School food standards in England are set for their first overhaul in over a decade following the publication of a government consultation. Ministers say the current standards are out of date and want to align them with the latest health guidance to ensure children are getting the nutritious food they need. But how effective a lever for change can standards alone be?
In this week’s episode of The Small Print, Nick Hughes speaks with Naomi Duncan, chief executive of the charity Chefs in Schools, to assess the pros and cons of the new standards and what other conditions need to be in place to drive a transformation in school food culture.
Subscribe to the podcast
Further reading
Ministers set out proposals for “the most ambitious overhaul in a generation” of school food standards, with a raft of changes that will limit foods high in fat, salt and sugar.
Starmer doubles down on school food focus
The Prime Minister has highlighted the role of good school food in tackling diet-related ill health after data showed a significant proportion of school-age children are living with obesity.
Transcript
Nick Hughes: Fibre in, sugar out and beans on the same footing as meat.
The new school food standards for England have landed.
But can they be relied upon to change school food culture for the better?
Hello and welcome to the Small Print Footprint’s weekly podcast that digs beneath the headlines of issues impacting the hospitality and food service sector through our unique lens of environmental and social affairs.
This week we’re looking at school food standards in England which are set for their first overhaul in over a decade following the publication of a government consultation.
The proposed changes recognise the fact that too many children are not getting the nutritious food they need.
The Government says the current standards are out of date and wants to align them with the latest nutrition guidance to drive better health outcomes.
But how effective at all are standards alone?
In this week’s episode of the Small Print, I speak with Naomi Duncan, chief executive of the charity Chefs in Schools, to assess the pros and cons of the new standards and what other conditions need to be in place to drive a transformation in school food culture.
Naomi, thanks for joining us on the Small Print.
I expect many listeners will know all about Chefs in schools already and the work you do around school food and culture.
But for those that don’t, can you just give us the top line summary of what it is you do?
Naomi Duncan: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much for having me on and for this opportunity to kind of talk to you about the work that Chefs in Schools does. So we are, we’re a charity, we were founded about eight years ago now and our mission is to improve kids health through improving food and food education in schools.
And we do that in a couple of ways. We work really practically hands on with a selection of schools where we’re trying to help them run a really great kind of in house food service, really integrate food back into the school day, into every element of a child’s education and use it as a kind of testing ground for new ideas. How might we challenge a bit of the orthodoxy, do things a bit differently and see what impact that can have?
We also do a lot of work on training. So using this kind of model that we’ve developed and the ideas that we’ve tested in our kind of, in our beacon schools, we develop training programs that we then run for schools who run their own catering outsource providers. So pretty much all of the major caterers we’ve had people come through our training courses and those courses are designed to really skill up the people who work in school kitchens to have greater knowledge and understanding of their role in food and food education and then we do a lot of work on trying to kind of bring together all of these brilliant. We’ve got sort of probably 80,000 ish people who work in school kitchens in all across the country, all across the uk and too often they can be a bit isolated out on their own. So we have a membership for school chefs where they can get ideas, they can get resources, they can get a community that they can be a part of.
Just really trying to bring together people who work in school kitchens to give them a bit of a home, give them some inspiration and yeah, so that’s what we do, that’s our kind of practical work.
And then we use all of the hands on stuff that we do in schools and with training to inform positions around advocacy around things like government policy. So, for example, taking a position on what we think is achievable, deliverable, desirable out of things like the school food standards.
Nick Hughes: Terrific. And obviously the school food standards is partly why we’re here today to talk about them and sort of interrogate them and where they’re good, where they perhaps could be improved.
And we’ll get into the detail of some of that in a moment. But before we do, it’s been 12 years, hasn’t it, since the last set of food, school food standards was developed. From your perspective, do you think it is high time that the standards were overhauled? I know it’s something that chefs in schools has been campaigning on for, for a little while.
Naomi Duncan: Yeah, I think it’s, I think it’s long overdue. I think it’s nutrition advice and guidance has changed so much in the last 12 years. Our understanding of the human body, what it needs to thrive and survive, has developed so much.
So the idea that we only seem to update our school food standards once every decade or so feels a little bit strange to me.
