RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 1 (8) Review of Finnish School Meal Chain - Decision making, Nutritional guidelines, Success factors and Obstackles Aimo Tiilikainen and Mirja Mokkila, VTT Technical Research Center of Finland Eliisa Kotro and Teija Taskinen, Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 2 (8) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Decision making and quidance in Finnish school meal chain... 3 2. Realization of nutritional guidelines in Finnish school meal chain... 3 3. Any special programme to improve healthiness of school meals in Finland?... 4 4. Attitudes of the parents toward school meals... 5 5. Key success factors of Finnish school meal chain... 6 6. Main obstacles of Finnish school meal chain... 6 7. Main proposals for further development of Finnish school meal chain... 7 8. References... 8
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 3 (8) 1. Decision making and quidance in Finnish school meal chain There are several laws in Finland regulating school meals in Finnish schools. Legislation defines for example it should be served free of charge and well-balanced school lunch to pupils every school day. There is also quidelines recommending snack should be served if school day continues longer than 3 hours from lunch. However, snacks are voluntary and they do not need to be free of charce. Finnish municipalities are independent decisionmakers and organizers of school meal serving under the legislation. They are in charge of determining what kind of school lunch and additional snacks are served, and how meal serving is organized in the schools. They can for example outplace the meal serving to private companies. Typically, it is catering personnel who put into practise school meal serving in the schools. They are in charge of raw material sourcing, meal planning, meal preparation and following meal quality. They have tools like quality evaluation sheets and nutritional calculators, and nutritional advisers to help them in meal quality follow-up. It could be said catering personnel is in key position to apply below mentioned nutritional recommendations in Finnish meal chain. However, municipalities are not fully independent decisionmakers in Finnish school meal chain. There is under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the National Nutrition Council which gives recommendations how school meal serving should be organized in the schools. Council members are representatives for example of National Institute for Health and Welfare and Finnish National Board of Education. The latter is the agency responsible for the development of education in Finland under the Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education is legislation drafting and preparation authority under the Parliament in the area of education.. National Nutrition Council has published booklet of recommendations for school meals (Kouluruokailusuositus 2008). This booklet of 15 pages gives detailed recommendations how school meal serving should be organized in Finnish schools. Recommendations cover issues as follows: - lunch time and the length of lunch and snack breaks - eating surroundings - nutritional content of lunch and snacks for different school grades - right share and balance of various ingredients in school meals (vegetables, breads, fats, potato/rice/pasta, meat, fish and drinks). We could summarize above mentioned information by saying Finnish municipalities are in charge of determining school lunch and snack serving in Finnish schools under legislation and under recommendations and guidance of govermental authority, National Nutrition Council. This means municipalities can define for example the content and delivery of meals, but in doing this, they need to take into account both legislation and recommendations of National Nutrition Council. 2. Realization of nutritional guidelines in Finnish school meal chain National Institute for Health and Welfare conducts annually a survey to analyze eating habits of Finnish school pupils at schools. Results in this chapter are based on large data from these surveys from 2005 and
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 4 (8) 2006 (Raulio et al. 2007). 2005 data includes over 70 000 answers and 2006 data over 88 000 answers. Response rates were in both years about 80 % in elementary schools and 75 % in upper secondary schools. Surveys were conducted during the school hours under surveillance of the teachers. Results represent only grades 8 and 9 in elementary school and grades 1 and 2 in upper secondary schools. On the other words, results represent maybe the most challenging pupil group teens for school meal chain. There is no representative data covering school meal eating habits of younger pupils. According to Raulio et. al. (2007) study around 85 % of surveyded pupils eat some part of the school lunch every school day. Boys eat lunch better than girls (90 % of boys and 80 % of girls). Only 35 % of the pupils eat all parts of school lunch (e.g. salad, main course and bread) daily (Raulio et.al. 2007). According to Hoppu et. al. (2008) about 25 % of girls and 33 % of boys eat all parts of lunch. 20 % of girls and 12 % of boys skip main cource almost daily (Raulio et al. 2007), and over 50 % skip salad (Pönkä et. al 2001; Urho & Hasunen 2004). Vain 35 % koululaisista syö kaikki lounaan osat (esim. salaatti, pääruoka ja leipä) (Raulio ym. 2007). Hoppu ym. (2008) mukaan tytöistä noin neljännes ja pojista kolmannes ilmoittaa syövänsä koululounaan kaikki osat. Over 50 % of the pupils eat something else than food offered by school during the school day. Most often consumed additional foods are candies and soft drinks. School lunch is skipped more often by smoking, obese, alcohol using pupils and children from lower educated families. School meal optimatization is done in Finland assuming all parts of lunch are eaten. If some part of lunch is not eaten, nutritient intake is not balanced according to nutritional guidelines. To conclude above described national survey results of teens one can say nutritional guidelines developed by Finnish authorities are fulfilled in Finland only partially, at least when considering grades 8 ja 9 (14 to 16 year old children) in elementary schools and grades 1 and 2 (15-18 old pupils) in upper secondary schools. Only one third of children in these grades are eating all parts of school lunch daily as they should to get optimal amount of nutrients during the school days. This means that the rest, 65 % of pupils, at least out of teenagers, do not eat according to nutritional guidelines and do not get suitable amount of nutrients during the school days in Finland. This is a major challenge in Finnish school meal serving chain currently; how to get children, especially teens, to eat daily and according to nutrientional guidelines. We will come back this issue later in this report. One should notice above mentioned conclusions represent only teenage pupils. Younger pupils at grades 1 to 6 in elementary schools eat lunch under surveillance of the teachers. We believe younger pupils are eating better according to nutritionald quidelines than older pupils because of supervision of the teachers. 3. Any special programme to improve healthiness of school meals in Finland? There is no special school lunch policy or programme orienting health aspects in Finland. This is due to two issues: 1) the law says school meals should be nutritionally well-balanced and 2) nutritional guidelines optimize the nutritional content of the school meals. These concurrently are assumed to lead situation where normal meals are health oriented and balancing nutrient intake. This is why it is assumed there is no need for special health meal programme in Finnish schools.
