School Food Standards: Tackling processed foods

The government consultation on School Food Standards in England is well underway. In this third blog in our series, Tilda Ferree, Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer and Holly Gabriel, Food Foundation consultant, examine what the proposed changes could mean for processed foods - from processed meat to foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).

There is growing concern about the role heavily processed foods play in children’s diets and long-term health, with 75% of British adults reporting concern about ultra-processed foods and over-processing.

The standards do not specifically target ultra-processed foods (UPFs), as current UK food policy focuses largely on nutrients such as fat, salt and sugar, rather than on processing. However, it is estimated that the overlap between HFSS and UPF foods in the UK is around 56%, and many foods within the UPF category are likely to be captured by the proposed restrictions.

Why the concern with processed foods?

Many everyday foods go through some form of processing to make them safe, practical or longer lasting, e.g. pasteurising milk.

Some foods become less healthy through higher levels of processing, particularly when large amounts of salt, sugar, fat, additives and flavourings are added.

Fruit and vegetable juice is relatively minimally processed compared with many packaged foods, but juicing releases “free sugars” and removes fibre, which is why  eating whole fruits and vegetables is better for us.

Many foods are classed as ‘ultra-processed’, meaning they have undergone industrial processing that we couldn’t do at home.

One study found that the proportion of calories eaten for school lunches (whether prepared by school or at home) that was ultra-processed was 73% in primary schools and 78% in secondary schools.

We look here at what the proposals could mean for processed food on menus more broadly.

Restricting processed meat: the health case 

The new standards would remove processed meat products, such as sausages and bacon, from breakfast provision and limit processed meat to one serving per week.

On average, almost a third of the meat we eat in the UK is processed (29%). Children eat proportionally more processed meat than adults, with over a third (36%) of meat eaten by children coming from processed meat. Three out of five of the most frequently eaten meats by children are processed (e.g. sausages, coated chicken and ham).

The health benefits of restricting processed meat are clear. They are often high in saturated fat. While fat is an essential nutrient for children, too much saturated fat can lead to health issues later in life such as heart disease and stroke.

There is also a strong link between consumption of processed meat and an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer, which is why it is recommended to limit red meat and eat very little, if any, processed meat. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen (meaning it can cause cancer in humans).

Sustainability and supply chains

Restricting processed meat also aligns with wider health, sustainability and food security goals. The National Food Strategy recommended a 30% reduction in meat consumption by 2032, while there is strong public support for increasing production of fruit, vegetables, beans and pulses.

Stronger procurement standards should also be introduced to help schools source more local and sustainably produced food. Just under a third (32%) of the red meat we import is processed, which - in addition to the health risks - means British livestock farmers are at risk of being undercut by cheap imports of meat produced to lower standards than those maintained in the UK.

We’d like to see School Food Standards go further on procurement, and school food be included in the Government Buying Standards for Food, which set environmental and welfare standards for public sector food.

Public support is clear 

Debates around meat consumption increasingly spill into wider conversations about politics, culture and the future of British farming. But as concerns grow around children’s diets and long-term health, the case for removing or limiting processed meat from school menus is becoming harder to ignore given the very strong evidence of the health risks it poses.

Nearly three-quarters of MPs (74%) support restricting processed meat in school meals, with similar support across Labour and Conservative MPs, while 69% of the public believe processed meat consumption in the UK is too high.

This polling also suggests the public responds more positively to targeted policies focused on reducing processed meat, rather than broader messages about eating less meat overall.

More than processed meat: restricting sweeteners, desserts and HFSS foods

The proposed standards also introduce tighter restrictions on HFSS foods, including deep-fried foods, pastries, breadcrumb-coated foods, sugary drinks and sweet desserts. The recommendations limit the number of times these can be served, giving more space on menus for minimally processed and freshly prepared foods. These changes aim to reduce children’s intake of sugar, salt and saturated fat during the school day.

Dessert rules would also tighten, limiting schools to one sweetened dessert or baked product each week, with requirements for these to contain fruit or vegetables and no confectionery or chocolate. Primary schools would also introduce a weekly fruit-only dessert day.

Evidence suggests these approaches can help shift children’s preferences over time, with fruit-based dessert initiatives well received by pupils, particularly when introduced gradually and with pupil involvement.

As explored in our earlier blog on drinks, evidence suggests that sweeteners pose a risk to our health. The proposals would significantly reduce the use of sweeteners across school food.

Sweeteners would no longer be permitted in food or drink served in primary schools and would be restricted in all food, including products like yoghurts and condiments in secondary schools. This broader move away from sweeteners makes the continued allowance of sweetened drinks in secondary schools appear increasingly inconsistent.

Replacing processed foods - ensuring a shift to healthier alternatives

Research suggests that while all plant-based meat alternatives have lower carbon and water footprints compared to meat products, less processed plant proteins, such as beans, lentils and grains offer the largest number of benefits across health, environmental and affordability measures.

The ultimate goal should not simply be replacing one processed product with another, but gradually shifting school meals towards more minimally processed, whole-food sources of protein wherever possible.

Where more processed meat alternatives are offered, as these can be a very helpful stepping stone for supporting habitual meat eaters to shift into more plant-rich diets, care should be taken to ensure these have a sound nutritional profile (e.g. low levels of salt).

Keep an eye out for our next blog in this series to read more on what the proposals say about beans and pulses.

This consultation signals a clear shift toward healthier food environments

Schools are a powerful setting for shaping long-term eating habits and driving positive behaviour change.

For caterers and suppliers, the direction of travel is clear: a gradual shift towards more minimally processed, whole foods as the foundation of school meals. However, successful implementation will depend on schools and catering teams being properly supported to deliver these changes in practice. We will further explore successfully implementing the standards in a later blog.

The proposed processed meat and HFSS restrictions may not solve every concern around children’s diets, but they represent an important step toward aligning school food standards with current public health priorities.