So I, think it’s long overdue and I think one of the things that I welcome most about the consultation, and it is only a consultation at this stage to remember that is the, is the point around monitoring. So this, this proposal that actually government is willing to commit to monitoring the school food standards for the first time. And that for me is a step change because as much as you can raise the baseline of standards all you want, if you’re not monitoring them, then there’s no incentive for schools to have to stick to them. And ultimately what we hear from caterers, when we talk to caterers, is not having a level playing field means I can go in with a perfectly compliant menu and the outbid by somebody who comes in with a menu that’s not compliant and that’s just not, that’s not fair on the catering industry, it’s not fair on schools. So I think the monitoring piece is one of the bits I’m most excited about.
Nick Hughes: Yeah, great. And we’ll definitely come back and look at the monitoring piece later on. But perhaps let’s get into the standards themselves now and it’s worth reading the consultation document in full.
It’s not a long document by any means, but essentially, and I summarise here, but it’s proposing to increase fibre, which we know both children and adults in England eat nowhere near enough of, currently reducing the opportunity to consume sugar across the school day, including in drinks and breakfast items, restricting those foods higher in fat, sugar and salt, such as deep fried items, processed meats, confectionary and savoury snacks, and offering more vegetables, pulses, whole grains.
That’s a very top line summary.
But, but from your perspective, do you, you know, what did you like about the new proposals?
Where are they particularly strong? Where did you feel they could have gone further, perhaps? What were your, what were your reflections?
Naomi Duncan: Yeah, I think, I think, I think that broadly speaking, I really welcome the standards as they’re outlined. So I think there’s a lot of really good stuff in there around, you know, a level of ambition to, as you say, you know, increase fibre, increase fruit and veg intake, broaden the protein sources available. We have a bit of a naughty habit, I would say, in the school, in the school food sector, if we default quite often to proteins that are probably familiar to us from growing up and not necessarily expanding horizons.
So I think the ability to be more flexible with the proteins that we’re offering, I think is a really good thing.
And a little bit of forced variety into school break time menus. So then always a variety of bread and cheese I think is probably a really good thing. So there’s loads in there that I would welcome.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen a proposed standard that explicitly just made schools water only and from a parent spending money on bottled drinks, from an environmental perspective, from our kids getting used to buying, faux fizzy drinks in bottles, I personally would have gone the whole hog and said no water and milk only in stools. But, you know, maybe, maybe that’s a step too far for where we are at the moment. I don’t know. I think there is, you know, I think people can respond to the consultation and make their views clear on that.
My view would be clear that it’s wild that parents will open their parent pay account and see 10 quid spent on Radnor Fears. And I just think.
I think probably we maybe should evolve slightly beyond that. But as I said, I think there’s loads that I would. That I would welcome in the standards.
They’re not exactly as they would be if I’d written them myself, but these things never are. And I think the other important thing is that standards are just a baseline, so it’s not. It’s not as though there’s not the ability for schools to kind of flex beyond this, to develop their own standards. And one of the things that we are really, really keen to see is many more schools that going for the kind of higher bar.
So, yes, we got to meet the legal standards, obviously, is the bare minimum, but really, what can we do to go beyond that? What can we do to really serve the most nutritious, delicious food possible?
And I also think, to your point, this is, you know, this is an England only consultation. If we look across the four nations, we’re pretty much. We’re lagging, we’re behind.
So it’s great to see the focus is on now. But, yeah, I think standards sand. Is there a baseline?
Nick Hughes: Yes, yeah, very good point.
And a few things stood out to me, looking at this through footprint, sort of health and sustainability lens, and you’ve alluded to the protein piece already and the proposal to put beans and pulses on essentially an equal footing with meat as a protein source that needs to be served at least three times a week.
That feels quite important symbolically as well as practically, actually, given the nutritional and environmental benefits of eating beans and pulses and seeing the government recognize that. And it also suggests, and I’d be keen to get your take on this, that schools may choose to use this flexibility to swap out some of the meat and poultry for pulses to enable more opportunity to source higher welfare,
seasonal meat. So essentially the kind of less and better meat that we hear espoused quite a lot. From your experience working with chefs on tight budgets, obviously, does that theory tend to translate into the reality of school food economics, that you can take some meat out, replace it with pulses and then invest the savings on better meat?
Naomi Duncan: Yeah, I think actually this might be my favorite proposal, just because the fixed and really strict requirement around meat and poultry feels a bit a relic of the past to me.
I think the focus on. The focus on beans is something that is a child who grew up in the 80s and 90s when a bean was like a solid cardboard like block of misery that occasionally got ended up on your plate.
