A Closer Look at School Lunch Additives, while Applying the Precautionary Principle
As a health professional, and a parent and grandparent, who supports other parents, I have always been worried about what we are feeding our children. This is not just at home, but also in schools, where many children get most of their daily food. When a concerned parent sent me the ingredients list for a school lunch served at Aparima College — a "Savoury Mince with Mash, Corn Chips, and Fresh Fruit"—I could not help but think this needs closer attention.
Let me just say here that most parents do their utmost best to feed their children well and they send their children to school with nutritious lunches and snacks. However, they face an uphill battle against an onslaught by the food industry, which is determined to shove unhealthy convenience foods down their children's throats. Sure, there are a growing number of parents who are perilously food-illiterate, or who can not afford to feed their children properly, but they are still the minority. Sure, there are a few children turning up at school hungry, but they are still few. The bigger issue is not hunger (energy deficiency), but more a case of food that is energy-rich while being nutrient-poor. Junk food.
Another problem is the pressure to mass-produce food, resulting in centralised meal production rather than local production near the school. This leads to longer supply chains and storage, requiring the use of additives and resulting in a decline in the nutritional value of meals, particularly for vegetables. Preservatives are also necessary to prevent spoilage and potential foodborne illnesses.
The pre-made dishes with added flavours, colours, sweeteners, and emulsifiers may have a more appealing taste than the healthy and freshly prepared meals that parents pack for their children's school lunches. As a result, they may be undermining the parents' efforts to provide proper nourishment for their children. When given the choice between a school meal and a homemade one, which are children more likely to choose? Will the homemade meal end up being thrown away?
Just asking!
What I found was a meal (the one in the photo above) that looked innocent enough but hides a cocktail of additives that raises serious questions. With allergies, food intolerances, and behavioural issues on the rise among children, should we not be asking: Are we playing Russian roulette with their health? Let's break it down and talk about why the Precautionary Principle might be our best guide here.
The Ingredients Under the Microscope
The label lists a savoury mince made with beef, onions, carrots, and a slew of extras: canola oil with citric acid (330) and antifoam (900a); garlic in oil with acetic acid (260) and preservatives (202, 211), Worcester sauce with caramel colour (150d), and Dijon mustard with xanthan gum (415). The mash? Potato flakes with sulphites, emulsifiers (471), stabilisers (450), and iodised salt with an anticaking agent (535). Mixed vegetables, corn chips, and fruit round it out, but it is the additives that caught my eye — over a dozen of them in one meal!
Individually, these additives are "safe" according to food regulators like FSANZ and the FDA. Sulphites preserve potato flakes, sodium benzoate (211) and potassium sorbate (202) keep bacteria at bay, and emulsifiers like mono- and diglycerides (471) make the mash smooth. Citric acid (330) adds tang; xanthan gum (415) thickens the mustard, and caramel colour (150d) makes the sauce look appetising. No single one screams danger — at least not in the tiny amounts listed.
But here is the rub: children are not eating these one at a time. They are getting them all at once, day after day, in school lunches like this one. What happens when you mix them together in a growing body? That is where science gets murky — and where my alarm bells start ringing.
The meal may meet the Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) for macronutrients like protein, carbs, and fat, but it does not meet the RDI for micronutrients like vitamins and minerals. Despite common beliefs, a rapidly developing child usually requires the same amount of these micronutrients as a fully grown adult. Bear in mind that many of the micronutrients a child needs tend to deteriorate with cooking, storage, and reheating. These meals fall far short of the nutritional requirements of a child.
The Synergy Problem: More Than the Sum of Its Parts
When I looked at these additives as a group, a few red flags popped up:
Preservative Overload: Sulphites, sodium benzoate, and potassium sorbate all fight microbes in different ways. Together, they might stress a child's liver and kidneys — organs still maturing in children under 12. Some studies, like the 2007 Southampton study, hint that preservative mixes could tweak behaviour — think hyperactivity or irritability — especially in sensitive children.
Gut Gremlins: Emulsifiers (471), stabilisers (450), and thickeners (415) mess with texture, but they also hit the gut. Research — like Chassaing's 2015 study — shows these can disrupt gut bacteria in animals, leading to inflammation or "leaky gut." Add preservatives that kill off good microbes, and you have got a recipe for digestive trouble, like bloating, poor nutrient uptake, and maybe even long-term risks like allergies or obesity.
Acidity Overdrive: Citric acid, acetic acid, and sulphites crank up the stomach's acid load. Daily doses can irritate young tummies, especially without enough alkaline foods to balance it (the fruit helps, but how much is there?).
Trace Nasties: Caramel colour (150d) has 4-MEI, a potential carcinogen, and sodium benzoate can form benzene in acidic conditions. The levels are tiny, but why expose children to even a whiff of this stuff every day?
Is Anticaking Agent 535 Necessary or Nuisance?
Take sodium ferrocyanide — anticaking agent 535 — in the iodised salt for that mash. It is a synthetic compound that keeps salt from clumping in humid kitchens, making it easier to sprinkle or mix. Chemically, it is sodium paired with iron and cyanide groups, but do not panic — the cyanide's locked up tight, not floating free to cause harm. Regulators say it is safe in trace amounts (less than 20 mg per kg of salt), and it mostly passes through the body without a fuss. No studies show it is a health risk at these levels — frankly, you'd have to eat buckets of salt to get even close to a problem.
But here is my view: if it is not doing a darn thing for a child's health or nutrition, why is it there? Sure, the risk is tiny — negligible, even — but it is still a man-made chemical in a child's lunch for no reason beyond convenience. In a perfect world, salt does not need a babysitter — freshly ground or additive-free salt works just fine. When we are talking about growing bodies already bombarded by modern diets, every unnecessary extra feels like a step too far.
