St Helier, Jersey – The Government of Jersey’s decision to discontinue a free fruit trial in primary schools has drawn criticism from Deputy Louise Doublet, who asserts that the prevailing cost-of-living pressures were overlooked in the assessment. The pilot scheme, initiated in 2024, provided apples, bananas, and other fruits to children in four primary schools.
Cost-of-Living Concerns Overlooked in Trial Termination
Deputy Doublet articulated her concerns, stating, “To have that taken away at a time when the cost of living is still increasing I think has been quite hard for some families.” The trial’s termination was announced by the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, Catherine Curtis, citing insufficient consumption among children and a resultant “lot of wastage.” Minister Curtis also noted that parents had “actually asked” for fruit to be integrated into the broader school food programme instead.
During a States Assembly debate on September 29, Deputy Doublet questioned the minister on the decision. While acknowledging the evidence presented by Minister Curtis regarding the lack of a significant increase in children’s fruit and vegetable consumption, Deputy Doublet emphasized a critical oversight. “Personally I would like to see more investment in healthy food especially if it’s locally grown food to help families with the cost of living,” she stated, adding that she did not believe the scheme’s benefits in terms of cost-of-living relief were adequately measured.
Broader School Food Programme and Procurement
The government had previously announced in September that fresh fruit would be incorporated into a new school food programme, which provides hot school meals for government primary schools across Jersey. This programme is facilitated through a contract with UK company Apetito Limited.
Addressing concerns regarding the procurement of meals from a UK-based company, Deputy Doublet defended the choice, describing it as the “best available option.” She also clarified public anxieties about food freshness, explaining, “my understanding is that the meals are actually frozen rather than artificially preserved.”
Deputy Doublet further advocated for an expansion of the current hot school meals initiative. “I would like to see these funded meals extended further because it hits the cost of living for parents and… provides healthy meals for children,” she remarked, highlighting the dual benefit of economic relief for families and nutritional provision for students.
The debate underscores an ongoing tension between the practicalities of programme implementation, such as managing wastage and ensuring uptake, and the broader economic implications for households facing escalating living costs. As the Government of Jersey continues to refine its school food strategy, the call for greater consideration of family financial burdens remains a central point of contention among policymakers.
