h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It seems the media are finally catching up with the story:

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article1090356.ece

There was a similar article in the Guardian some weeks ago, too.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"No, it doesn't. But it *does* take that kind of experience and knowledge to weigh up the differences and the similarities between the two, and to be able to conclude with some authority that the example is a reasonable one, if approximate."

On the basis of that experience, could you let me know roughly how much of the cost of school meals goes towards paying for refectory space, furniture, kitchen rental, electricity and gas, etc?

Hi PC

Following your post to me on More Cheek by Jowell, I am surprised that you are continuing this thread , rather than posting about under fed children in Afica ( for example ), surely the more 'serious' debate that you favour?

Novo

Not without checking, no. However, I'm pretty sure I'm right to say that refectory space, (dinning-room) furniture and kitchen rental are paid for by the school, without impact on the price paid by pupils for their meals.

The price of a school meal has to cover ingredients, electricity and gas, light equipment, staff (with all their manifold overheads) and a contribution toward the cost of the management (the company who run the catering contract for the school). In the case of a commercial contractor, profit must also be included here.

Thus, with a meal cost (to the pupil) of £1.25 and an ingredients cost of 45p (both of these figures can vary, but these are representative), then the rest of the above list must be covered by the 80p per meal that remains after ingredients have been accounted for. A typical primary school might serve 100 meals a day - highly approximate as school sizes, and many other factors, vary widely - so there would be ~£80 per day to cover all non-food costs. Kitchen staff wages alone might account for ~£50 of this.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Novo,

There are many subjects worth discussing, some serious, some less so. Sometimes it seems that a particular matter might be blown up out of all proportion, maybe with the intention of winding people up. The Daily Mail specialises in such matters. You clearly don't. I was mistaken and I apologise.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think the Jamie Oliver campaign can claim a good result. He has helped achieve increased funding and got some quality standards in place. Do you think the caterers would be staging a national campaign to advertise the fact they were offering turkey lips, bits and tits. As for the parents and packed lunches maybe they will return to school meals when the standard improves.

Hi PC

Accepted. Thankyou

Novo

When the practical result is that (taken overall) the quality of the food our children are eating for lunch has gone *down*?

[Although some children have healthy lunches provided by their parents, most of those who no longer take school meals as a result of their parents' reaction to JO's programme are eating D**ryL*a m*nchables, and the like, instead. ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC,

I think you are taking it over too short a time frame. It has to be a good result if the caterers are now confident enough to advertise the quality of their food. They wouldn't have done that without Jamie's campaign.

They didn't need to before Jamie's campaign.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't really want to go over old ground but would you feed your children on mechanically recovered poultry sludge. Neither would I advertise the fact if I was a caterer tendering for a contract.

Hi WA,

Do you *know* that "mechanically recovered poultry sludge" has been served in any of our schools recently? I know of no school that does (or has done) this, but I'm not aware of every school in the country!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

See para 4.6

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/pdf/volume13/Chapter4.pdf

And from the Guardian, Saturday 10th May, 2003, Sausage Factory:

"Here is a recipe for a school sausage, given to us by a manufacturer who prefers to remain anonymous. It is for what he described as a "pork product" made "down to a price" to win a local authority contract. The sausage contents: 50% "meat", of which 30% is pork fat with a bit of jowl, and 20% mechanically recovered chicken meat, 17% water, 30% rusk and soya, soya concentrate, hyrolysed protein, modified flour, dried onion, sugar, dextrose, phosphates, preservative E221 sodium sulphite, flavour enhancer, spices, garlic flavouring, antioxidant E300 (ascorbic acid), colouring E128 (red 2G). Casings: made from collagen from cow hide."

Yes, I checked with my contact, and discovered that no school in our local area has served such food within the last fifteen years. However, there are school meals providers who have used such ingredients.

I am informed that these outfits are not members of LACA, and many - but not all - are commercial providers, trying to maximise profit. How recent such practices are is difficult (for my contact) to determine, as the offenders do not belong to the national organisations (e.g. LACA), and so have no contact with their peers elsewhere in the country. As for the commercial providers....

I wasn't properly informed when I last posted.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't see anything wrong with that sausage.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,1802043,00.html

Some more context on the school dinner controversy...

sprout