Preservatives vs. Practicality Due to the Central Kitchen
Why are all these preservatives even in there? The answer lies in how these meals are made. Many school lunch programmes — like this one, I would wager — prepare food centrally, ship it out to schools, and reheat it on-site. That journey from kitchen to plate opens the door to bacteria, mould, and spoilage. Sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sulphites are not just there for kicks — they are insurance against a food poisoning outbreak that could sicken dozens, even hundreds, of children. No school wants that headline, and no parent wants that worry.
Meals on the cheap:
The initiative caters to the specific requirements of individual regions and currently reaches out to approximately 230,000 students in over 1,000 schools, which accounts for about 40% of schools in New Zealand. From mid-2024, the Ministry of Education has been transitioning to a more centralised approach in order to reduce costs. As per the Budget 2024 declarations, they aim to offer meals at $3 per meal from external providers and $4 per meal from internal or iwi/hap providers. This change has sparked discussions due to concerns regarding the quality and logistics of the meals, such as the possibility of them being prepared in a different location, frozen, and then reheated before being served at schools.
Reheating adds another twist: heat can degrade food quality, so stabilisers and emulsifiers keep the mash from turning to mush and the mince from separating. It is a system built for scale and safety, but it leans heavily on chemicals to dodge disasters. I get it — central preparation saves money and streamlines logistics. But are preservatives the only answer? Not by a long shot.
Imagine this instead: invest in better refrigeration — think insulated transport coolers that keep food at a steady 4°C from the kitchen to school. Pair that with stricter handling protocols — vacuum-sealed portions, trained staff, and quick-turnaround delivery. Freshly made mince or mash can last a day or two without a chemical crutch if it has been kept cold and handled right. Schools could even flash-freeze meals right after cooking, then thaw and warm them on-site — no preservatives needed. It is not pie-in-the-sky — it is technology we already have. Yes, it might cost more upfront, but the payoff is food that is safer and cleaner for our children.
Children Are Already Struggling — Why Add More Fuel to the Fires?
We are in a health crisis with our children. Allergies affect 6–8 percent of them in places like New Zealand. Adhd hovers around 5–10 percent, and obesity has tripled since the '70s. Food intolerances are climbing, and parents report more behavioural challenges than ever. I see it in my practice — children reacting to diets heavy on processed foods.
These trends line up with the rise of additive-packed eating. Sure, we cannot prove this mince mash is the culprit — science has not caught up with the real-world mix children consume, and big industries are very adept at obfuscating the issues. But that is exactly why the Precautionary Principle matters. When there is a chance of harm, and the evidence is not airtight either way, we act to protect — especially for children, whose small bodies and rapid growth make them more vulnerable.
The Precautionary Fix is Simpler, Cleaner School Meals
So, what do we do? I am not saying ban every processed food — schools have budgets and logistics to juggle. But we can apply some common-sense caution:
Cut the Additives: Ditch the preservative-heavy sauces and potato flakes. Use fresh beef, vegetables, and herbs for the mince — thicken it with arrowroot if needed. Mash real potatoes with a bit of salt and butter. Swap out that 535-laced salt for a cleaner version. Fewer chemicals, same nutrition.
Go Whole: Rotate in meals like roast chicken with steamed greens, lentil stew with rice, or fish with sweet potato. Whole foods do not need a chemistry lab to taste good.
Limit the Processed Stuff: Keep additive-heavy dishes like this one to once a week, or never — not daily. Give children's systems a breather.
Mind the Sensitive Ones: Offer sulphite-free options for asthmatics or flag preservatives for children prone to jitters.
Smarter Systems: Upgrade refrigeration and handling — cold-chain transport, flash-freezing, or even on-site cooking where feasible — to ditch the preservative crutch without risking safety. Prepare food locally, not remotely.
It is not rocket science — it's just food the way nature intended. Yes, it might cost more upfront, but bulk-buying seasonal produce, simple recipes, and clever logistics can keep it doable. And is not it worth it to avoid piling more stress on children already battling allergies and focus issues?
Let's Not Wait for Proof — Instead, Exercise Common Sense
This savoury mince meal is not poison — it has got protein, carbohydrates, and vegetables to fuel growing bodies. The additives, even oddballs like 535, are there in such small doses that the health risk is minimal for most children. But "minimal" is not zero, and when it is not necessary for nutrition, I say leave it out. With over a dozen additives hitting children daily in this meal alone — preservatives propped up by a central kitchen system — I cannot help but think it is an unnecessary risk. The science on synergy is shaky, but the health trends are not — our children are struggling, and processed foods might be part of the puzzle.
I would push for a shift: additive-free menus with smarter refrigeration in schools, tracking how children feel — fewer tummy aches, better focus? Invest progressively to roll it out wider, all the while evaluating how to do it better. We do not need to overhaul everything overnight, but we can start dialling back the chemical load now.
What do you think? Are you happy with what is on your children's lunch trays, or is it time to demand cleaner fuel for their futures? Drop your thoughts below — I'd love to hear from you.
Stay well, stay curious.
I have a respectful plea for your assistance
Because of my health politics, Big Tech is shadow-banning my articles, including this one. This makes it hard to find them unless you search for my name. Otherwise, they are hidden on the less visible pages of the internet. Despite my continuous efforts to improve as a writer, my work is slowly diminishing. Your support would greatly benefit me — please consider liking and sharing this article with as many people as possible and encourage them to subscribe to my emails. Thank you in advance.
Comments