The future of school food is currently under review, now’s the chance to champion healthier and more sustainable options for school menus. To help you navigate the consultation, we’ve created some template responses.
Firstly, what is the consultation and why does it matter?
The UK School Food Standards were last updated by the Government in 2016.
The government has recently proposed a series of changes. It is important that the government hears from stakeholders across the school food system, and in particular school food caterers, about the proposals.
We would encourage caterers to broadly welcome the changes – which taken as a whole represent a long-overdue modernisation of the requirements that should help schools to provide healthy, sustainable food to all pupils. Our suggested responses to the consultation broadly:
- support the increase in fibre including more veg, legumes, wholegrains and fruit.
- support the limits on HFSS (high fat, salt and sugar).
- support the proposals which restrict processed meat, allow more flexibility around serving plant-based proteins and legumes, and allow non-dairy milks to be served.
Whilst we recognise that caterers may have concerns about the delivery of some of the changes, we advise that these concerns are best raised in the free text sections of the consultation form, rather than by selecting ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’. This approach should encourage the government to proceed with the changes, whilst strengthening the support that caterers will need to put them into practice.
ProVeg is fully committed to empowering caterers with the tools, training, and support to put these changes into practice. Many of the new proposals align closely with the approach we have been recommending for years through our School Plates programme. And having worked with hundreds of caterers across the country, we are confident that (with the right support and guidance) the changes are realistic and deliverable for the vast majority of schools.
Read the proposals in full: School Food Standards: updating the legislative framework
Next, here are our template responses:
School food standards: updating the legislative framework
Launch date 13 April 2026
Respond by 12 June 2026
Section B: Questions on the Proposed Updates to the School Food Standards
Breakfast and whole school day standards
10. To what extent do you agree with the new rules about which foods and drinks can be offered at breakfast clubs before the school day begins?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered in this way: Free text
We support the proposals, which represent a strong, evidence-based approach that aligns with UK dietary recommendations.
The exclusion of fried items and food high in free sugars (e.g., honey, syrups) is aligned with well-established evidence linking excess sugar and saturated fat intake to poor health outcomes. The emphasis on lower sugar options, higher fibre breads, and fruit or vegetables is appropriate and will support improved satiety and overall diet quality, ensuring children are receiving a meal which will support learning and concentration throughout the school day.
We support the exclusion of processed meats, given their high salt content and the evidence linking their consumption to bowel cancer (as evidenced below). We would suggest providing schools with a clear list of foods that are considered ‘processed’ to avoid confusion.
We strongly welcome the inclusion of unsweetened, fortified plant-based dairy alternatives in the standards, supporting nutritional adequacy and inclusion. We would suggest future-proofing this section of the standards by adding unsweetened, fortified pea milk to the list of permitted plant-based options.
We also support the prioritisation of water, and the removal of fruit juice and fruit-juice-based combination drinks from the list of permitted drinks – supporting sugar reduction goals. We would encourage the government to consider also moving to water, milk and tea only in secondary schools, matching the standard for primary.
Evidence from School Food Matters’ Nourish programme [1] demonstrates that introducing healthier breakfast menus can be successful and does not lead to resistance from children if meals remain appealing, accessible and feasible for schools to deliver.
[1] School Food Matters (2026) Evaluation of the Nourish Programme. London: School Food Matters. Available at: https://www.schoolfoodmatters.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/N-report-DIGITAL.pdf
11. Do you think processed meat should be permitted to be served at breakfast? (free text)
Processed meat should not be served at breakfast in school settings. This aligns with current public health guidance, which recommends limiting consumption due to its strong association with adverse health outcomes, including bowel cancer [1] [2]. Given that children eat proportionally more processed meat than adults [2], breakfast provision should prioritise minimally processed, nutrient-dense protein sources, such as beans and pulses, which also contribute fibre and other beneficial nutrients to children’s diets. The processed meat exclusion also maintains consistency with the wider aims of the proposed standards to reduce foods high in salt, saturated fat, and additives. We would suggest providing schools with a clear list of foods that are considered ‘processed’ to avoid confusion.
[1] World Cancer Research Fund. (2024). Meat and cancer. Available at: https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/topics/meat-and-cancer/#processed-meat and-cancer
[2] Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K.Z., Grosse, Y., El Ghissassi, F., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H. and Straif, K., on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. (2015). ‘Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat’, The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), pp. 1599–1600. Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext
12. To what extent do you agree that honey should not be permitted?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered in this way: Free text
Honey is classified as a free sugar and has similar nutritional impacts to other restricted sugars [1]. Excluding it is consistent with the goal of reducing free sugar consumption (linked to dental caries and excess energy intake). A clear and simple exclusion maintains consistent messaging, avoids confusion, and is more effective and easier to implement than trying to enforce portion control, which has been observed to fail in practice.
