’t work
very well as people still bring in unhealthy
foods. It should be up to the kids.
• No it doesn’t, people still bring in junk
food. People hide chocolate and some
people don’t care.
How does the school make sure it happens?
• They sometimes check.
• Teachers walk around at lunch and if
anybody has any sweets that are not
allowed them. The teachers will take them
away and give them back at home time.
It’s great and it works.
• At lunchtime the teachers will observe
what you eat and if it is unhealthy they
will advise you to eat healthier.
• We’re not allowed sweets and fzzy drinks
– some teachers are really strict about it
others are not concerned.
• The dinner ladies check lunch boxes.
• People should check on it everyday in
the morning.
Were you or your families asked about it?
• No because they haven’t got anyone
to do it.
• Questionnaires were given out to parents
about healthy dinners; they were also
given out to children. Everybody has a
healthy dinner and it keeps them healthy.
• Our families were not asked about how
they felt about the healthy eating. I think
they should have had their opinion. We
weren’t asked but we should have been!
• Yes there was a letter from the Parent
Teacher Association.
Ideas:
• Announce it in assembly and parents
evening.
• Questionnaires.
• Competitions.
• Should be healthy everyday with treats on
a Friday.
• Give ideas for what could be in the
healthy lunches.
• Send out letters.
• Give alternatives so families are not
spending more money or having to take
up baking.
36
School meals team contact details:
Rosemary Molinari
School meals strategy adviser
Phone: 0113 224 3779
Mobile: 07891 279922
Email: [email protected]
Free Phone: 0800 731 0640
Tel: 0113 2474386
Email: [email protected]
Prepared and researched by:
Rosemary Molinari MSc. BSc. PHNutr.
Leeds school meals strategy adviser