School lunch documents reveal nutritional assessments, student taste test results
Butter chicken lunch from Lincoln Heights school (left) and chicken teriyaki lunch at Massey Primary School.
Photo:
RNZ / Louise Ternouth
The amount of coconut cream allowed in a curry, the questionable categorisation of potato as a salad vegetable, and the wildly varying results of taste tests are among matters covered by school lunch scheme documents obtained under the Official Information Act.
The documents provided insight into meal development by the
School Lunch Collective
last year and earlier this year as it prepared to take over the
contract for feeding students at about 440 schools
.
They included Education Ministry assessment of the nutritional value of the meals and accompanying side snacks, ministry emails to staff at Compass, the company leading the School Lunch Collective, and the results of taste testing of three meals last year.
They showed that curries should not have more than 15ml (about one tablespoon) of coconut cream per serving and soy sauce in a teriyaki meal should not exceed half-a-teaspoon.
They also showed that children's reactions varied enormously with one child describing a meal as "five star", but another in the same class writing "taste bad and looks bad and smell is bad" about the same meal.
The documents included advice from the now-defunct food preparation company Libelle on how schools could increase children's uptake of the meals.
It suggested withholding treats until after lunch, serving meals at the first break of the day rather than waiting until lunch time, and providing condiments such as tomato sauce.
It also suggested serving food buffet style so children could choose, changing lunch orders on an online portal to avoid unpopular meals, and "the five senses initiative" which asked children to consider their meal and note their observations on a brightly-colour checklist.
Advice from food preparation company Libelle told schools how they could increase children's uptake of the provided meals.
Photo:
Screenshot / Compass Group
The documents inluded results from taste tests last year of three meals with children in different schools.
In February last year a taste testing of a beef curry and rice meal across a number of schools and classrooms resulted in comments ranging from "meat is amazing" and "liked everything about the meal" to "too bland" and "didn't look appetising".
Multiple comments noted difficulty opening the meal containers and that a hot meal was not appealing on a hot day.
Overall, 13 percent of students did not like the meal, 35 percent were neutral and 53 percent liked or strongly liked it.
"As a result of receiving the above summary feedback, Libelle made changes to the process of cooking the diced meat and started to investigate the claims of difficult to open lids again," the document said.
It showed a macaroni and cheese meal was revised to improve the cheese flavour and hide vegetables following feedback that akonga "do not like vegetables and couldn't taste the cheese flavour".
A test of the revised meal across six schools resulted in 57 percent of pupils giving a positive rating, 21 percent neutral and 23 percent negative.
One school said all children ate the meal and wanted it back on the menu, but another said everyone disliked it: "Their feedback was that it was gluggy. I dissected a meal and it was quite congealed and the pasta did appear overcooked and mushy".
The document showed further investigation revealed the negative feedback was from a school that received the meal several hours before it was consumed and negative opinions about the meal from school staff might have influenced pupil opinions.
Comments about the meal included "I love it, give us more of it please", "it was so cheesey", "looks weird", "smell yuck", "basic and ok".
A trial of beef rissoles across two schools proved the most divisive with 44 percent positive, 24 percent neutral and 32 percent negative.
"It was good but not that good," wrote one student, while another wrote "I like all of it and it was amazing".
"Too much thyme or mixed herbs - it's in everything almost every day," wrote another.
By 22 May last year, Libelle noted that 13 schools had opted to stop receiving the beef rissoles and gravy meal and it was planning to update the meal with a new improved version for the following term.
Documents released under the Official Information Act reveal 13 schools opted to stop receiving a beef rissoles and gravy meal from the school lunch programme.
Photo:
Screenshot / Compass Group
Among the released documents was a spreadsheet showing Education Ministry assessments of 24 meals and, for older children, accompanying snacks against nutritional requirements.
It showed an early version of Mac n Cheese failed to make the grade because it was too light, 209 grams instead of at least 240 grams with just 30 percent of the required protein, while a gluten-free version had 99.875 percent of the protein required.
Muesli bars, yoghurt raisins, banana chips and pretzels failed to make the grade as acceptable snacks.
A 12 December 2024 email from the Education Ministry to Compass Group said all main meals for the proposed menu for term 1 2025 had been assessed as meeting nutrition requirements, but two changes were requried for the sides that accompanied lunches for students in Year 9 and above to ensure the total meal met nutritional requirements.
"There are four meals that fall short of meeting nutrition standards, two are within an acceptable margin (Beef Rissoles and Mac n Cheese), however the other two will need to be adjusted to meet nutrition standards. Beef bolognese is 9g below the protein food requirement and Chicken Teriyaki Rice exceeds the amber allowance by 8g," the email said.
The School Lunch Collective said amber ingredients, such as coconut cream, were allowed in meals, but only up to a certain amount.
On 10 January 2025, the ministry emailed Compass Group asking for changes to four meals.
"Butter Chicken: Coconut cream is double the allowed serving size for both age group. Needs to be reduced to 15mls per serve.
"Ham Mac n Cheese: no percentage of cheese in the sauce so can't confirm meets protein requirements.
"Thai Chicken: Coconut cream again is over the amber serving limit of 15mls per serve.
"Beef rissoles: Doesn't meet veg content (note saying potato considered as salad veg?) but even with veg in rissole, brownie and onion in gravy it is still short."
On 13 January 2025 a ministry email to Compass Group listed changes required to five meals.
"Butter Chicken and Thai Chicken - reduce the coconut cream content to no more than 15mls per serve.
"Mac n Cheese: confirm cheese content (needs to be at least 17g per servce to meet yr 4-8 protein requirement) and ensure sides contribute sufficient protein to meet Y9+ requirements of at least 50g.