[1] Raatz, S.K., Johnson, L.K. and Picklo, M.J., 2015. Consumption of honey, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup produces similar metabolic effects in glucose-tolerant and-intolerant individuals. The Journal of nutrition, 145(10), pp.2265-2272.
13. To what extent do you agree with the proposed change to the structure of the standards with separate standards for the whole of the school day?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered in this way: Free text
A whole school day approach strengthens the coherence and effectiveness of the standards by ensuring consistency across all eating occasions, which cumulatively shape children’s dietary patterns. Consistent standards across the day avoids mixed messages, supports clearer communication with children and families, and creates an overall healthier food environment. This clear framework is easier for schools and caterers to follow, reducing the risk of non-compliance. We urge the government to close the exemption for food provided at parties, celebrations, and fundraising events, as this exemption is currently used by companies to market high fat, salt, or sugar (HFSS) products to children, undermining the policy intent. We also urge the government to include guidance that foods high in fat, salt, or sugar should not be provided at sporting events or used to encourage or reward students.
Increasing fibre
Starchy foods
14. To what extent do you agree with the proposed changes to the fibre requirements for starchy foods?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
We strongly support proposals that increase fibre, given that only around 1 in 10 children currently meet the dietary recommendations. We agree that all bread should be a source of fibre, and support the direction of travel on pasta and rice. We would encourage the government to clarify the requirements, stipulating whether the 50% of pasta and rice refers to 50% of starches on the menu or 50% of the content of a product. We would also encourage the government to be more ambitious on pasta and rice – requiring 100% of pasta and rice to be brown, wholegrain or white varieties with added fibre. Whilst we acknowledge that some caterers are concerned about the lack of compliant higher fibre starches currently available at wholesale, increasing ambition in this area should serve as a signal to the market to improve the availability of good options.
The successful uptake of all higher fibre starches (e.g., wholegrain bread/brown rice/wholegrain pasta) will require investment in recipe development and menu consultation with pupils to adjust pupils’ taste preferences.
Fruit and vegetables
15. To what extent do you agree with the requirement to serve a portion of vegetables and/or salad with all grab and go main meals?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
Including a portion of vegetables and/or salad with all grab-and-go main meals is a necessary and practical step to improve their nutritional quality. Fewer than 1 in 10 children aged 11 to 18 years in the UK currently meet the ‘5 a day’ recommendation. Grab-and-go options are highly popular, particularly among secondary school students, and their dominance disproportionately impacts students on Free School Meals (FSM) [1].
Grab-and-go is not inevitably problematic from a nutritional perspective, but current options are often lacking. Requiring a portion of vegetables/salad is a sensible measure that would ensure an immediate increase in fibre and nutrient intake. To be effective, vegetables will need to be added in appealing, convenient formats, such as those piloted at Launceston College in collaboration with Chefs in Schools, where introducing cost-effective vegetarian items at breaktime brought in record-breaking gross income [2] – good practice examples should be provided to support caterers in avoiding additional cost or food waste issues. The government will also need to issue additional guidance about what counts as a portion [3], to avoid a lettuce or cucumber addition in a grab-and-go option being considered a ‘portion’, whilst also addressing concerns about increased packaging requirements.
We would also encourage the government to issue guidance to ensure that healthy options are never more expensive than less healthy alternatives, and to support schools in reviewing the lunchtime logistics (e.g., sufficient time and queue management) which drive the grab-and-go culture.
Additionally, we urge the government to incorporate guidance in procurement tenders to specify that 50% of fruit and vegetables should be sourced from local, sustainable British producers, aligning with the government’s wider food strategy ambitions. Prioritising local procurement, as demonstrated by projects like Cumbrian Carrot Connections [4], can help achieve broader benefits by integrating sustainability and food education.
[1] Bite Back (2026). Quick, cheap and profitable: Who is benefitting from the rise in grab-and-go canteen culture at the expense of child health?
[2] Chefs in Schools (2024) Snack takeover success | Chefs in Schools. Available at: https://chefsinschools.org.uk/n-i/news/chefs-in-schools-snack-takeover/ (Accessed: 9 January 2026).
[3] https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/5-a-day/portion-sizes/
[4] https://zerocarboncumbria.co.uk/action/cumbrian-carrot-connections/
16. To what extent do you agree to the changes so that primary schools should have at least one day a week where fruit is the only dessert option?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
This proposal is a proportionate and practical measure to reduce free sugars intake, increase fibre intake, and reinforce healthier dietary norms among primary-aged pupils. To maximise effectiveness and sustained pupil engagement, and to reduce food waste, implementation guidance must emphasise variety, appealing presentation, and pupil involvement in selecting the fruit offered.
