The difference between deserving & undeserving families in Britain was established in the Poor Law 1834. The deserving poor were hard workers who were struggling through no fault of their own. So they deserved state help. The undeserving poor were lazy and not trying hard enough to relieve their own hardship, so didn’t deserve help. Parliamentarians believed charity increased dependence and that the good-for-nothing poor needed to be motivated into working!
![]()
A meal of oats porridge, 1906
BBC
Hunger had to be reframed as a social issue, and starving children were an even more sympathetic cause for change. When compulsory education started (1870s), thousands of poor children went to school hungry. Proponents of feeding these children pointed out that it was due to government mandate that children were not working and contributing to the family food budget. Thus the government should pay. Opponents said that it was not the government’s responsibility to compensate for poor parenting.
To improve public health, excellent new British legislation ensured clean water, sewage disposal, decent housing and compulsory education. But despite great efforts, this was not enough to ensure a healthy population. In fact the armed forces had been shocked by the physical health of the young men when they were trying to recruit for the Boer War 1899-1902. A third of volunteers had to be rejected on health grounds, often due to sub-standard diets.
War caused change! A Committee on Physical Deterioration was set up eg working against cholera. But nothing helped with nutrition. A quarter of London residents did not have enough money to eat well, even those with permanent jobs.
Poverty became more worrying. Social reformers Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth did research showing that c30% of York’s working class families in 1901 found that wages were often too low to ensure a decent standard of living. Medical care cost money and parents might not call a doctor for their children. Thankfully some charities offered cheap meals for school children eg Salvation Army.
![]()
New arguments started: how was eligibility determined? How could the government encourage take-up, when children eating free school meals would be stigmatised by “normal” children? What did a nutritionally balanced meal look like?
Compulsory notification of all births to a medical officer came in 1915. Then council houses came after WW1. The UK was the pride of the entire British Empire!! [The free school milk programme wasn't introduced by Australia’s Menzies Government until post-WW2, but no food at all!]
From 1921 on, criteria were set showing which children were able to have school lunches eg mutton stew and treacle pudding. However the Act again was not implemented by most local authorities. A survey from 1936 found that in the Local Education Authorities where unemployment was above 25%, few out of a school-age population of half a million were receiving free school meals.
![]()
School children drinking free milk, 1944.
The Conversation
Not until late in WW2 were laws passed which ordered all local authorities to provide free, nutritious meals in schools. Part of the war effort on the home-front was to maintain morale, not achievable on an empty stomach. But national food rationing continued into the 1950s. So tinned meats were popular due to their staying power, with mash. As the economy recovered, baby boomers ate corned beef or fish and chips, in canteens nationwide. Spotted dick and rice pudding with jam for afters.
The arrival of the Welfare State after WW2 meant welfare was introduced as a right: all workers would contribute and all in need would benefit. Thankfully after the tragedy of WW2, the National Health Service offered security from cradle to grave.
Fear arose about increasing government support in working families’ lives, 1970s right wingers called it the Nanny State. Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher outrageously stopped free milk for the over-7s in 1971. Then in 1980, her Conservative Government totally ended the provision of free milk. A new Education Act was introduced which halted the minimum nutrition requirement for school meals, so local education authorities only had to ensure the provision of food for children whose parents received income support. Worse still Thatcher encouraged the privatisation of the school meals services; the Competitive Tendering Act allowed private companies to bid to provide school meals. Now there were no minimum standards. Private contractors endeavoured to put food on the school dinner table at lower costs - sugary, fatty fast foods like pizza, chips and chicken nuggets, and high-sugar drinks.
The 1986 Social Security Act cut the number of children eligible for free school meals, just as unemployment and inflation were rising. Aggressive advertising and inadequate investment in the health and nutrition of children continued to have negative impacts on health and school achievement, especially in low-income families.
![]()
To read about free lunches for British school children since 1990, find History and Policy and Iris.
