For growing children, lunchtime is a vital moment in every day. Full-time education is demanding. Afternoon lessons only work because they come after a break – and food. And children, like adults, often mind a great deal about what they eat. So school menus are important.

Last week’s announcement that school food standards in England are being updated thus deserved its positive reception. It is right that the Department for Education should shape what comes out of school canteens, as should the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England’s last review was 13 years ago, and school food has fallen a long way down the policy agenda since Jamie Oliver’s televised war on Turkey Twizzlers. Other pressing issues such as special educational needs provision, and falling school rolls, have taken its place.

But school food still matters, and not least because it is one means of tackling the crisis of childhood obesity. The latest figures from the national child measurement programme showed a worrying increase in 2024-25, with 22.2% of year 6 children (aged 10 or 11) recorded as living with obesity. As previously, there were large differences in prevalence between different groups. Poorer children and children from Black ethnic backgrounds were more likely to be overweight.

Tighter nutritional standards, including the removal of deep-fried foods and sugary puddings, seem a logical response to such data, and parallel concerns about dental health. But initial reactions from schools and pupils to the government’s announcement indicate that ministers must tread with care. In Brighton, a pilot of the new rules led to a 15% decline in uptake of school meals, in favour of packed lunches, leading to warnings of unintended consequences. For schools and caterers, uptake is vital, with cancelled orders leading directly to smaller budgets – while packed lunches are frequently a less healthy option. At a school in London, the Guardian spoke to a headteacher and teenagers who disapprove of plans to ban cakes. Older pupils, who are generally freer to exercise choice, may be even more likely to opt out if offered food they do not want.

Olivia Bailey, the minister responsible for school food, said on Friday that the government’s aim is a “transformation in enjoyment” as well as nutrition. She and her colleagues need to follow the evidence, including the Brighton pilot, and listen to voices on the ground as well as the excellent charities that campaign for higher standards (and which are joining forces in a new School Food Project). Meal times as well as budgets have been squeezed in recent years. If ministers are against a “grab-and-go” food culture, they may need to think again about the shape of the school day, as well as what goes on pupils’ plates.

Bridget Phillipson’s personal commitment to children’s nutrition is clear. Breakfast clubs and wider eligibility for free school meals have been among this government’s flagship reforms. But nobody should pretend that stricter rules for caterers are the only way to deal with embedded problems of diet and poverty. Food price rises mean that budgets will have to increase. And while ministers are right that standards need monitoring, they must be careful about piling yet more duties on to schools. Changing the food culture of England’s schools is a worthwhile goal, but it will not be a quick win.