School Food Matters have found – through their Nourish programme – that fruit-only dessert initiatives can be well received when introduced gradually and with pupil involvement [1].
We urge the government to incorporate guidance in procurement tenders to specify that 50% of fruit and vegetables should be sourced from local, sustainable British producers, aligning with the government’s wider food strategy ambitions. Prioritising local procurement, as demonstrated by projects like Cumbrian Carrot Connections [2], can achieve broader benefits by integrating sustainability and food education.
[1] School Food Matters (2026) Evaluation of the Nourish Programme. London: School Food Matters. Available at: https://www.schoolfoodmatters.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/N-report-DIGITAL.pdf
[2] https://zerocarboncumbria.co.uk/action/cumbrian-carrot-connections/
Reducing sugar
Healthier drinks
17. To what extent do you agree to the proposed list of permitted drinks in primary schools?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
We strongly support the proposals to restrict the permitted drinks list in primary schools, as fruit juice alone accounts for a significant proportion of free sugars intake in primary-aged children. Establishing these habits early creates long-term benefits, and the proposed approach is practical, with experience in ‘water-only’ schools showing children adapt readily when sweetened drinks are consistently unavailable [1] [2]. Whilst some respondents may raise concerns that removing fruit juice could compromise children’s micronutrient intake, we are confident that the proposals to increase fruit and vegetable provision across the school day will more than compensate. Consuming whole fruit is nutritionally preferable due to its higher fibre and lack of free sugars. Resources and template communications to support schools in explaining the reasoning behind this change to families should be developed and made available ahead of implementation.
We also strongly welcome the inclusion of plain unsweetened, fortified soya and oat drinks, which provide nutritional value and have been recognised by SACN and COT as acceptable and safe alternatives to cow’s milk [3]. Provision of these drinks supports nutritional adequacy and inclusivity for children who do not consume dairy for health, ethical or religious reasons, whilst also catering for modern taste preferences and bringing significant environmental and climate benefits [4].
[1] London Assembly Health Committee (2019) Keeping the Tooth Fairy Away: Child Dental Health Inequalities. London: Greater London Authority. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/media/40390/download
[2] Yusuf, H. et al. (2025) ‘”I drink tap water as it is convenient and quick” – a mixed methods evaluation of water only school policies in London’, Health Education Research. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2025.2507228#
[4] ProVeg International, Plant Milk Report. Available at: https://proveg.org/report/plant-milk-report/
18. To what extent do you agree to the proposed list of permitted drinks in secondary schools?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
While we agree with the inclusion of plain unsweetened and fortified plant-based drinks (supporting nutritional adequacy and inclusivity for children who do not consume dairy for health, ethical or religious reasons, whilst also bringing significant environmental and climate benefits), we are concerned that permitting drinks containing non-sugar sweeteners is inconsistent with WHO’s guidance and SACN recommendations to limit long-term consumption [1] [2]. Reliance on bottled drinks also disproportionately impacts students on Free School Meals, for whom spending on bottled drinks directly reduces what they can afford to eat. We would instead suggest that the list of permitted drinks in secondary schools fully aligns with the proposed list for primary.
To ensure pupils always have access to free, fresh drinking water, the government must ensure that restricting the drinks list is accompanied by dedicated funding for water fountain installation and maintenance, subject to regular external monitoring, as young people frequently report being unable to access clean, working water fountains [3].
[1] World Health Organisation. (2023). Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616
[2] OHID (2025). SACN statement on the WHO guideline on non-sugar sweeteners: summary. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on-the-who-guideline-on-non-sugar-sweeteners/sacn-statement-on-the-who-guideline-on-non-sugar-sweeteners-summary
[3] The Food Foundation (2023) A Better Deal for Free School Meals. London: The Food Foundation. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/TFF_FSM%20Allowance_Report_FINAL.pdf
19. To what extent do you agree with the approach to introduce healthier drinks in secondary schools in stages?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
The phased approach would only be appropriate if it is explicitly to support a transition toward full alignment with primary school standards (i.e., water, milk, and fortified plant-based drinks only), with a firm commitment to reviewing and tightening the secondary list beyond September 2028. We would advise against allowing hot chocolate and flavoured milks during the phasing period, as this undermines other standards that restrict the use of chocolate, honey and confectionery, and the overall sugar reduction goals.
20. Do you have any views on whether drinks standards for secondary schools should be the same as, or different from, those for primary schools?
- Free text:
Secondary school drinks standards should ultimately align with primary standards. The nutritional rationale for restricting sugary and non-sugar sweetener containing drinks does not weaken with age. Maintaining a more permissive secondary list risks undermining the healthy habits built during primary education under the new, stricter standards. While a phased transition towards full alignment with the primary standards is pragmatic for operational reasons, we would want to see a firm timeline for moving towards full alignment.
