Dunno where HoS reporter David Fisher is getting his facts, but he’s got things wrong when he reports today:
First they put the pies back into school tuckshops – and now they are looking at taking the fruit out.
The government certainly did lift the silly rules that barred pies and other so-called bad foods from schools.
But the government did not put pies back. If there are pies in school tuckshops, it’s because the people who run the tuckshops have put them there, presumably to meet a demand from the kids.
The Fruit in Schools programme is under threat as part of a National Government review into health spending.
When the Government allowed foods such as pies back into school cafeterias, ministers defended the decision by saying schools would promote healthy food.
But now Health Minister Tony Ryall has announced that schools may not have the option of relying on taxpayer-funded fruit to get kids to eat well.
Ryall confirmed the Fruit in Schools programme – which costs $12m a year – was part of a review of Ministry of Health spending.
While Ryall said “no decision has been made”, he also stated: “A number of ministry programmes are under review as we try to get the best health impact for every dollar spent. Less than half of the programme funding… is spent on the actual fruit.”
But assuming the programme is stopped, it won’t mean the government has taken fruit out of schools. It will simply mean the government has stopped requiring taxpayers to pay for the fruit.
Fisher has backgrounded his story well enough, although he gives two different figures for the cost – $12m in the slab quoted above, then (later on) $11.5m.
The programme provides fresh fruit for 100,000 children in 500 schools across the country – a modern version of the school milk scheme that ran for 30 years until the 1960s.
It began in 2004 after a national nutrition survey found that only 40 per cent of children were receiving the recommended two pieces of fruit a day.
The programme is run by industry group United Fresh.
Lynell Martin, principal of Glen Innes Primary, is quoted as saying teachers have noticed a reduction in school sores – diet-related skin infections – and colds.
Concentration had increased in the classroom and children now accepted fruit as part of a normal diet.
“We would be sorry if it were to go, for the health of the children. If it were to stop, we as a school in some way would try to get fruit for our children. It would be a severe blow to us.”
Other schools involved in the scheme have also reported positive results, including improved dental health and greater energy at sports. Children have also encouraged their parents to start eating fruit.
That’s where Labour health spokeswoman Ruth Dyson enters the story. She said –
there was concern across the health sector at reviews into spending. Public health programmes seemed particularly vulnerable because they did not show instant results, but took time to show benefit.
Dyson said it was important to use taxpayer money in programmes that were proven to work – but some needed time to show results.
“Why wouldn’t you want your kids to have an apple at playtime?”
What a silly question.
There’s no reason why you wouldn’t want your kids to have an apple at playtime.
Whether the taxpayer should pick up the tab for the bloody apple is a different matter.
And let’s note that the cost of the programme has grown (according to Fisher at the end of his story) from $3m at inception to $11.5m in the current financial year, where costs have been capped.
