Report: LACA Main Event

LACA – The School Food People began producing its regular cost-of-living surveys back in March 2022. The aim is to present a powerful view of the impact that issues such as rising food costs, supply chain concerns and recruitment challenges are having on the sector.

The most recent report, which received responses from providers to more than 5,869 schools feeding around 1.3m children, was revealed at LACA’s recent Main Event. We have taken some of the key findings and sought comment from some of the leading names in education catering.

Are you able to maintain the School Food Standards/Guidelines (England/Wales) on your current menu cycle?
Yes: 61.2%
Yes, but might have to make changes in the next 6 months: 35.8%
No: 3%

Amy Teichman, head of nutrition for Angel Hill Food Co.: “We consistently meet the School Food Standards. However, the real challenge lies in how we achieve that within current funding constraints. With food and labour costs now exceeding government allocations, we often have to reduce menu variety, streamline our offerings, lean on less nutritionally rich ingredients and adapt our menus to a smaller workforce.

“While compliance is never in question, the deeper issue is whether we can meet standards and still serve meals that students want to eat. A menu can be perfectly nutritionally compliant, but if students aren’t eating it, it fails its purpose. The funding gap forces us to compromise creativity and limits our ability to introduce students to new foods in a safe, engaging environment.”

Do you believe the current Standards/Guidelines need to be reviewed?
Yes: 82%
No: 18%

Teichman: “The current School Food Standards/Guidelines should be reviewed. These policies are over 10 years old, and in that time, our understanding of nutrition has evolved, while the realities facing children have changed dramatically. We better understand how ultra processed foods and lack of fibre create barriers to health, neither of which is currently reflected adequately in the guidelines. More importantly, the eating culture around children has evolved.

“Offering cake five times a week no longer reflects the habits or health messages families are trying to uphold. Even if technically compliant, cakes can never match the nutritional value of fruit, yoghurt and whole foods. And when these desserts are used to compensate for portion sizes that fall short, especially for key stage two children, we lose sight of our deeper purpose: feeding children for nourishment, not just compliance.

“We must move towards a flexible nutritional model; one that considers how students combine foods across break and lunch, and helps them build balanced eating patterns within their modern school life. If we want to build a healthier generation, we must acknowledge that policy lags behind lived experience and act accordingly. Reviewing the standards shouldn’t be another exercise in box ticking, it is a duty of care to the next generation to give them a better nutritional start.

“Finally, effective monitoring is essential. Without meaningful oversight, schools and caterers are left to make difficult compromises when funding falls short or when menu items aren’t well received by students. This often leads to deviation from the standards, not out of disregard, but out of necessity.

“When these deviations go unnoticed, they quietly reinforce a damaging myth: that school caterers are not culinary professionals, but simply reheaters of beige, low-nutrient foods offered because ‘teens won’t eat anything else’. This cycle reflects a failure of support.

“School caterers are skilled professionals working under immense constraints to serve nutritious, appealing meals to hundreds of children daily. Monitoring the guidelines in the way we monitor kitchen cleanliness will ensure that everyone is working towards the same goal: nourishing children.”

Have you noted changes in food costs in the past six months? Are you able to provide an average percentage change?
+10% change: 47%
+20% change: 27%
No change: 6%

Teichman: “We’ve seen significant changes in food costs over the past six months, especially around protein, which remains the greatest driver of food cost. Since the beginning of 2025, beef has increased by an average of 34%, and eggs and poultry have risen by 20%. These sharp escalations have made it increasingly difficult to offer balanced, diverse menus within current funding constraints.

“There’s a misconception that caterers are turning to lower quality proteins simply to cut costs. This ignores the nutritional intent behind many menu changes. Items like lentils, chickpeas and beans are not ‘inferior substitutes’; they’re valuable additions that often increase nutritional content. In many cases, the addition of legumes not only raises protein levels, but also lowers saturated fat and increases dietary fibre.