Hunger had to be reframed as a social issue, and starving children were an even more sympathetic cause for change. When compulsory education started (1870s), thousands of poor children went to school hungry. Proponents of feeding these children pointed out that it was due to government mandate that children were not working and contributing to the family food budget. Thus the government should pay. Opponents said that it was not the government’s responsibility to compensate for poor parenting.
To improve public health, excellent new British legislation ensured clean water, sewage disposal, decent housing and compulsory education. But despite great efforts, this was not enough to ensure a healthy population. In fact the armed forces had been shocked by the physical health of the young men when they were trying to recruit for the Boer War 1899-1902. A third of volunteers had to be rejected on health grounds, often due to sub-standard diets.
War caused change! A Committee on Physical Deterioration was set up eg working against cholera. But nothing helped with nutrition. A quarter of London residents did not have enough money to eat well, even those with permanent jobs.
Poverty became more worrying. Social reformers Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth did research showing that c30% of York’s working class families in 1901 found that wages were often too low to ensure a decent standard of living. Medical care cost money and parents might not call a doctor for their children. Thankfully some charities offered cheap meals for school children eg Salvation Army.
Children queued up for breakfast with their mugs,
outside Salvation Army c1900
Early in the C20th, the Labour Government asked schools to provide pupils with hot lunches. Then the new Liberal Government, elected 1906, passed new measures to deal with children’s health. School Medical Examinations provided treatment in schools at three points in their school life, covering physical, mental and dental wellbeing, and cleanliness. And they ordered schools to offer meals to all pupils via the Education Provision of Meals Act of 1906. This free hot meal was likely breakfast: porridge, bread with dripping and a glass of milk. Bradford was the first Council to provide free school lunch to children: Scotch Barley Broth was served to White Abbey Methodist School students in 1907, the food being cooked at the nearby Green Lane School.
New arguments started: how was eligibility determined? How could the government encourage take-up, when children eating free school meals would be stigmatised by “normal” children? What did a nutritionally balanced meal look like?
Compulsory notification of all births to a medical officer came in 1915. Then council houses came after WW1. The UK was the pride of the entire British Empire!! [The free school milk programme wasn't introduced by Australia’s Menzies Government until post-WW2, but no food at all!]
From 1921 on, criteria were set showing which children were able to have school lunches eg mutton stew and treacle pudding. However the Act again was not implemented by most local authorities. A survey from 1936 found that in the Local Education Authorities where unemployment was above 25%, few out of a school-age population of half a million were receiving free school meals.
The Conversation
Not until late in WW2 were laws passed which ordered all local authorities to provide free, nutritious meals in schools. Part of the war effort on the home-front was to maintain morale, not achievable on an empty stomach. But national food rationing continued into the 1950s. So tinned meats were popular due to their staying power, with mash. As the economy recovered, baby boomers ate corned beef or fish and chips, in canteens nationwide. Spotted dick and rice pudding with jam for afters.
The arrival of the Welfare State after WW2 meant welfare was introduced as a right: all workers would contribute and all in need would benefit. Thankfully after the tragedy of WW2, the National Health Service offered security from cradle to grave.
Fear arose about increasing government support in working families’ lives, 1970s right wingers called it the Nanny State. Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher outrageously stopped free milk for the over-7s in 1971. Then in 1980, her Conservative Government totally ended the provision of free milk. A new Education Act was introduced which halted the minimum nutrition requirement for school meals, so local education authorities only had to ensure the provision of food for children whose parents received income support. Worse still Thatcher encouraged the privatisation of the school meals services; the Competitive Tendering Act allowed private companies to bid to provide school meals. Now there were no minimum standards. Private contractors endeavoured to put food on the school dinner table at lower costs - sugary, fatty fast foods like pizza, chips and chicken nuggets, and high-sugar drinks.
The 1986 Social Security Act cut the number of children eligible for free school meals, just as unemployment and inflation were rising. Aggressive advertising and inadequate investment in the health and nutrition of children continued to have negative impacts on health and school achievement, especially in low-income families.
School children received their meal
from the canteen lady