To have evolved into the world that we are in today, where we have actually really tasty beans, pulses, legumes, things that we now also know better how to cook because our culinary horizons have expanded and actually suddenly you’ve got a whole world of.
It’s not just nutrition and environment, which are both really important, they also taste really good.
So for all of those reasons, I think this is a great proposal. But to your point around cost, that is, that is a crucial element for me because ultimately, and I think that there is a lot of.
I think there’s a lot of fear around costs in the school food industry and I totally understand why, because the pressure is really on and I think it’s completely reasonable that people feel, for example, funding for a school meal should go up in line with inflation.
That deals with, you know, 25% of kids who are entitled to a free school meal. But parents also can’t afford to pay for more school meals. So we have to find a way that isn’t endlessly just increasing the cost and introducing more beans, pulses and protein.
Beans, pulses and lentils, legumes are a great way of helping to manage and mitigate cost environment.
And you can still make a really tasty meal even if you don’t go down the route of a full lentil. But bolognese, which is an example I’ve got to stop using because I just don’t.
I’m not convinced it sounds that tasty. It really does taste good.
Even if you don’t go down the full route of that. Swapping out some of the meat for a pulse or a lentil is actually a really great way of helping to balance costs.
And we know that caterers are already doing this, so more to be encouraged on that. On that front, I think, yes.
Nick Hughes: And I guess that leads us onto the point about the need to take children with us when we’re transitioning school food.
And like you say, that might mean going 50, 50 with a Bolognese beef and lentils initially. But I look at the proposals and through the lens of someone with two children at primary school and look at the sort of desire to use sort of default to brown rice, for example, and more whole grain pasta, and think of the response I sometimes get when I try and serve brown rice at my own kitchen table and think, you know, it’s really important that, that we do this in a way that, that maintains a demand for school food and doesn’t shift people towards packed lunches, which is obviously one potential unintended consequence of this.
Do you, you know, do you have any concerns that as we incorporate new standards, we won’t take the customer with us and we could actually compromise the economics of school food? Because the economics of school food relies on people eating school meals.
Naomi Duncan: So I think, I think there’s a couple of things on that front. The first is in. So the work the chefs in schools does directly with schools informs my thinking on this.
I would say a number of the schools that we work with at the moment are already hitting at or about this kind of standard and we’re not seeing a drop in uptake, we’re seeing an increase in uptake.
And I will come back to the. I will come back to the reasons for that in a second.
I also think that there is a big difference between primary and secondary school. So I think in primary schools these standards will be a really helpful raising of the baseline.
I think in secondary school they will have a bigger impact.
Again, I don’t think that has to lead to a drop in uptake, but I, I welcome the fact that there is a years leading to this and I think it gives us the opportunity to spend the next year working on innovative and creative recipes and menus, testing them on kids, getting them, you know, introducing them over the course of the year to some things that will then become familiar on future school menus.
And that is. That, I think is the crucial takeaway for me of all of the work that chefs in schools has done over the last eight years has been the really, really humbling and painful lesson that, you know, go really hard and do it all in one day.
Yeah, you’re probably going to have. Not a long term, but you will have an immediate impact of uptake. Whereas if you take your time and you introduce kids to new flavours and menu items over time,
then that level of familiarity is there and the uptake doesn’t drop off. So I think there’s a few things. And on that, that’s a huge amount of the thinking behind creating the School Food project, which is a new project developed by ourselves and our kind of for partner, not for profit organisations,
is recognizing that this moment is going to take more than just changing the rules. It’s going to take training up the people who work in school kitchens is going to take training up the people who run schools so that they understand that they have as much of a role as the caterers to,
in delivering these updated school food standards.
And so using that period of time between September 26, when the standards are finalised in September 27, to go on a year long crusade to get people trained up, speak to the public, really make the case for, for eating good food in schools, for getting kids excited about trying new things and using that time to make sure that in September 2027 when new standards go into place, we hit the ground running instead of, you know, it’s all change on day one and no one feels like they’ve been consulted or informed.
Nick Hughes: Yes.
Let’s just touch on secondary schools in a bit more depth because as you say, the proposals do offer an extended time period in some areas for secondary schools to meet the standards.
And that includes around what drinks can be sold. And that comes back to your point around how you’d like to see essentially just, you know, water provided in schools. I guess from a caterer’s perspective,
they, their argument would be it’s these products that make the economics work. You know, if we can’t sell bottled water or still soft drinks or snacks to go, then the economics simply don’t work.