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 5 (8) When considering the issue from the point of view of pupils eating practices there is a need not for a health oriented food programme but for an eating activation programme: how to get teenagers to eat offered food. As mentioned earlier, only 35 % of pupils in elementary schools and upper secondary schools eat according to nutritional guidelines. Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund, were having so called Sense Food (Järkipalaa) pilot project to try to activate pupils to eat better school food in 2007-2008 (Keso et al. 2008). It was 6 pilot schools in the project. It was organized nutrition education to the pupils in the pilot schools. Beside that it was developed eating surroundings and meals in the schools, and carried out food tasting sessions to pupils. Pupils had also workshops where they had discussions of their attitudes and food choices. Sense Food project got promising preliminary results. They reported that - eating of candies decreased - attitude toward school lunch developed more positive - snacking decreased - water become largely consumed as thirst drink instead of other drinks. Sense Food is an example of the project how to influence to eating habits of pupils, and how to get nutritional recommendations better realized. One is able to do this by investing to both attitude chance, lunch development and eating surrounding development. 4. Attitudes of the parents toward school meals Tikkanen s (2008) survey even if the data is small (80 parents surveyed) and not representative gives fresh and interesting preliminary insights to the attitudes of the parents toward school meals. First notation to be considered here is the slight conflict between the answers of pupils and parents. Parents think pupils eat meals at school almost daily (Tikkanen 2008) but as noted earlier, 15 % of interviewed pupils at grades 7 to 8 in elementary schools and at grades 1 to 2 in upper secondary schools do not eat at all food offered by schools. This means parents assumptions are too optimistic. Surveyed parents in Tikkanen s (2008) study evaluated the tastiness of various parts of school lunch. Tikkanen (2008) summarized parents thought school food to be moderate in tastiness. Main course got for example 3,16 value in 1 to 5 Likert scale in tastiness. When asked why children do not eat main course at school parents said major reason is children do not like offered food. From Tikkanen (2008) study it is possible to do indirect conclusions what are the parents attitudes toward school meals. Interviewed parents attitudes toward school meals were mostly fairly positive (4/5 in Likert scale) and clearly bigger share of parents could be classified as positive toward school meals. However, there were a smaller group of parents which Tikkanen (2008) classified and named as negative toward school meals. These parents questioned quite thoroughly meaning and also need of school meals. The study gives indications how schools are able to get children to eat more actively offered food, according to parents opinion. Parents thought children would eat better if: - meals would be tastier - there would be more alternatives available - they would have possibility to fill the plate by their own instead of fixed doses
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 6 (8) - development of school meals would be done taking into account opinions and wishes of children themselves (Tikkanen 2008). Parents opinions are well in line with pupils own opinions (see chapter 7). Both groups think pupils would eat school meals better if the food were tastier, children could fill the plate by their own, there were more alternatives available and as a hole, children s opinion would be taken better into account. 5. Key success factors of Finnish school meal chain The key success factor in Finnish school meal chain is legislation which enables free and well-balanced school meals to pupils. This means all Finnish pupils are able to get free, nutrionally well-balanced and warm lunch at schools daily. Legislation for free of charge school meals was passed in 1943. Legistation covered at the beginning elementary schools. Legislation broadened to cover high schools in 1983 and upper secondary schools in 1998. The other very positive aspect in Finnish system is governmental guidance of school meal chain. National Nutrition Council representing health, education etc. organizations and working under guidance of education legislation preparing ministry gives detailed recommendations how and what kind of school meals should be. The consequence of this kind of guidance is that school meals are in most cases nutriotinally well balanced in Finland. 6. Main obstacles of Finnish school meal chain Only 35 % of teenage pupils at grades 8 and 9 in elementary schools and at grades 1 and 2 in upper secondary schools eat all parts of school lunch (e.g. salad, main cource and bread) daily. School meal optimatization and nutritional balancing is done in Finland assuming all parts of lunch and additional snack are eaten. If some part of meal is not eaten, nutritient intake is not correct. This means only one third of teenage pupils eat according to nutritional guidelines. This is the most remarkable obstackle in Finnish school meal chain currently (one should note again younger pupils may eat better because of teachers surveillance, see chapter 2). The other obstackle we could mention is the question of pupils own opinion and needs. We could ask if childrens own opinion has been taken into account enough in school meal offering development. We could say school meals are currently well-balanced taken into account nutritional facts and cost-efficiency (municipal budget facts) but the problem might be that these aspects are too far away from viewpoint of pupils, and this causes the above mentioned low meal eating penetration. The third issue relevant to mention in this context is the money municipalities allocate to school meals. In spring 2009 Finnish media reported that Tampere is using 62 cents, Helsinki and Vantaa 80 cents and Espoo 96 cents to the raw material of school lunch (http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/kouluruokaan+k%c3%a4ytet%c3%a4%c3%a4n+joissain+kunniss a+ehk%c3%a4+laittoman+v%c3%a4h%c3%a4n+rahaa/1135246148158). When considering 60 to 90 cents, it is quite easy to understand why pupils may not like offered foods and what is the food one can serve with this sum for students in canteens.