Dairy and plant-based options
21. To what extent do you agree with the proposed changes to the dairy and plantbased requirements?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
We strongly agree with the proposed inclusion of fortified plant-based alternatives as a pragmatic route to modernising the standards whilst supporting improved nutritional standards, inclusion, and dietary diversity.
Plain unsweetened, fortified soya and oat drinks provide nutritional value and have been recognised by SACN and COT as acceptable and safe alternatives to cow’s milk [1]. Allowing for the provision of plant-based drinks allows schools to cater to pupils with different dietary needs and preferences, including for those who are lactose intolerant, vegan, or from cultural backgrounds where dairy consumption is lower. Requiring plant-based options to be fortified with key micronutrients (calcium, iodine, vitamin D, riboflavin, and vitamin B12) is important to ensure their optimal nutritional value.
We would urge the government to encourage schools to actively promote these options to all pupils, as an evidence-based approach to supporting schools’ climate and sustainability goals, whilst maintaining strong nutritional standards. Compared to all plant-based alternatives, cow’s milk has a significantly larger environmental impact, generating up to three times more greenhouse gas emissions and requiring substantially more land and water per litre produced [2]. Normalising plant milks in schools therefore offers a powerful way to significantly lower schools’ environmental footprint, whilst offering inclusive, allergy-friendly nutrition. One evidence-based approach to encourage uptake would be to make plant-based milks the default option (rather than being positioned as an alternative to dairy milks).
The proposed reduction in sugar thresholds for yogurt products is also welcome.
[2] ProVeg International, Plant Milk Report. Available at: https://proveg.org/report/plant-milk-report/
Reducing foods higher in fat, sugar and salt
Foods higher in fat, sugar and salt
22. To what extent do you agree with the new rules restricting foods high in fat, sugar, and salt?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
The proposed restrictions are essential and long overdue, directly addressing the fact that less than 1 in 10 children consume less than the recommended limit for free sugars and only 16% of children meet saturated fat intake guidelines [1]. 1 in 3 children currently leave primary school with obesity [2]. Limiting deep-fried foods, processed meats, batter-coated and pastry-based products will meaningfully reduce exposure to harmful nutrients. For clarity and to address current common practice, we would suggest that the standard specify that when a restricted item (e.g. processed meat) is served at break and then resold again at lunch on the same day, this should count as being served twice in one week.
Rather than the proposed phased approach for secondary schools for these restrictions, we would suggest a one-year implementation period – as extended voluntary timelines have been shown to limit impact. We would also encourage the government to issue guidance to ensure that healthy options are never more expensive than less healthy alternatives.
[1] OHID (2025) National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2019 to 2023: report https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023-report
[2] NHS Digital. (2025). National Child Measurement Programme, England, 2024/25 School Year
23. To what extent do you agree with the new rules restricting the serving of cheese?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
Cheese is a significant contributor of saturated fat in children’s diets. Limiting its use as a main ingredient to no more than two days per week is a proportionate and practical measure to reduce saturated fat intake.
This restriction would encourage the use of healthier protein sources such as beans and pulses, which are high in fibre and low in fat, promoting dietary diversity for all pupils and strengthening the nutritional integrity of the vegetarian offer. Pulse-based dishes are also more inclusive than meals containing cheese, as they can be suitable for those with dairy intolerances or allergies, and for vegan children.
Organisations like ProVeg, through their School Plates programme, have developed many School Food Standards-compliant plant-based recipes (cheese-free) that are tried and tested for use in schools.
24. To what extent do you agree with the plan to restrict the serving of cheese as a main protein option in secondary schools, in stages?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
The phased approach, reducing the limit on cheese as a main ingredient from three to two portions per week by September 2028, is a sensible measure. This transition allows secondary school caterers adequate time to develop, trial, and embed appealing pulse-based and other non-cheese alternatives, supporting the transition away from saturated-fat-heavy options while minimising disruption to service.
Reducing desserts
25. To what extent do you agree with the plan to reduce desserts in primary schools?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
Limiting sweetened baked goods and desserts to once per week in primary schools is strongly supported by the evidence, as only 8% of primary pupils meet the free sugars recommendations and sweet biscuits, cakes, and puddings account for 19% of free sugars intake in this age group [1]. This policy is critical for shifting norms and establishing healthier taste preferences early. Guidance should clarify that this is a maximum limit, and schools should be encouraged to move towards fruit- and lower-sugar yogurt-only policies where possible.