I just wonder whether you sympathise with that point of view? And B, do you have examples from your own work at Chefs in Schools to show how secondary school cultures, food culture specifically, which seems to be characterised by a dominance of unhealthy grab and go food in many cases can actually be transformed into something better?
Naomi Duncan: Yeah, definitely. I will say up front, secondary schools are harder than primary schools in all sorts of ways.
And I have a huge amount of sympathy for the specific challenges the catering industry experience because we experience them as well. You’ve got really short lunch times, really short break times.
Quite often you effectively have two break time periods at really odd times of day.
You’ve got small dining halls, you’ve got not enough seats for kids to sit down. And so you do end up with this culture of grab and go.
So I think what I welcome about the way the standards update have been framed on that regard is it kind of recognizes the problem, attempts to direct some change in grab and go, but it isn’t saying there can be no grab and go food. Because for us to get to a place where children in secondary schools sit down every single day and eat a hot meal, then we’d need pretty sizeable capital investment into new dining rooms, into new kitchens and so on.
So I, I think the focus in secondary schools, and this is something that we do see in the secondary schools we work on is not about not having grab and go food.
It’s about making that grab and go food better.
You can put basically anything in a pot and call it grab and go. You could put anything, you could put full roast dinner in a pot if you wanted and call it grab and go.
There are clever ways around it. We just have to kind of expand our thinking slightly beyond just serving paninis and pizza and bagels. Top with cheese and other varieties of bread.
Top with cheese. So. And there are loads of examples of caterers who are out there doing that. So I think changing the culture of grab and go food and moving away from kind of shrink wrapped muffins and waffles to,
to pasta pots filled with sauce, to tacos, to things that you can still grab and go I think is a really welcome thing and I don’t think will lead to a drop in uptake.
The issue around drinks is, is slightly different.
I would, I would say if you’re talking about children entitled to a free school meal, then their free school meal allocation is still going to be there and they’re going to spend that money on food instead of drink. And ultimately if I’m, if I’m the government or if I’m a taxpayer worried about how my money is being spent, I’m happy about that.
I would much rather that food was, that money was being spent on food rather than drink.
I have a level of sympathy around the kind of the impact that it has on a commercial model. I don’t think it necessarily means that parent, you know, in an era where parents are generally topping up their kids parent pay accounts to spend money on food in school,
I don’t see the argument necessarily that that money’s going to get diverted and kids are going to buy a bunch of drinks on the way into the shop. That’s, you know, you’re talking about them creating extra money in the system but you know, also the government aren’t consulting on the standard that I would like to see.
So I guess so I guess there is still scope in the proposition as it is for drinks to be sold. And whether or not that’s something that I would fully support, I think that just is what’s being consulted on.
Nick Hughes: This year sees the launch of the first ever Footprint Festival, A two day experiential and immersive sustainability festival set on a working farm in the heart of the Hampshire countryside.
Created for senior leaders across food service and hospitality, this one of a kind annual event takes place on September 17th and 18th we’ll blend sensory experiences, transformative content, powerful networking and unforgettable food, drink and entertainment.
Early bird tickets are now on sale.
Visit footprintfestival.com for more details.
Let’s touch on questions of funding because can be a political hot potato and a bit of a lightning rod.
The criticism of our approach to school food insofar as we’re not as a country prepared to invest properly in what we feed our kids.
Are current levels of funding sufficient in your view, or insufficient? Or does the entire funding model itself need reforming?
Naomi Duncan: The issue of funding of school meals is just this almost impossibly complicated set of circumstances which gets reductively boiled down to things like per meal rates and all of this kind of stuff.
And I think there is both a, in some senses a sufficiency of funding in the system going completely inefficiently to the wrong places.
So too many big secondary schools generating surpluses while small rural primary schools are subsidising their catering. So but on top of that, the way that funding is allocated and communicated is really complicated. So schools have multiple sources, particularly primary schools. They’ll have money coming in from parents, they’ve got money coming in from benefits related free school meals in their budget, then they’ve got separate grants for universal preschool meals.
All of these things are, I would say, quite poorly understood. The number of headteachers even within our network that I speak to, who don’t really understand what money is coming in and going out. And so I think there is a really, really important need for the government in the medium term to look at how funding is allocated and communicated and to make sure that we are spending taxpayer money efficiently and effectively.
