An investigation by The BMJ has revealed that more than a third of the companies exhibiting at the United Kingdom’s largest school food trade event sell products classified as high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS), exposing a sharp contradiction at the centre of the country’s plans to improve children’s diets. The findings come as the government prepares to introduce updated standards that will restrict the availability of unhealthy foods in schools and require caterers to provide more nutritious meals, fruit and vegetables. At the School Food People Show and Forum, held in Birmingham last month, 52 of the 137 exhibiting companies were found to supply products such as hot dogs, pizzas, muffins, cakes, confectionery, ice cream and sugar-sweetened drinks. The event is promoted as the only national gathering dedicated exclusively to school food and attracts more than 1,000 delegates from the catering industry each year.
The exhibition is designed to connect manufacturers and wholesalers with the companies, local authorities and schools responsible for feeding children. Suppliers use the event to demonstrate new products, promote equipment and establish commercial relationships that can lead to school catering contracts. Yet the range of food on display suggests that the commercial environment surrounding school meals may still be heavily influenced by products that public health experts are trying to reduce. The BMJ identified two specialist hot dog companies, a Belgian waffle manufacturer and multiple firms selling cakes, cookies and muffins. Several wholesalers were exhibiting chocolate bars, crisps and sweets, while five ice cream companies and four soft drink suppliers were also present. Other exhibitors offered pizzas, cake mixes and vending machines stocked with confectionery.
Among the products identified was a canned soft drink promoted as “school compliant,” despite containing more than half a day’s recommended sugar allowance. Such marketing illustrates the complexity of food regulation in schools, where compliance may depend on the precise formulation, portion size or nutritional criteria applied to a product rather than on whether it resembles a conventional soft drink or confectionery item. A product can be reformulated, sold in a restricted portion or presented as part of a meal while still contributing substantial amounts of free sugar, saturated fat or sodium to a child’s daily intake. These nutrients are not inherently toxic in every circumstance, but consistently high consumption is associated with an increased risk of excess weight gain, dental decay, hypertension and metabolic disease. For children, whose eating habits and taste preferences are still developing, repeated exposure to intensely sweet, salty or energy-dense foods may also influence longer-term dietary behaviour.
The investigation also found that the main trade organisation representing school food caterers, which organises the Birmingham event, receives sponsorship from companies supplying pizzas, cakes, waffles and ice cream. This commercial relationship raises questions about how industry events define the boundaries of acceptable school food and how suppliers shape the market before a meal reaches the cafeteria. Trade shows do not necessarily determine what schools buy, and exhibiting a product does not prove that it is served to pupils. However, such events provide manufacturers with direct access to decision-makers and create opportunities to normalise particular products as practical, profitable or suitable for educational settings. The presence of HFSS suppliers at a show devoted entirely to school food therefore offers a visible measure of the commercial pressures confronting caterers.
Greg Fell, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health and director of public health for Sheffield City Council, told The BMJ that “what gets marketed is what gets sold.” He said that if trade shows reflect what enters the school meals system, they may help perpetuate an “obesogenic environment”—one in which unhealthy choices are consistently made easier, cheaper or more attractive than healthier alternatives. The term refers not simply to individual behaviour, but to the physical, economic and social conditions that influence energy intake and expenditure. In a school setting, those conditions include the price of meals, the layout of serving areas, the visibility of snacks and drinks, the time available to eat, advertising, peer behaviour and the financial viability of the catering operation. A child’s food choice is therefore shaped by a system extending well beyond personal preference.
Marie Murphy, assistant professor of child and adolescent nutrition at the University of Birmingham, described the findings as “shocking” and said they clearly conflicted with school food standards. D’Arcy Williams, chief executive of the youth food charity Bite Back, said the investigation exposed an “extraordinary contradiction”: the government is preparing to raise the nutritional bar while much of the industry connected to schools continues to promote the products that policymakers want children to consume less often. Their concerns reflect a broader debate over whether voluntary commitments and product-level rules are sufficient to change the food environment. Even where nutrition standards exist, enforcement can be difficult if the rules are unclear, monitoring is inconsistent or schools lack the resources to replace commercially successful products with healthier meals.
The economic challenge is particularly significant. Experts told The BMJ that chocolate bars, muffins and fizzy drinks can deliver some of the highest profit margins and sales volumes available to school caterers. These products are typically inexpensive to store, require little preparation and can be sold rapidly during short breaks. By contrast, nutritious plated meals may involve more costly ingredients, kitchen labour, refrigeration, preparation time and waste. Fresh vegetables, pulses, whole grains and minimally processed proteins can be central to a balanced diet, but they may not generate the same immediate revenue as packaged snacks or sweetened beverages. Catering companies may therefore use high-margin products to compensate for losses on healthier meals that are more expensive to produce or less popular with pupils. This commercial cross-subsidy can make reform difficult unless schools receive adequate funding, procurement support and practical assistance with menu design.
The government’s proposed standards are intended to shift that balance. From September 2027, primary schools would be expected to implement rules limiting the availability of HFSS foods, followed by secondary schools from September 2028. Deep-fried foods would be banned altogether, while products such as pizza and sausage rolls would be limited to twice a week. Ice cream and cookies would be restricted to once weekly. The proposed approach reflects the principle that occasional consumption of energy-dense foods is compatible with a healthy diet, but routine availability can undermine it. Frequency limits are designed to reduce cumulative exposure while allowing schools some flexibility in planning menus. However, the effectiveness of the policy will depend on how foods are defined, whether portion sizes are regulated, how composite meals are assessed and whether similar restrictions apply to vending machines, tuck shops, informal sales and packed lunches.
The government has not yet confirmed how compliance will be monitored. Without reliable inspection, transparent reporting and meaningful consequences for persistent breaches, the standards could remain largely aspirational. Monitoring would need to distinguish between a school that occasionally fails to meet a target and one that systematically sells restricted foods. It would also need to account for differences between schools, including kitchen facilities, outsourced catering arrangements, local budgets and the dietary needs of pupils. Caterers have warned that pupils may reject healthier meals and bring packed lunches filled with snacks instead. That possibility highlights the importance of making healthier food appealing rather than simply removing less healthy options. Taste, texture, presentation, cultural familiarity, price and the time available to eat can all affect acceptance. Reformulating menus without involving pupils or improving the dining environment may lead to waste, low participation and unintended substitution with less nutritious foods.
The findings have intensified concerns that commercial interests remain deeply embedded in the school food system at precisely the moment when childhood overweight and obesity are being treated as urgent public health problems. Fell warned that society could face the consequences decades from now if an environment in which excess weight is normalised continues unchecked. The issue is not whether every pizza, waffle or ice cream product should disappear from children’s lives, but whether schools—institutions that reach millions of young people daily—should be structured around foods whose commercial success depends on frequent consumption. As the new standards move towards implementation, the composition of trade shows, sponsorship arrangements and the financial incentives facing caterers will remain important indicators of whether the United Kingdom is genuinely changing its school food environment or simply rewriting the rules around the same underlying marketplace.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Junk food suppliers have “shocking” major presence at UK’s biggest school food event
News Publication Date: 19 August 2026
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2026-100552
References: The BMJ, “Junk food suppliers have ‘shocking’ major presence at UK’s biggest school food event,” DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2026-100552
Keywords: School food, high-fat foods, high-sugar foods, high-salt foods, childhood obesity, nutrition, public health, school meals, food standards, UK schools, processed food, sugary drinks, food industry, catering suppliers