[1] OHID (2025) National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2019 to 2023: report https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023-report
26. To what extent do you agree with the plan to reduce desserts in secondary schools?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
Limiting sweetened baked goods and desserts to once per week in secondary schools is strongly supported by the evidence, as only 5% of secondary pupils meet the free sugars recommendations and sweet biscuits, cakes, and puddings account for 16% of free sugars intake in this age group [1]. Successful implementation will require recognising that secondary pupils have stronger established food preferences and greater autonomy, and are more strongly influenced by the food environment outside of school – meaning they are more likely to disengage from school food provision if changes feel like they have been imposed. Schools must be actively supported to co-design menu changes with students to ensure acceptability and maintain engagement – an approach which has been demonstrated to work [2].
[1] OHID (2025) National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2019 to 2023: report https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023-report
[2] School Food Matters and University of Birmingham (2026) Whole School Approaches to Food in Secondary Schools: Available at: https://www.schoolfoodmatters.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/Nourish-Secondaries-summary-report.pdf
27. To what extent do you agree with the plan to reduce desserts in secondary schools in stages?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
Though not optimal from a public health perspective, the proposed phased implementation, reducing the limit on desserts from two portions per week to one by September 2028, is reasonable given the operational realities of secondary school catering. A gradual approach minimises the risk of pupils disengaging from school meals and is more likely to be effective than a sudden ‘cliff-edge’ change.
Meal deals
28. To what extent do you agree with the plan to set what can and can’t be included in a school meal deal?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
Requiring meal deals to include at least one portion of vegetables/salad and one portion of fruit is a crucial improvement that leverages the convenience and affordability of meal deals to improve nutritional quality. Successful implementation will depend on ensuring that meal deals are appealing, with meaningful involvement from pupils.
Critically, the exclusion of drinks from meal deals prevents students, particularly those on Free School Meals who often rely on them, from having to spend their allowance on bottled drinks, and promotes pupils accessing a full, nutritional meal. To ensure pupils always have access to free, fresh drinking water, the government must ensure that restricting the drinks list is accompanied by dedicated funding for water fountain installation and maintenance, subject to regular external monitoring, as young people frequently report being unable to access clean, working water fountains [1].
[1] The Food Foundation (2023) A Better Deal for Free School Meals. London: The Food Foundation. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/TFF_FSM%20Allowance_Report_FINAL.pdf
Protein changes
Pulses
29. To what extent do you agree with the changes being suggested for pulses being included alongside main menu items at least once every week?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
We strongly support the government’s ambition to increase pulse consumption in schools. Pulses have significant benefits for health and environment, bring cost savings for caterers, and are currently consumed in very low quantities by UK children.
- Nutrition: Pulses are high in fibre and essential micronutrients, a good source of plant-based protein, and low in saturated fat. Requiring more pulses to be served in schools will help to normalise consumption for children who may have had limited exposure to pulses at home, and help more children to reach their fibre needs (only around 1 in 10 children currently meet the dietary recommendations).
- Climate: Increasing pulses on menus can support schools ‘ climate goals as their production emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than animal-based proteins. The shelf-stability of dried pulses also helps reduce food waste.
- Cost: Pulses offer substantial cost-saving potential as dried lentils and beans are significantly cheaper per kg than meat proteins. Plant-based meals, in general, are on average 30% cheaper than meat-based meals [1].
Based on the experience of organisations running projects like ProVeg’s School Plates programme, we would encourage the government to set more ambitious requirements for pulse servings. We believe that it is realistic to require pulses to be included in meals at least three times per week.
Pulses can be easily incorporated into existing, familiar recipes as a blended ingredient, with many caterers already exploring blended dishes. Blending is a proven strategy for increasing familiarity with pulses, improving pupil acceptance by integrating them into familiar dishes, and reducing costs whilst bringing health and climate benefits. We would like to see the standards requiring that all mince and meat-chunk dishes (which lend themselves well to blending) contain at least 25% pulses.
Pulses also lend themselves well to being served as dips, sandwich fillings and side dishes. And there are already popular plant-based dishes featuring pulses on school menus like hummus, falafel, curries and samosas. Organisations like ProVeg have developed numerous plant-based recipes that are compliant with the current School Food Standards for the School Plates programme, all of which are tried and tested, and already in use by caterers across the country [3] [4].
Alongside any new requirements around serving pulses, we would urge the government to issue guidance to support uptake of the new dishes. Evidence-based steps that can nudge pupils towards plant-rich choices include using descriptive, appealing language to describe plant-based dishes on menus, introducing planet-friendly days (plant-rich/no meat) to prompt discussions about the connections between food, the environment and our health, making plant-based dishes the default option (or moving them to the top row on menus), and making the plant-based option substantially different from the meat option to promote real choice (rather than just offering a vegetarian version of the meat dish) [2].
