Feeding the school child

George Bender

An adult is, nutritionally as well as Physically, a resilient creature. With the limited amount of information available we have a reasonable set of figures for the amount of each of the nutrients, protein,

vitamins and minerals, needed to maintain good health, yet an adult can go for long

Periods with considerably less than these amounts, and can even go without food entirely for periods of weeks, without Showing any obvious ill-effects. Whether hidden harm is being done we do not know.

Children, however, are not so resilient. Inadequate nutrition will rapidly affect their growth rate and can have a lasting effect, On the other hand, both adults and Children who go without breakfast have been shown to be below par by Mid-morning. Their physical and mental Performances are below normal. So even if Slight shortages show no physical effects they may impair the work of the adult and the learning ability of the child. Against this background we can consider the nutrition of the schoolchild. Pirst, it must be stated that there is no evidence of undernutrition — figures for Children showing vague and generalised

Signs of undernutrition (listlessness, pale

ness, flabby muscles) are round about half to one per cent. Such figures are based on Physical examination, however, and the nutritionist is keenly aware that there can be what is called subclinical malnutrition, that is malnutrition that is shown only by

biochemical tests. We do not know how Widespread or how serious this is. And even half per cent of a few million children Comes to a large total. For every clinical ease recognised there may be many more subclinical cases, possibly on the verge of Showing signs. ,no we then need to worry overmuch 4uout the nutrition of our children? Certainly the great majority are well looked after by their parents. Even without a knowledge of the science of nutrition Most mothers have a good idea that milk atIcl meat and fruit and vegetables and

gsh and chips are good foods. The question without an answer is how many

children are there who are not well looked after and who may be having an Inadequate diet? This is certainly the question being asked following the abolition of free school milk to children over seven. The political theory is that

people should stand on their own feet and accept responsibility for feeding their children. All well and good for those children whose parents do so, but what about the others? While most parents will feed their children adequately, whether or not they get milk at school, there may be an unknown number who do not do so.

Their children need the welfare care of school milk and school meals to make sure that they are adequately fed. Both their numbers and the extent of their problems are unknown. How far is it necessary to supply welfare foods to all children so as to make sure that these vulnerable ones are taken care of?

The school milk problem found a ready answer among nutritionists at least — since the price was E9 million pounds a year, most nutritionists thought this a price worth paying to help those known numbers who might be in need.

A small question mark hangs over the nutrition of the schoolchild, but there are factors which suggest that it might be growing. Starting from the finding that the past limited number of surveys have not revealed more than half to one per cent of clinical undernutrition and the possibility that there may be more with subclinical undernutrition, we now have a deteriorating situation. First, there is a growing habit of doing without breakfast. Second, the school milk for the particular age group has been largely lost. Third, although this may affect older children, there is a breakup of the family eating pattern so that snacks often replace mother's 'good hot meal.' Fourthly, the .school meal, which for many years we have regarded as the sheet anchor of our children's diet, does not seem to be What we expect.

A recent survey carried out from Queen Elizabeth College Department of Nutrition showed that of 'forty-eight schools in which 772 meals were measured, only four schools reached the calorie target suggested by the Department of Education and Science. To be below the calorie target means simply that the meal was smaller than it should be — and a lot smaller. The size of the average meal was two-thirds of what it should be — this was found in all the types of schools visited — infant, infant-and-junior, junior and senior. Some of the meals were so obviously short of calories, that is to say there was obviously so little on the plate — one third of what it should be — that it was difficult to understand how the people serving could fail to notice it (unless they were so used to very small portions).

While it is always possible that the target figures are too high — although they were set by a committee of experts — it is more than interesting to find that one school was able to provide double the target quantity, presumably at the same price — and the children ate it all.

The quality of the meal can be looked at from the amount of protein that it provides. The target is approximately one third of the child's calorie needs (one meal out of a presumed three meals a day) and to make sure that the diet as a whole is good, even if the child fills up with starchy and sugary foods the rest of the day, the protein target is half the daily needs. The survey showed that the protein content was also below target, slightly worse than the calories, being a little over half the target.

It must be emphasised here that these figures are measures of the quantity of food and the quantity of protein, they are not measures of how good the meal tasted. In fact those meals eaten by the author were very good. Many caterers have taken offence at these figures and claimed that their meals are wonderful — "Come and taste them any time ", they say. No one else has published any figures showing whether or not the meal is big enough, whatever it tastes like.

When school meals went up in price a year ago there was an immediate fall in the numbers taking the meals with some recovery later. At present two-thirds of all children attending school have a meal, more of the younger children than the older.

Next April it is expected that the price will increase again with more parents deciding that it is not worth the price — they believe that they can do better themselves or the children can get better value for money outside. How far is this true and how far could the nutritional status of the children suffer from this?

A short survey carried out from Queen Elizabeth College suggests that even if the school meal is not up to scratch it is still better than some of the alternatives. A few per cent of the children questioned at one large school had no lunch at all. Those who spent their money, outside the school tended to have a meal that was poor in quality, that is to say too much sweet stuff and little protein and other nutrients — although presumably the ' meal ' was bellyfilling. What then of meals brought from home? The first reaction of the hardpressed mother who has to fork out more than she thinks she can afford on Monday Morning is to say that she can do better by giving the children sandwiches. The answer is that skilled, imaginative mothers can, but how many do? Certainly sandwiches of meat or cheese and a piece of cake or biscuits can equal the good school meals in food value, and can be better than some of the poorer school meals. Even better, these sandwiches, with some fruit and a few other bits and pieces, Will probably be better than most school Meals. But how many mothers do provide adequate sandwich lunches and how long ran they keep up the daily preparation of something nourishing and satisfying and attractive to eat? If they can, then they can beat the school meal nutritionally but they may not be any cheaper. If they Provide dull sandwiches the child may eat little of them and finish up with a poor meal. It all depends on mother. If they eat out they may finish up with fish and chips or meat pie, which may well be an adequate meal or with cakes and sweets which will be far from adequate.

The solution is that the school meal must be brought up to expectations. It is nothing short of a scandal that we have waited until now to measure what is on the plate and how much the child eats. We thought that the job was done when a target was set and a meal provided — it is strange that in all these years no one thought of finding out. Certainly the problems of school meals are very great — you have to satisfy all the people all the time, consumer, payer and nutritionist. But some schools can do it; they should teach those that cannot.

George Bender is Professor of Nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College.