"Teriyaki Chicken: ensure that soy sauce content is less than 1/2 tsp (2.5ml) per serve.
"Beef Rissoles: increase vegetables by at least 15g to meet Y4-8 min requirement (60g)."
School Lunch Collective figures showed it was delivering about 103-107,000 lunches to about 440 schools a day with waste or uneaten lunches ranging from six to 10 percent.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
What can you do if your home isn't Healthy Homes compliant?
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Time is running out for rental properties to comply with Healthy Homes rules. By 1 July, all tenancies need to meet the rules. But what can you do if you're living in one that has not been brought up to standard? Here's what you need to know. The rules set basic standards for heating, insulation and ventilation. They've been brought in in stages, but from next month, every rental property needs to comply. Landlords need to provide one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat a home's main living room. These need to meet the minimum heating capacity. Properties need to be insulated in the ceiling and under the floor, unless the design of the home makes this impossible. Every liveable area needs a window or door that opens to the outdoors and can be fixed open. Kitchens and bathrooms need extractor fans. All rental properties also need efficient drainage, guttering and downpipes and any gaps or holes need to be blocked. If you're reading through that list and thinking the place you're renting isn't up to standard, there are a few things you can do. Kat Watson, head of tenancy at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, said tenants could start by talking to their landlords or property managers and checking for a healthy homes compliance statement in their tenancy agreements. If that doesn't solve the problem, they could then give their landlords written notice asking them to fix the issues. Tenants can give landlords a 14-day notice to resolve, requiring action on specific things. If you have no luck with these steps, you can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for help. "An adjudicator can make decisions such as issuing a work order for the landlord to bring the property up to standard, order compensation to be paid for failing to do so in the first place or award damages to be paid by the landlord for not meeting minimum standards for rental properties," Watson said. "For serious or repeated breaches-especially those affecting vulnerable individuals-you can contact the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team. "Tenancy Services' website has great resources for first time tenants, to help them understand what to expect and what to look for when moving into a rental home, particularly for those renting for the first time. Tenants are responsible for keeping a rental property reasonably clean and tidy." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rēkohu celebrates Matariki and the arrival of Puanga
On Rēkohu, the largest island in the Chatham Islands, Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga will mark the new year celebrations together. Photo: Black Iris Productions On Rēkohu, in the Chatham Islands, traditional practices around Puanga are just one of the traditions being rediscovered. Moriori historically celebrated the star Puanga or Rigel to mark the new year. Hokotehi Moriori Trust chairman Hayden Preece said they are going through a mass rediscovery of their culture and traditions. "There is very little information about our traditions to be honest, one thing that we have found is that people would gather at the rising of Pūanga and they would point a stick with a kopi berry seed tied to the end and they would chant speeches of worship asking for fruitfulness of the kopi tree." The kopi tree - or karaka - was extremely important to Moriori, it was one of the only sources of carbohydrate in their diet so it was a integral to their survival, he said. "Part of the exciting rediscovery is we get to also add to these things. It's in line with most of our Polynesian cultures... to have that connection to the stars and to agriculture." Preece said Moriori operated on a 31 day lunar calendar and had names for every single one of those days, currently they have rediscovered 26. "So we know the first day Whiro is unlucky, avoid planting, fishing, travel, things like that." Next Wednesday students from Te One School on Rēkohu will hold their own hautapu ceremony, which Preece said will create some awareness for the children. Being able to convey that knowledge to the next generation is really important, he said. 95 percent of the population of Moriori have left the island, with only about 80 registered members on the island, he said. "Here on island with our limited population we tend to support and work together with our Ngāti Mutunga counterparts, not much point in trying to duplicate two different ceremonies, so we do a dual ceremony this year. We will look to expand and do our own one possibly next year and moving in to the future, but this year we are just going to support." Preece said he absolutely supports the idea of a national holiday. "It's awesome to see our culture being recognised across the board, our wider Polynesian culture too, it's important to so many people." Preece said he would love to see the national hautapu ceremony on the Chatham Islands one day. "We would welcome that opportunity. We might be a little bit stretched with our logistics and our ability to cater but we are a pretty resilient and resourceful people, we could make it happen. "Me rongo. And have a safe and happy Moriori new year." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
What does the government consider a couple, anyway?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to How is a couple relationship determined? If two people are in a relationship but physically and financially remain independent can they remain as solo rather than as a couple? I've had lots of questions over the years about how government departments define a relationship. It can be quite tricky. From what I've seen, sometimes people who don't necessarily think of themselves as being a couple can sometimes be classified as one if they seek help from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), or other agencies. MSD says people who are married, in a civil union or de facto are counted as in a relationship. There are few things that contribute to being considered "de facto". They include being emotionally committed to each other, financially interdependent, sharing responsibilities, holidaying and socialising together, sharing bills, having a sexual relationship, supporting each other and other people thinking of them as a couple. Even if you don't live together, you could be captured, if you're apart for health reasons, financial reasons or work reasons, or because one of you needs rest home care. If you're determined to be in a relationship, the government expects you to be willing to financially support each other. My partner and I have a contracting out relationship property agreement and for practical reasons share only our living costs. In that situation, if one of us is in need of care, does the government still include both sets of assets and money? If the answer is 'yes', surely this is yet another example of how making one's own arrangements and plans again is undermined by the state for older people. In our situation it is actually not an issue in reality, but I can imagine how it might be for many others. And related to that, relationship property rules don't really kick in until a three year or so mark. Again, is that how MSD define a relationship? There is not a relationship duration test, and your contracting out agreement will not make a difference unless you have actually separated and are no longer a couple. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