We also urge the government to introduce a complementary requirement for at least two portions of vegetables to be included in every meal – with a portion of pulses counting as a portion of vegetables.
[1] Nicholles B, Bryant C (2024): Climate-Conscious & Cost-Effective: A Case for Plant-Based University Catering. Available at: https://bryantresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Case-for-Plant-Based-University-Catering.pdf
[2] ProVeg UK: School Plates: The Guide. Available at: https://proveg.org/uk/school-plates/the-guide/
[3] ProVeg UK: School Plates: The Recipes. Available at: https://proveg.org/uk/school-plates/the-recipes/
[4] ProVeg UK: School Plates: The Recipes Volume 2. Available at: https://proveg.org/uk/school-plates/the-recipes-volume-2/
30. To what extent do you agree with the plan to increase pulses in secondary schools in stages?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
Though secondary school catering teams will need time for training, recipe development (particularly for grab-and-go), and trialing pulse-based dishes to ensure they are acceptable to older pupils, we believe that the current implementation timeline is overly cautious. Earlier exposure to pulses will help pupils accept them more quickly on menus, and experience from programmes like School Plates by ProVeg UK suggests that there are approaches which work to quickly introduce more pulses on menus – building gradually from dishes already commonly appearing on school menus (like hummus and falafel), to blended dishes, and then towards the introduction of familiar dishes made with legumes, and finally less familiar pulse-rich recipes.
Protein
31. To what extent do you agree with the changes being suggested for protein in school menus?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
We strongly support the proposed updates, which represent a well-evidenced modernisation. Expanding protein sources to include pulses alongside meat and poultry enhances menu flexibility and nutritional quality, as pulses are high in fibre, low in saturated fat, have a very low climate impact and are significantly cheaper per kg than meat proteins.
The updated standards will enable caterers to feature fully plant-based proteins on their menu on some or all days of the week if they choose to do so. By providing a single meal that caters for a wide range of dietary needs and preferences, schools and caterers can simplify meal planning, save time, and reduce costs. Plant-based recipes tend to avoid many of the most common allergens and are usually also appropriate for children who follow religious, cultural, vegetarian, or vegan diets. This approach ensures that no child feels left out or different, and fosters respect, inclusivity, and a sense of belonging.
Recent evidence from public polling suggests that both pupils and parents would be supportive of such changes. National YouGov polling commissioned by ProVeg UK in May 2025 demonstrated significant parental support for integrating more plant-based food options into school meals, with parents twice as likely to support an increase in plant-based meals served, than to oppose [1]. In a survey by the Children’s Food Campaign, UK parents overwhelmingly support extending healthy school meals to all children and want more nutritious, planet-friendly options on school menus [2]. Recent data from a public attitude survey by Eating Better reveals that 61% of people want to reduce their meat consumption [3].
Experience from programmes like School Plates from ProVeg UK – which has helped over 12,000 schools in the UK to increase children’s intake of plant-rich foods and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from meals – shows that plant-rich menus are welcomed by pupils and parents when introduced collaboratively and with appropriate time for transition and menu consultation/co-design.
We would therefore urge the government to actively encourage schools to take advantage of the new flexibility to introduce plant-rich and plant-based dishes, retaining and strengthening current guidance encouraging schools to introduce meat-free days to support their sustainability goals.
We also support the proposed requirement for vegetarian menu options to feature pulses as the primary protein source on at least three days per week, as it directly addresses high saturated fat levels caused by the current frequent reliance on cheese.
Whilst we support the government’s intention to encourage the use of pulses and minimally-processed plant proteins such as tofu and mycoprotein, we would encourage the government to provide some additional clarifications. At present, the requirement appears to restrict some nutritious and helpful options such as homemade bean burgers, which can effectively support schools moving towards more plant-rich menus by retaining familiar formats on menus. This can be particularly important and relevant for SEND environments. We would urge the government to exempt homemade formed products made from pulses or minimally processed plain plant proteins from the meat alternative restriction.
We also urge the government to expand the list of exempt non-HFSS plant-based proteins (currently tofu/soya mince) to explicitly permit other commonly used products, such as pea and fava bean (broad bean) proteins. Pea and fava proteins, such as Eat Curious’ mince, are currently used by many caterers on allergen-free (soy-free) menus, and to blend with beef/lamb. Pea and fava bean proteins can also be produced in Britain, supporting wider government goals.
[1] ProVeg UK. (2026): Parental Support for Increasing Plant-Based Meals in Schools. Available online: https://proveg.org/uk/download/2/school-plates/165442/yougov-report-2025-1.pdf
[2] Children’s Food Campaign. (2024): Parents want government to expand healthy school meals to all children. Sustain. Available online: https://www.sustainweb.org/news/mar24-parents-support-healthy-school-meals/.