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 7 (8) 7. Main proposals for further development of Finnish school meal chain When having reviewed studies on Finnish school meal chain we could say there is an evident need to increase pupil-oriention in the development of meal offering. Currently, supply of meals in schools is good because of legislation which provides free meals should be served for all children in schools daily. In addition nutritional balancing is well done because of National Nutrition Council guidance. Currently school meal chain is facing a problem where pupils - especially teens do not eat offered food. We believe the best way to get teens to eat served nutritionally balanced food is to take carefully into account the opinions of pupils and steer school meal chain according to users s opinions. Tikkanen s (2008) survey of 168 pupils (conducted in four schools) gives some preliminary ideas how pupil orientation could be increased in the chain. In the survey children at grades 5 to 9 in elementary schools (age from 12 to 16) were asked what should happen they would eat more often and better school meals. Pupils mentioned especially taste, versatility, and the availability of alternatives. On the other words, children would eat better if the meal serving were more user-oriented, that is, foods would be tastier, versatile and more lunch alternatives would be available. The other issue to mention in this context is the role of modern attitude influencing as one can see from preliminary results of the Sitra s Sense Food project. By joining attitude and taste workshops in terms of attitude influencing to meal and eating surrounding development attempts one can expect best results. The third target of development was mentioned earlier in this review and it is the money allocated to school meals. Without increasing the allocated money to school meals, it is not possible to fully solve the problem. It is not realistic to think the schools are able with some 60 to 80 cents to develop meals that are both nutritionally well-balanced and fulling the needs and wishes of modern teenagers.
RESEARCH REPORT NO VTT-S-xxx-09 8 (8) 8. References Hoppu, U., Kujala, J., Lehtisalo, J., Tapanainen, H. & Pietinen, P. (toim.). 2008. Yläkoululaisten ravitsemus ja hyvinvointi. Lähtötilanne ja lukuvuonna 2007-2008 toteutetun interventiotutkimuksen tulokset. Kansanterveyslaitoksen julkaisuja B 30/2008 (Nutrition and wellfare of the pupils of elementary schools. Results from a study from 2007-2008). http://www.ktl.fi/attachments/suomi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja_b/2008/2008b30.pdf. Keso, T., Lehtisalo, J & Garam, S. 2008. Järkipalaa käsikirja. Ideoita nuorten ruokailuympäristön kehittämiseen ja nuorten ravitsemuskasvatukseen. (Handbook of Sense Food. Ideas to development of eating surroundings and nutritional education of teens). Sitran julkaisuja. Kouluruokailusuositus. 2008. Valtion ravitsemusneuvottelukunta. (School meal recommendations. National Nutrition Council.). Pönkä, A., Heikkinen, T., Parviainen, M., Rintamäki, A., Suur-Uski I. & Airaksinen T. 2001. Oppilaiden suhtautuminen kouluruokailuun kolmessa helsinkiläisessä koulussa. Helsingin kaupungin ympäristökeskuksen julkaisuja 12/2001. (Pupil attitudes toward eating in schools in three Helsinki city schools. Publications of the city of Helsinki.) Raulio, S., Pietikäinen, M. & Prättälä, R. 2007. Suomalaisnuorten kouluaikainen ateriointi. Ruokapalveluiden seurantaraportti 2. Kansanterveyslaitoksen julkaisuja B 26/2007. (Eating habits of Finnish schoolchildren during school hours. Publications of the National Public Health Institute, B26/2007). Tikkanen, I. 2008. Asiakaslähtöisen kokonaisvaltaisen kouluruokailumallin kehittäminen. Koululaisten, vanhempien, opettajien, kouluterveydenhoitajien ja keittiöhenkilökunnan näkemyksiä. Sitra. (Development of holistic school catering model. Study of the attitudes of pupils, parents, teachers, school nurses and school catering personnel. Sitra.). Urho,U-M. & Hasunen, K. 2004. Yläasteen kouluruokailu. Selvitys peruskoulun 7-9 luokkien oppilaiden kouluruokailusta. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö. (The study of the eating practices of pupils in elementary schools in 2003. Reports of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2003.).