The government's much-vaunted programme for improving school food has only been granted half the money it needs, according to the review panel set up by Ruth Kelly, the education secretary, after the Jamie Oliver television series.
Last spring the government promised £220m to improve food served in schools, but tough new standards, recommended by the panel in its report published yesterday and agreed by Ms Kelly, will cost about £486m to implement, leaving a gap of £266m. Suzi Leather, who chaired the review panel, said: "There is clearly a gap between what [accountants] have told us about the cost and what the government has publicly committed.
"The cost of school meals to parents will rise, but the rise cannot be too steep, which is why we have said the secretary of state should look very hard at the impact on low-income families."
The panel's full report makes 35 detailed recommendations on transforming school meals, from rebuilding kitchens to bringing practical cooking back on to the national curriculum and making local authorities and caterers account more clearly for the money they spend on food.
Identifying which foods are nutritionally too poor for children to eat every day is a first for a government-commissioned report.
Until now the food industry has argued that there are no bad foods, only bad diets.
The panel, which was made up of teachers, consumer groups, public health organisations, unions, caterers and local authority representatives, also proposes tough new standards on the nutritional content of school food.
But it says the sort of sudden change Oliver introduced in his series could lead to a fall in numbers of children eating school dinners that would threaten the viability of the service.
It recommends instead a phased transition to healthier food. Unhealthy foods, including confectionery and break bars, sugary or artificially sweetened drinks, snack food such as crisps, and cheap processed meats, will have to be removed from schools by September 2006.
But primary schools will have until September 2008, and secondaries until 2009, to meet standards that stipulate how much fat, sugar, fibre, protein, and vitamins and minerals meals should contain.
While the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has said that 50p in primaries and 60p in secondaries should be the minimum spent on ingredients, the report calculates that implementing these new nutritional standards will require at least 70p and 80p respectively.
The panel also decided that the notion that children should be allowed a choice in school should be overturned.
Ms Kelly said the report represented a "golden opportunity to make a real difference to a service which has suffered from decades of neglect".
An audit of all schools would begin next week to find out how much they were spending on ingredients, how many pupils eat school meals and who provides them - information the panel found the government lacks.
Commenting on the gap in funding, a DfES spokesman said it was taking a "partnership approach to funding. Local authorities and schools will also want to contribute from their own budgets".
Main points
Nutrition: Meals will have to meet 14 "nutrient-based" standards, such as how much fat, sugar, protein, and fibre they contain
Vending machines: Powers to control standards should be extended to tuck shops and vending machines
Cookery lessons: Children should be taught practical cookery
Kitchens: Schools should aim to prepare a hot meal on site from fresh, seasonal produce, procured locally
Staff: New training and qualifications for dinner ladies and cooks, more staff and extra hours
Inspection: A national audit of the school meals service will begin next week. Schools will have to assess themselves on food this term, with fuller inspection of meals to follow