[3] Eating Better. (2024): The public want to eat better and less meat, policy needs to catch up. Available online: https://www.eating-better.org/news-and-reports/reports/the-public-want-to-eat-better-and-less-meat-policy-needs-to-catch-up/ [Accessed 10.07.2024]
Schedule 5 – nurseries
32. To what extent do you agree with maintained nursery schools and nursery units within primary schools having to comply with the EYFS nutrition guidance only?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
Overall question
33. To what extent do you think the proposed changes will improve the nutritional quality of school meals?
- Options: To a great extent, To some extent, To a limited extent, Not at all, I’m not sure
Section C: Practical Considerations
Implementing new standards
34. What practical challenges, if any, do you think schools might encounter when implementing the new School Food Standards?
- Free text:
- Guidance and Support: Schools and caterers will require detailed, accessible practical guidance including recipe ideas, menu planning tools, and procurement advice aligned with the new standards. The government should provide guidance on blending and utilising familiar formats as strategies for introducing pulses, as well as advice on encouraging uptake of plant-rich and plant-based dishes through behavioural ‘nudge’ techniques (changing menu descriptors, default options, meat-free days etc).
- Pupil Involvement: Meaningfully involving pupils in menu design (e.g., tasting sessions) is essential to maintain and grow school meal uptake, especially when introducing less familiar ingredients like pulses and wholegrains. Schools should be encouraged and supported to co-design menus with pupils, and to involve pupils in decisions around menu change, introducing changes gradually to maintain pupil support and engagement. The Government should also provide clear communication resources to help schools explain the reasoning behind the changes, particularly relating to topics where there are common misconceptions e.g. the healthiness of fruit juice.
- Lunchtime Logistics: Insufficient time allocated for lunch and inadequate capacity for efficient queuing, particularly in secondary schools, is a significant structural barrier – driving increased uptake of grab-and-go options. Some caterers report that each year group has just 20 minutes to queue, collect their food and eat. The nutritional quality of the food is irrelevant if pupils cannot access and eat their meal in the time provided.
- Special Dietary Requirements: Clear guidance is needed on how to apply the standards inclusively for pupils with allergies, intolerances, medical conditions, SEND needs, and specific cultural or religious requirements. The standards must not inadvertently restrict the already limited dietary options for pupils with complex needs.
- Funding: Adequate and sustained funding is required, particularly for small schools and caterers who lack economies of scale. Research has identified a substantial gap between the true cost of a nutritious, sustainable meal and the current funding available. Schools should be supported to realise the potential cost benefits of shifting to more plant-rich menus, taking into account the new inclusion of pulses in the standards.
Compliance
35. To what extent do you agree that schools having a governor with responsibility for school food would help ensure schools follow the School Food Standards?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
36. To what extent do you agree that schools publishing their school food policy on their website would help ensure they meet the School Food Standards?
- Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
37. What practical methods do you think schools could take to help ensure they meet the School Food Standards?
- Free text:
Effective compliance requires a coherent system of governance, accountability, and support working together at school level:
- Governance and Accountability: We support every school appointing a lead governor or trustee with designated responsibility for school food – this is a crucial foundation for effective compliance, avoiding school food being sidelined from governance-level discussions as an operational issue. However, the role must be accompanied by clear guidance and practical training for governors to understand the standards and their statutory duties. This structure should be embedded through external verification, such as requiring Ofsted to check that these governance structures are in place.
- Reporting: We also support schools being required to publish their School Food Policy on their website, delivering clarity and also helping to align with the school climate action plan. A published policy helps with parents’ expectations and makes it easier for other organisations to assess progress.
- Compliance Checking: We would recommend requiring schools to use a standardised self-reporting compliance tool to verify their menus against the standards. This should be complemented by an independent audit scheme (delivered through Environmental Health Officers).
- Accreditation and Support: Support mechanisms should be available to provide hands-on help when compliance gaps are identified – including by requiring schools to use a recognised quality assurance scheme, introducing School Food Improvement Officers in every local authority to work alongside health and climate teams, and requiring the whole school food workforce to undertake mandatory training – including in how to produce cost-effective, healthy, enjoyable plant – based (and in particular pulse-based) dishes.
38. What practical methods do you think government could take to help ensure schools meet the School Food Standards?
- Free text:
Effective compliance requires a coherent system of governance, accountability, and support working together at school level:
- Guidance and Resources: The Government should develop clear, practical implementation guidance in collaboration with professionals, including recipe banks and menu planning tools specifically for the new standards (e.g., wholemeal and pulse-based cookery) to make it as easy as possible for caterers to build compliant menus without specialist nutritional expertise. We would also like to see the government provide template communications for parents and pupils, and dedicated guidance on managing special dietary requirements and cultural needs.
