England’s “school-food overhaul” is still a promise — and schools start term under the old rules

The government has sold healthier school dinners as a generational reset. The less appetising truth is that the ban-heavy rules are still proposals, the enforcement system is unfinished, and the bill for making them work has not been settled.

The headline is ahead of the law. England’s current school-food rules remain those made under the 2014 regulations: they restrict high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar food, but they do not impose the government’s proposed blanket ban on deep-frying or limit sweetened desserts to one portion a week. The existing standards remain in force “until further notice”, meaning pupils have started the September 2026 school year under the old regime.¹
The proposed changes are substantial — but not quite the simplistic junk-food purge being advertised. The consultation proposes no deep-frying during preparation; no more than two weekly portions from the combined categories of battered, breadcrumbed, pastry and processed-meat foods; and only one weekly sweetened baked product or dessert in primary schools, provided it contains at least 50% fruit or vegetables. Secondary schools would get a transition period, with the dessert limit reaching one portion a week only from September 2028.²
The real fight is over who pays for “healthy”. The Department for Education says it tested the proposals with schools and caterers for cost, acceptability and procurement. But the published consultation does not set out a funding settlement for the extra work, ingredients, staffing or equipment that may be needed. Industry representatives say their trials found higher food costs and lower meal take-up — a warning that a nutritious menu children reject is not a public-health triumph but an expensive packed-lunch subsidy.³
Autonomy is being narrowed while accountability is being advertised. Schools would still retain discretion over local menus, cultural and dietary provision, celebrations and cookery teaching. But the government proposes a named lead governor for food, compulsory publication of food policies and menus, and a new national compliance system. The political promise is local choice with national consequences; the practical risk is that schools are handed a stricter rulebook before anyone explains who will inspect it, how failures will be remedied or what support kitchens receive.⁴

The policy’s direction is defensible. Children deserve meals that are nutritious, affordable and actually edible, and the expansion of free-school-meal eligibility makes the quality of those meals more consequential. But “once-in-a-generation overhaul” currently describes an intention, not an implemented service. The government says its final standards will be published by the end of September 2026; until then, the most dramatic bans exist chiefly in press releases and consultation documents.⁵

That gap matters. School food is where public health, household budgets and institutional competence collide. Ministers have correctly identified the plate as a political battleground. They have not yet demonstrated that they can win it without leaving schools to absorb the cost — or children to vote with their feet.

England’s “school-food overhaul” is still a promise — and schools start term under the old rules

Sources

Footnotes