The difference a humble school lunch can make

New Zealand’s school lunch programme, introduced as a pilot in 2019 and expanded to schools with the highest disadvantage in 2020 and 2021, was defunded in 2024 after its Ministry of Education nutrition team was dismantled. Independent evaluations commissioned by the Ministry found the programme improved nutrition across all students, with disadvantaged children benefiting the most. Schools reported fewer snacks and more vegetables in diets, while teachers and nurses observed healthier skin, calmer classrooms, and better mental wellbeing among students. Studies in Hawkes Bay also highlighted reduced financial pressure on families and fewer barriers to education for disadvantaged students. Research from 140 countries with long-running school lunch programmes demonstrates broader benefits, including improved growth, educational attainment, and lifetime earnings. Sweden’s universal programme, rolled out in the 1960s, showed that students who received meals for longer were taller and more likely to complete higher education, translating to greater earning potential. Kelly Garton, a senior research fellow at the University of Auckland, notes that New Zealand’s current programme targets only socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, missing an opportunity to benefit all children. Before funding was cut, the programme addressed rising food insecurity in New Zealand, where over a quarter of children live in households where food runs out sometimes or often. Diet-related health issues are the leading cause of health loss among children, yet the programme’s potential to mitigate these problems was limited by its short duration and targeted approach. Garton argues that New Zealand should shift away from viewing school lunches as social support for poor families and instead recognize their universal benefits for all students. The programme’s early success included improvements in physical health, such as fewer rashes and infections, and better classroom behavior. Teachers reported calmer environments and enhanced school functioning, while families experienced reduced financial stress. Despite these positive outcomes, the 2024 funding cuts have halted progress, leaving unanswered questions about the programme’s long-term impact on student achievement and health. Sweden’s experience underscores the value of sustained investment in school lunches, with long-term benefits extending beyond childhood. Children who participated in the programme for more years showed measurable advantages in height, education, and future earnings. Garton emphasizes that New Zealand’s approach should align with global evidence, ensuring all students—regardless of background—have access to nutritious meals that support their development and success.