Changing people's tastes is notoriously difficult and changing youngsters' tastes is well nigh impossible: that's the message that could be drawn from the news that Jamie Oliver's healthy food campaign for school is resulting in a lower uptake.

Is it the correct one?

Jamie's campaign is self-evidently right. Young children should be encouraged to eat healthily. For some, the school lunch, is their main meal of the day. If we're going to encourage them to turn away from burgers and chips, crisps, lemonade and other starchy and sugary items, (all fine in moderation) then the school lunch is a good place to start. Childhood obesity is becoming a major problem, though this is as much due to a general lack of exercise and insufficient parental control as unsuitable food.

Unfortunately parents don't seem to want to play ball. Primary school children, who generally aren't allowed off the premises during lunch hours, are often sustained by a lunch box containing such delicacies as Mars Bars, while secondary school children bunk off to the local high street during lunch hour to feast on fish and chips.

This has a knock-on effect. The fewer children who eat a school lunch, the higher the cost of running the service - particularly with food cost inflation running at more than 10 per cent. As Jamie's healthy food ingredients are generally higher than the ingredients he's trying to outlaw, that's a double whammy. Some local authorities, unless they pump more money into the service, may be faced with closing it down altogether.

The problem is that children are notoriously fickle about what they eat and Jamie's dishes just haven't turned them on in large numbers. Even though there has been some success, it's estimated that 250,000 fewer secondary school children had a school lunch in 2006-7 compared with two years earlier - a decline of 17 per cent. Demand fell in primary schools, as well - by 170,000 pupils, or 10 per cent. That might not solely due to Jamie's meals, of course.

Extra money is being pumped into the service (but not enough); the food cost per meal is still too low (it used to be about 40p per meal but it's generally about 50p now - still not enough). Jamie's dishes are sensible, and healthy but they cost more and they're not especially popular - yet - with the children.

The moral of the story is that Jamie's ideas were introduced too quickly and without adequate preparation. Trying to change tastes takes time and needs to be undertaken cautiously - the salt reduction programme tells us that. We've got a long way to go - and will have to spend much more money - if his meals are to become the norm.

Bob Cotton

Chief Executive British Hospitality Association