A comprehensive global study of free and subsidised school meals found that feeding programs result in modest but meaningful increases in children's learning and growth, particularly in countries where undernutrition is prevalent. The findings are from a big Cochrane review headed by experts at the University of Ottawa, and they provide new information with substantial consequences for public spending, school policy, and private-sector food suppliers that support midday meal programmes. 

The assessment looked at 40 research studies involving more than 91,000 students from primary and high schools. The majority were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where approximately 90% of the world's undernourished children live. Researchers determined that delivering meals in schools leads to slight improvements in maths skills and school enrolment, as well as incremental benefits in physical growth as evaluated by height-for-age and weight-for-age. These markers reflect a child's long-term nutrition status, which can be summarised as whether or not they are growing at the expected age. 

According to the World Food Programme, access to school meals remains extremely unequal. In 2024, only 27% of low-income students received school meals, compared to 42% in lower-middle-income countries. In comparison, upper-middle-income countries had a 58 per cent uptake rate, while high-income economies had 79 per cent. This disparity indicates both a commercial opportunity and a policy deficit in areas plagued by hunger and poor educational achievements. 

Jennifer Garner, a registered dietitian and assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, stated that the data demonstrate consistent benefits despite significant variances in programme design. "School meals are a critical source of nourishment for children experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage," she told me. "Given the variation in contexts and programme designs studied, seeing measurable improvements in growth, enrolment, and math achievement is encouraging." 

However, the analysis revealed little to no improvement in reading scores or overall attendance. Evidence from high-income countries was scarce, preventing sweeping generalisations. Nonetheless, the authors suggest that the data underscores the case for continued investment in midday meal systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries grappling with both inflation and increasing food insecurity. 

Elizabeth Kristjansson, principal author and emeritus professor at the University of Ottawa, defined the findings as moral. "School meal programmes play an important role in improving health and educational outcomes for disadvantaged children," she told the audience. "We're seeing modest but real results. "I believe we have a moral obligation to feed hungry children." 

The authors also advocated for higher-quality research, noting that present information frequently ignores inequalities between demographic groups. Dr Anita Rizvi of the University of Ottawa stated, "Research too often focuses on average impacts and ignores disparities between groups. We looked at outcomes by socioeconomic status and gender, but too little research reported this information to draw clear conclusions. Future research requires broader, better-designed comparisons." 

For governments and investors alike, the message is clear: school feeding is still a cost-effective investment with proven social and economic benefits. As countries expand their midday meal programmes, the challenge now is to ensure equity, quality, and strong evidence to guide future improvements.