And I think caterers have really reasonable and understandable grievance about funding for school meals not always ending up flowing through from government into food that they’re being paid to provide.
So I think, and that speaks to my point around, particularly in secondary schools where the food is the worst. And I think it’s recognised in industry and in schools and at government and everywhere else and certainly in our sector that secondary schools are primarily where the problems are.
And yet in many cases those aren’t necessarily, not all cases, they aren’t necessarily kind of loss making overall. So we need to think long and hard about how we, and I think consultants have a place to play in this. I think the third sector has a place to say caterers has a place to play. Governments and schools all need to come together and think about how do we most effectively get the funding that’s already in the system, flowing through, and smaller schools, how do we much better support them so that where you might have, you know, 200, 300 kids in a school, how do we make sure that they still have enough money to run a service? And in the era where parents are increasingly finding it really hard to pay for meals.
So I hate to see a reductive conversation around school food funding, because I think it is really complicated, but I do think we have to address the point that the way it’s structured at the moment isn’t necessarily working, and we’d love to see more support for smaller schools immediately and long term, that kind of review and reform of funding.
Nick Hughes: Sure. Okay.
You’ve alluded already, Naomi, to the fact that we should be careful about pinning too much faith in standards alone to ensure that children are well nourished at school.
And we need other conditions essentially to be in place. So that’s including proper enforcement of those standards.
As you’ve touched upon proper funding for school meal provision, investment in education and training and communications, is your sense that these other conditions are going to be in place by the time the standards kick in from September 27th? I guess my question is, do you feel like the government gets that this needs to be a whole school food approach, not just a standards piece?
Naomi Duncan: Yeah, I think they do.
I think if you look in the consultation and you see things like encouragement for schools to appoint a lead governor, I think that kind of thing matters much more than.
It’s just a little almost a throwaway line in the consultation.
But actually, every single school that I’ve walked into, whether it’s outsourced, in house, local authority, caterer, it doesn’t matter. Every single school where there’s been good food on the plate being consumed by children, it’s been that way because governors and head teachers think it’s a priority.
So unless we can create a circumstance in which government and governors and headteachers think is a priority, then we’re not going to get anywhere. So I think commitments like that are really important.
I would like to see it go beyond that and have, for example, Ofsted not inspecting school dinners, because that would be wild, but asking governors how they go about ensuring that the school complies with the school food standards, provides good experience, provides good food education, not as any form of a stick, but just to send that signal and indication to schools. Actually, amongst your million different priorities that you’re trying to balance, this is something important that we’d like you to think about. I think that’s really important And I would like to see this compliance mechanism be in place.
I think those things are really crucial. So, like I said, I’m pleased to see that it’s included. A commitment is included in the consultation document, but the devil is very much going to be in the detail on that.
Nick Hughes: Yes.
And they talk to about senior leadership team developing a whole school food policy which sets out the school’s approach to food provision and that includes food education as well as the role of the catering team.
Obviously, two things that I know at chefs in schools are a big focus for you. Can you talk a little bit about the importance in terms of a student food education, but also upskilling the catering team and what are some of the barriers to doing that as well?
Naomi Duncan: I suppose, yeah. So I think both of those are crucial. If you want to see good food culture in schools, you have to have both food education so that kids are not just learning what the eat well plate looks like, but understanding how to create food for themselves.
I did food education in secondary school and in the end I was asked by my school not to complete my exams because my coursework was so bad.
And so I have no formal qualification in food technology.
And it was so bad because it was so boring.
I was being asked to design the packaging for an in flight lasagne and said, I thought, do food tech, that’d be great. I’ll get to cook stuff.
So much more cooking of stuff I would like to see happening in schools rather than, you know, going a bit beyond a fruit salad or a blueberry muffin.
But yeah, to the point of training up school kitchen teams, that for me is where you then link up what the kids are learning about in the classroom with what they’re experiencing in the dining room. So we know that in environments that are outsourced, where we run our school chef educator training program, we’ve specifically designed it so that it can work in an environment where the catering is outsourced. The chef doesn’t, you know, isn’t in charge of menus and recipes and ingredients.
And yet we still see an increase in compliance with the school food standards.
And that is just purely based on educating the people who work in school kitchens on why the standards exist in practical terms, what they are not. On a bit of paper, you can’t serve fried food this many times a week. But actually why that is, what that means, what that looks like and what you see is when people understand that more they represent it more.
