Hong Kong’s voluntary school-lunch salt reduction scheme covers most primary schools, but patchy data and uneven compliance are fuelling concerns that bland, reheated meals could leave children eating elsewhere.
Hong Kong’s long-running effort to make school lunches healthier has run into an awkward problem: some children and parents appear to prefer taste over sodium reduction. According to a government reply to the Legislative Council, some lunch suppliers have told the Department of Health that families complained school meals were too bland, and that children valued flavour more than health. That tension sits at the heart of a programme launched in the 2017/18 school year to gradually cut salt in pupils’ meals. The scheme asks suppliers to lower sodium in lunch boxes while still keeping meals acceptable to children, but the latest debate suggests that balance has become harder to strike.
The policy itself is ambitious. The Department of Health says the Salt Reduction Scheme for School Lunches aims to bring the average sodium content of a primary school lunch box down to no more than 500mg within ten years, with annual reductions of 5% to 10%. The scheme also draws on the department’s nutritional guidance for children’s lunches, which promotes a simple formula of three parts grains, two parts vegetables and one part meat, fish, eggs or alternatives, alongside less oil, salt and sugar. Foods such as fried items, creamy sauces and coconut-based dishes are discouraged, and suppliers are encouraged to monitor nutrients more closely. In 2017, when the programme was introduced, 13 suppliers signed up and pledged to reduce sodium in varying proportions of their menus.
What has become clear over time is that the programme’s voluntary model has not solved every problem. A report by the Hong Kong Committee on Children’s Rights said that as of October 2026, 15 suppliers were serving 465 primary schools, covering nearly 80% of primary schools in the city, but data submission remained patchy and only 60% to 70% of meals met sodium targets over the previous three years. The report added that no supplier had been removed from the scheme, despite the uneven performance. Earlier government data did show progress: in a 2018 survey, average sodium levels in sampled lunches had fallen from 951mg in 2013 to 818mg, while trans fat and sugar levels also improved. Still, the newer figures indicate that gains have been uneven and, in some cases, fragile.
Cost and logistics are central to the debate. Education-sector figures have argued that most suppliers cook meals in advance, chill them overnight and reheat them for delivery, a process that can leave vegetables limp and dishes less appealing. Legislator Tang Fei, who represents the education sector, has said the reality is that many schools lack the facilities and licences needed for fresh, same-day cooking. He argues that if suppliers were pushed to offer fresher ingredients, prices would rise and low-income families would struggle to pay. Tang said school lunches should at least be as decent as the two-dish rice meals sold in neighbourhood eateries, but acknowledged that many suppliers can only deliver reheated food, which limits quality.
The catering industry offers a different view. Legislator and catering representative Michael Leung said school lunch suppliers face higher costs and tighter rules than ordinary restaurants because of licensing requirements, centralised production and strict temperature controls during delivery. He said schools cannot simply be compared with casual eateries that use fried chicken legs or sweet-and-sour pork to attract customers, because lunch contractors must work within health guidance that limits salt, oil and certain ingredients. Leung’s argument is that healthier food inevitably costs more, and that parents should recognise the price of improved nutrition. Yet the broader policy question remains unchanged: if school lunches are healthy but unappetising, children may simply throw them away and eat elsewhere, leaving the programme with better statistics but little real impact on what pupils actually consume.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