“Despite these thoughtful adjustments, we can’t escape the reality: rising costs mean menus are becoming more repetitive, less diverse and, ultimately, more expensive. No amount of meat reduction or menu redesign can bridge the widening gap between inflation and government funding. If this isn’t addressed, the burden will fall squarely on children; especially those for whom school meals may be their most consistent source of nourishment.”

Do you believe a figure between £3.00 and £3.20 is more realistic in today’s market for a two-course lunch? (England only)
Yes: 78.3%
No: 21.7%

If not, what do you consider is a realistic figure?
£3.45

Teichman: “This is a good start to easing the funding gap. However, adjusting the per-meal rate alone won’t solve the deeper issue. The funding model itself needs reform.

“Currently, primary schools receive 3% less funding than secondary schools, despite the fact that portion sizes in secondary schools are 50% to 60% larger, as outlined in the School Food Standards. While desserts may not be mandated for secondary pupils, they are often required by schools for those receiving free school meals, adding further cost without corresponding funding.

“Increasing the per-meal funding is a necessary first step. But without a long-term plan that tracks food inflation and labour costs, we risk undermining the very goals of the school food programme: a sustained nutritious environment for all students.”

Neil Price, head of food services for Dolce Catering: “We want to want make food that is suitable for all pupils, regardless of whether they are paying or on the free school meal programme. This means that all meals made must be suitable for the cost of a free school meal, which we all know can be a challenge.

“The new rate for primary schools in England is £2.61 for the 2025/26 academic year, whereas Wales is already at £2.90 for a Universal Infant Free School Meal. This recognises the rising costs the industry is facing and the wider challenges that school caterers have been experiencing the past few years. That said, it’s still not a lot, and England has a lot of catching up to do.”

Respondents were asked what price per breakfast would be needed to cover all costs – including labour and food – assuming a 50% take-up rate. On average, they estimated it would cost £1.86 per breakfast. This figure reflects the actual expenses schools face when running the scheme properly.

Teichman: “While the concept of offering breakfast in schools is an excellent step forwards towards improving student health and wellbeing, the current funding level, set at 60p per meal, is not meeting caterers’ costs. This amount covers either food or labour, not both, which puts schools in a difficult position when trying to deliver high-quality, nutritious meals.

“That said, I believe there's room to simplify the breakfast offer and make it more cost-efficient without sacrificing nutritional value. Most young people tend to eat the same few items for breakfast, so there’s no need for extensive variety. By focusing on core items such as wholegrain carbohydrates, a protein source and fruit – whether fresh, frozen or tinned in juice – schools could meet nutritional guidelines at a lower cost.

“I’d propose setting simple national standards for breakfast content and increasing funding, something closer to £1.20 per meal for primary schools, with tailored support for secondary schools. This would allow for basic, nutritious offerings while remaining within achievable budget limits.”

Asked for her comment on the report as a whole, our education expert, ex-LACA chair Pat Fellows, said: “Since this survey was published not much has changed. We are still waiting for some action on funding as the meal costs were said to be £3.16p, but now it is more likely to be £3.60 with food inflation, increased National Insurance and pay increases.

“There is one piece of good news that the government has announced: the children of parents who receive the lower level of Universal Credit will be entitled to a benefitted free school meal from September 2026. This means that some 500,000 extra children will receive free school meals until at least 2029.”

Michael Hales, LACA’s incoming national chair, added: “In the face of a relentless cost-of-living crisis, vulnerable families across the country are being pushed to the brink – and children are paying the price. The ability to learn, grow and thrive begins with a full stomach, yet countless pupils arrive at school each day without access to a nutritious meal. 

“LACA’s biannual report has yet again highlighted that we cannot stand by while hunger robs children of their potential. A healthy school lunch is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. It fuels concentration, boosts academic performance and lays the foundation for a brighter future. Every child deserves that chance. 

“For that to happen, meals must be properly and appropriately funded. Over my time as national chair, I will continue to lobby government departments and work with other organisations to ensure the voice of reason is heard, and that the appropriate policy is introduced to support the amazing services being delivered by our dedicated frontline staff each day.”

You may also be interested in…