jonherries: Sorry to stir this up again but here is the article:

Here is the research that has just become available (doesn't appear that the actual paper is available yet):

It appears there are a few flaws in the methodology, probably due to the limited funds available to do this sort of research. Interesting none the less.

It is an interesting one. What they are testing is the effectiveness of a particular program on educational outcomes. The study is not crystal clear on how they measure all of those.

A few points may not be immediately obvious from the headlines this is getting:

- The study covered breakfast only - (not lunches - topic of the thread)
- Kids were given either toast with honey/jam/marmite Or weetbix (study does not distinguish results)
- No breakdown if the kid also ate or did not eat lunch and how that affected results
- Results presented are averages because average outcomes are important to the authors
- but difficult to tell if particular kids benefited or not

Some of these sponsored lunch and breakfast programs are not impressive on food quality. The manufacturer sponsored nature of many means compromise from the start.

Back on the lunch topic - I ate school lunches in the UK for a while back in the 70's. It was basic, but at least it was actual food like potatoes and carrots etc and cheap meat and gravy.