Central kitchens for S’pore schools will stay—here’s how they compare globally & what we could fix

Schools in other countries have operated with the central kitchen model for decades

Since the start of Jan 2026, 13 schools have begun shifting away from individual canteen stallholders to a central kitchen meal model, where a single operator manages food provision.

Although it is a move driven by ongoing difficulties in attracting and retaining canteen stallholders, the concept of central kitchens serving schoolchildren has drawn flak, especially after viral photos from Hwa Chong Institution sparked social media debate, with students and parents voicing concerns online.

But the controversy misses the bigger point: it’s a fact that the school canteen model is falling apart, and central kitchens are a way to adapt. After all, many other countries have also adopted the model as a way to improve efficiency and consistency.

Rather than debating whether Singapore’s schools should adopt central kitchens, the more pressing question now is: how can it be done better? And what can Singapore learn from countries that have already gone down this path?

How Singapore’s central kitchen meal model works

Under the Ministry of Education’s Central Kitchen Meal Model (CKMM), the government appointed several caterers, including Chang Cheng Mee Wah Food Industries in the West, Gourmetz in the South and at Outram Secondary School’s York Hill campus, and Wilmar Distribution in the North and East, to manage food preparation and distribution for participating schools.

Meals are prepared at large off-campus kitchens, where operations begin as early as 4AM. Food is cooked in bulk using industrial equipment, portioned into individual meal sets, sealed, and loaded onto delivery trucks by 7AM.

Menus are planned several weeks in advance, and students typically pre-order meals digitally. The system allows dietary restrictions—such as halal, vegetarian or allergy-related needs—to be filtered automatically during ordering.

Meals are transported in insulated containers and kept warm until distribution. Some schools operate hybrid canteens, where centrally prepared meals are sold alongside a small number of live stalls cooking on-site, allowing schools to retain some choice while reducing reliance on individual stallholders.

Operators say this outsourcing model allows for tighter hygiene control, predictable staffing, and consistent pricing—though critics argue it comes at a cost.

Backlash against the model

Much of the criticism surrounding the rollout has focused on food quality, visual appeal, and limited choice. Parents have raised concerns over freshness, nutrition and food safety, particularly given that meals are prepared in the early hours of the morning and transported to schools hours later.

Many have compared these pre-prepared meals with food made on-site at canteen stalls, arguing that the delay from cooking to delivery inevitably compromises taste and freshness.

Meanwhile, concerns about food safety have been heightened by recent gastroenteritis outbreaks linked to these catered meals. About two weeks ago, about 60 pupils at River Valley Primary School reported food poisoning symptoms after eating lunch provided by their central kitchen meal operator Gourmetz, prompting a reminder from authorities about hygiene practices.

The pupils felt unwell after lunch break on Jan 14 and reported having gastroenteritis the following day.

Beyond the food itself, students miss out on essential social skills during their formative years. They no longer get to browse multiple stalls, interact with different vendors, or make spending choices, which some parents argue limits opportunities to develop decision-making and money-management skills, alongside social interaction.

Operators and schools have acknowledged these concerns, saying menus and systems are still being adjusted based on feedback. But similar backlash has emerged in other countries when large-scale school meal programmes were introduced—and some systems have since evolved in ways that Singapore could learn from.

How other countries mitigate centralised meal challenges

Detractors tend to point to Japan’s school meals as a benchmark of quality and meal standards Singapore should aim for. But even this much-lauded system was unpopular when first implemented.

In Japan, central kitchens and industrialised food production for school lunches expanded rapidly during the post-war high-growth era (mid-1950s to mid-1980s). While praised for efficiency and hygiene, they initially faced criticism for altering traditional dietary patterns and undermining home cooking.

But today, central kitchens are widely used in Japanese schools, especially in municipalities where a single facility serves multiple schools. Menus are planned by licensed dietitians, ensuring meals meet roughly one-third of a student’s daily nutritional needs, while using fresh, seasonal, and locally sourced ingredients.

Some schools also operate in-house kitchens, allowing for freshly prepared meals on a daily basis. While this guarantees quality, critics note high setup and renovation costs, a key concern for Singapore. However, in the long term, such kitchens could be more cost-effective and improve health, nutrition, and student satisfaction.

In many Japanese schools, students also help serve and clean up meals, part of the shokuiku (“food education”) approach that turns lunchtime into a hands-on lesson in nutrition, responsibility, and respect for food.

Even within a central kitchen system, schools in Singapore could mitigate the social and engagement gaps created by central kitchens by involving students in meal distribution or portioning, making large-scale operations feel less impersonal.

Meanwhile, in South Korea, centralised school meal systems leverage technology not just for efficiency, but also to increase transparency.

Mobile apps allow students and parents to pre-order meals and track preferences, which enables schools to adjust menus quickly while maintaining traditional dishes and locally sourced ingredients.

Each school also has a School Meal Bulletin Board, where students, parents, and staff can view daily, weekly, and monthly menus (with real images uploaded by the school), check ingredients, and see public feedback. Parents receive regular reports on school life, including detailed information about the meals their children are eating each day.

In contrast, in Singapore, the only visibility parents have is through apps for pre-ordering meals, though occasional images of school meals are uploaded by schools on social media. Schools do not provide real images of the meals, and feedback from surveys or tasting sessions with parents and students is not made public.

Nevertheless, sentiments and reactions are often shared on social media, highlighting gaps between expectations and the meals actually served.

When it comes to making school meals appealing—not just nutritious—Sweden offers a useful example. Unlike Singapore’s relatively new central kitchen rollout, Sweden’s school meal system has been refined over decades with national guidelines that explicitly prioritise the dining experience as part of quality.

Since 2011, Swedish school law has stipulated that lunches must be nutritious, and later guidelines expanded to include “taste” and “pleasant presentation” as core components.

The country even also introduced web-based tools like SkolmatSverige (School Food Sweden) to routinely assess meal quality across multiple domains—not just nutrients, but also service and environment, helping improve everything from meal presentation to dining experience.

If central kitchens are here to stay in Singapore, how food is plated, portioned, and visually composed may shape student acceptance as much as taste itself, not just whether meals meet nutritional benchmarks.

Still early stages for Singapore

That said, Singapore’s central kitchen model is still in its early stages. As with any new system, teething issues are inevitable as schools and operators look to optimise best practices.

What happens in the coming months—how schools, operators, and policymakers respond to feedback on taste, presentation, and the overall dining experience—will determine whether the system can truly meet students’ needs without losing the social and cultural value that traditional canteens once provided.

Featured Image Credit: Qifa Primary School, Kranji Primary School via Facebook

...