- Funding: The government should ensure adequate and sustained funding, including linking per-meal funding to inflation, and providing funding for kitchen upgrades and for the installation and maintenance of drinking water infrastructure (particularly for smaller schools, which lack economies of scale).
- Training and Workforce: Implement mandatory training for both catering staff and lead governors. Training for chefs should build skills around the new requirements – – including in how to produce cost-effective, healthy, enjoyable plant – based (and in particular pulse-based) dishes.
Culture, equality and diversity
Preamble: Under the Equality Act 2010, there are nine protected characteristics in the UK that shield individuals from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in employment, education, and service provision.
These are: Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation.
39. What concerns, if any, do you have about the potential impact of these proposals on all individuals with protected characteristics?
- Free text:
- Religion or Belief: The increased emphasis on pulse-based dishes is likely to support schools in ensuring that menus are inclusive, and may be welcomed by many communities where pulses are a dietary staple. Plant-based dishes are generally inclusive options that are suitable for most children – including those with dairy intolerances or allergies (especially relevant in areas where the population is likely to have a higher prevalence of intolerance e.g. where high numbers of children have Black or Asian ethnic origin), as well as vegetarians and vegans.
- Disability and SEND: Children with sensory processing difficulties or restricted diets may find the transition to wholegrain foods and pulses challenging. Dedicated guidance on reasonable adjustments, exceptions, and implementation in SEND schools, including in regards to alternative protein products, is essential to ensure no child is inadvertently left without an acceptable meal.
- Socio-economic background: The changes are likely to have a positive nutritional impact on children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are most reliant on school food as a source of daily nutrition, and who suffer the highest rates of diet-related ill health.
Environmental principles
Preamble: The UK’s five core environmental principles, mandated by the Environment Act 2021, are integration, prevention, rectification at source, polluter pays, and precautionary principles. These principles guide UK ministers and policymakers to embed environmental protection, such as reducing pollution and preventing damage, into policy development from the outset.
40. Do you think the new School Food Standards could have any positive and/or negative effects on the environment?
- Options: Positive, Negative, Don’t know
- Please explain why you answered this way: Free text
The increased requirement for pulses, wholegrains, fruit, and vegetables, alongside the reduction in processed meat, has the potential to drive a meaningful shift toward more plant-forward menus, with positive environmental outcomes.
Animal farming is responsible for between 12% and 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions [1] and is the leading cause of deforestation, water use, biodiversity loss, and species extinction [2]. The Climate Change Committee has recommended a 20% shift away from all meat and dairy by 2030 (rising to 35% by 2050) in order to put the UK on the path to net-zero emissions [3].
Plant-based proteins generally have a much smaller carbon footprint than animal foods – with beef emitting 50 times more greenhouse gases per gram of protein than pulses such as beans and lentils [4]. In the UK, the carbon footprint of plant-based diets is up to 65% lower than that of a conventional diet [5].
To fully realise the potential benefits of more plant-forward menus, the government should increase ambition around the recommended number of times pulses should be served each week (we would recommend that pulses are served at least 3 times per week, and that all mince and meat-chunk dishes contain at least 25% pulses), as well as retaining and strengthening advice that appeared in the previous School Food Standards encouraging schools to introduce meat-free days for all pupils. We would also suggest introducing a requirement for at least two portions of vegetables to be included in every meal – with a portion of pulses counting as a portion of vegetables – and introducing an upper limit on red meat provision, following the precedent set by Wales’ standards.
Increased usage of pulses on menus should also support schools in reducing food waste, given the shelf stability of dry pulses.
We would also urge the government to use this opportunity to make compliance with Government Buying Standards (GBS) a mandatory requirement alongside the updated School Food Standards. Schools are critical in ensuring that the government’s broader commitment to sourcing at least 50% of public sector food locally or to high sustainability standards is met.
[1] Mace, J. L., A. Knight, F. Vieira, et al. (2025): The Missing Target: Why Industrialized Animal Farming Must Be at the Core of the Climate Agenda. Animals 15(22), 3256. doi:10.3390/ani15223256
[2] Xu, X., P. Sharma, et al. (2021): Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food 2(9), 724–732
[3] Climate Change Committee (2025): The Seventh Carbon Budget. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/
[4] Waite, R., J. Zionts, and C. Cho (2024): Toward ‘Better’ Meat? Aligning meat sourcing strategies with corporate climate and sustainability goals. Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online: doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.22.00006.
[5] Scarborough, P., M. Clark, L. Cobiac, et al. (2023): Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nature Food doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w
With any questions, please reach out to us at [email protected]