When they represent it more, the kids pick up on it more, you know, counter design Changes So that you’re looking at actually, how do I encourage the kids to try something new instead of going, oh, you won’t like that, dear.
So that is really important. And there are real barriers to training up people. There’s a really good reason why most, most people who work in school kitchens don’t necessarily get much beyond food safety training and health and safety training, or at least not on a regular basis.
And it’s time and it’s money and it’s all of these things that are really important.
And so our focus has been on designing training programs that, you know, can be a minimal time. Like what’s the minimal time input that gets the maximum output?
And yeah, it’s not good enough to just say we can’t do it. We have to find ways of doing things in environments that feel really challenging and difficult.
Nick Hughes: That’s interesting. And the point about consistency between what children are taught about nutrition within the school environment and how they’re experiencing it within, you know, the school canteen was a point that Jenny Paxman, when we had her from the School of Artisan Food, we had Jenny on the podcast a couple of months ago, and she was absolutely stressing the importance of that consistency through teaching and experiencing school food.
I guess one thing I’m interested, Naomi, in understanding is how.
Well, firstly, from your work at Chefs in Schools, what have you learned about not just what is needed to embed a good food culture within schools, but I guess crucially, what is needed to sustain it as well? Because it strikes me there might be a risk that this is kind of school food becomes flavour of the month when these new standards hit in September next year.
And then other priorities take over and standards slip, enforcement slips somewhat and that improvement is not sustained for the long term. So what does it take, not just to embed a good school food culture, but to make sure it lasts?
Naomi Duncan: Mm, it’s such a good question.
And I think the thing with food culture is the proof is in the pudding. I can’t believe I just said that. That’s a terrible pun.
Delete that.
Nick Hughes: We love a pun. We love a pun.
Naomi Duncan: That’s awful.
The proof is in the pudding in the sense that good food culture has positive benefit benefits for the school.
So of the 120ish schools that we’ve worked with directly, so. So not through partnerships we’ve done with local authority caterers. Of the 120 schools that we’ve helped transform their food and food culture, more than 90% have stuck with the program, come thick or thin come food inflation, come challenges, whatever they are the chef has left or whatever, they’ve stuck with it. And they’ve stuck with it because the headteacher can see the benefit of food culture improving in their school.
They see, well, the kids are less grumpy. The kids and adults are less grumpy in the afternoon.
There’s fewer behaviour exclusions. I’ve had more headteachers than I can count say, well, I couldn’t say it was definitely the food because obviously we change lots of things, but I think the food is leading to improvements in things like educational outcomes.
And if we do nothing with the school food project over the next five years, I really would like to look at the evidence base for that because I think what it seems to us like common sense needs to be really demonstrated in the numbers.
And so, yeah, I think food culture embeds when it’s implemented on the basis that the benefits are seen for the school.
I will say there’s always a risk the headteacher leaves. Whatever it is, there is always a risk. But I think if you get to a point, and we’ve seen this now in a number of the schools that we’ve been working with since the very beginning of chefs in schools, even when the headteacher leaves, if the governing body were brought in, that’s factored into the recruitment of the new headteacher.
And the only reason they’re sticking with it is because it’s having benefits for them ultimately.
Nick Hughes: Absolutely. And the point about links to attainment behaviour as well, I know it’s really hard to show causality here.
I know from having spoken with schools within your network before, chefs and head teachers, that at the very least, they feel there’s a very strong correlation between good school food and improved levels of behavior and attainment and concentration and all those things that are so critical to learning.
Look, that’s been a really fascinating whistle stop tour through the school food standards. Naomi, thank you. I think what’s clear to me is that these standards are really welcome and should be really welcome and are long overdue.
But it’s not just about standards. It’s about how you use them as a launch pad, I guess, for improving school food culture across the board.
So hopefully there’s plenty there for everyone working on school food, from caterers to chefs and consultants, to go away and think about.
And, Naomi, thanks for taking the time to join us on the small print.
Naomi Duncan: Thank you so much for having me. It was brilliant to talk to you today.
And yeah, just to everybody out there, I would say that we are we are at the most exciting moment for school food, I think in the last 20 years, nevermind the last 10 years. And it’s going to take all of us working together to make sure that, make sure that it gets delivered well.
Nick Hughes: We’ll be back next week with another episode of the Small Print. If you like what you’ve heard, please take a moment to rate, share and subscribe.
Leave a Reply