Jamie Oliver's TV series of early 2005 drew people's attention to theimportance of school meals. Even though, Jamie, as 'the face of Sainsbury,' is no enemy of corporate influence in food production and health, it is true that low spending on ingredients and labour by the private companies that run school dinners has a major impact on children's health.

Since then, someindividual schools have gone back to providing in-house catering, due to schools being given greater autonomy to opt out of local education authorities' (LEA) catering contracts. But the key word here is 'individual.' With attention focused on specific schools and schemes, the wider issue of a system run for profit at the expense of health is not questioned.

In the 1980s a decision was taken to outsource school meals provision, in the name of efficiency and under the terms of 'compulsory competitive tendering.' Thatcher's measures made competition compulsory for school mealsprovision, so that even services still run by LEAs had to be run as private operations. Nutritional standards for school food, in place since 1906, were also abolished. 'Best value' has now replaced compulsory competitive tendering (CCT), but the basis of the system remains. The drive to cut costs has pushed down spending on ingredients, which is currently averaging around 35p, and on labour. UNISON, the public services union, has found that contractors make lower pay and poorer working conditions for new staff a part of their winning bids. Together with changes in kitchen facilities, these cuts make staff 'food service operatives' rather than cooks. Mass produced products are favoured, which are high in fat, salt and sugar, and lack fresh ingredients. And despite these savings, the amount spent by local authorities on meals has actually risen above the cost of inflation. Extra costs arise from administration, processing and transport in the management of centralised catering operations. Does this really represent 'best value'?

Theoretically, 'best value' allows authorities to consider wider criteria when awarding contracts. These could, in theory, include benefits to children's health, the local economy and the environment through the sourcing of ingredients from good quality local, organic, and independent suppliers. However, in practice, consideration of cost still dominates, and consideration of non-commercial criteria is limited by the1988 Local Government Act. In Carmarthenshire, a good quality service involving on-site preparation of fresh food was judged too costly, so the LEA was faced with a choice between reducing the quality, or facing enforced privatisation.

Multinationals providing school meals include Scolarest, providing for 2,500 schools and 37 LEAs, and Castle Independent, providing for 12LEAs, both divisions of the Compass Group. Sodexho have contracts with 12 LEAs and Initial, a division of Rentokil, with 17. Most caterers source food from a small number of wholesalers including Brake Brothers, Green Gourmet and Bernard Matthews

Beyond school meals, privatisation has been encroaching into schools atthe cost of children's health. Under PFI contracts, schools have found themselves tied into long and inflexible catering sub-contracts, which in some cases override new nutritional guidelines because of the terms of the contract. Corporate sponsorship allows companies to market their products to children in return for resources. The European Round Table of Industrialists suggests that 'the provision of education is a market opportunity and should be treated as such.' Companies have also produced teaching materials, including a website on nutrition by Nestle. A teaching pack by Cadbury's claims that 'chocolate is a wholesome food…[it] gives you important nutrients.' Cadbury's has also provided schools sports equipment through its 'get active' scheme, described by the Consumer Association as 'an irresponsible ploy to encourage unhealthy eating among kids.' Walker's 'books for schools' scheme made parents and teachers 'de facto marketing reps' for the crisps company, in the quest for much needed books. Through vending machines, companies are allowed into schools to sell unhealthy products.

Sadly, the fate of school meals, and as a result children's health, can act as a test case for what happens when a public service is privatised. The case of school meals, and other areas in which corporate interests are entering schools, shows that priorities lie with business and profit rather than health and education.

References
Jamie Oliver's website, 'about me',
www.jamieoliver.com/about/timeline/
BBC NEws, 'Cheap School meals 'risk health', 25.09.03
UNISON, Best value and the two-tier workforce in local government,'
Best value intelligence taskforce, (2002)
The Soil Association, 'Food for Life: Do our children need healthy
food?' (2003)
ibid p.11
UNISON, 'School meals in the 21st century', Unison Education
Services, London (2002) p.6
Kevin Morley and Adrian Morley, School Meals: healthy eating and
sustainable food chains' Cardiff University, Association for Public
Service Excellence briefing, January 2004
The Soil Association, 'Food for Life: Do our children need healthy
food?' p.49-50
UNISON, 'School meals in the 21st century', Unison Education
Services, London (2002) p.32-3
Felicity Lawrence and Katharine Quarmby, 'Private deals block
Jamie's school dinners,' The Guardian 25.04.2005
George Monbiot, 'Captive State: the Corporate Takeover of Britain,'
Macmillan, (2000) p.331
NUT - Briefing on schools' role in promoting child health and
combating commercialisation
George Monbiot, 'Captive State: the Corporate Takeover of Britain,'
Macmillan, (2000) p.333
Kevin Morgan, 'School Meals and Sustainable Food Chains,' The
Caroline Walker Society Lecture, Royal Society 03.11.04 p.5-6
Geof Rayner, 'Today's lesson: get munching!' Health Matters Issue 44, Spring 2001