The egg is a modest food, yet in India’s school meals it has acquired political weight. The reported decision in West Bengal to replace eggs with vegetarian options in government-aided schools managed by a vegetarian provider has reopened a question. Should nutrition policy for children be governed by science and evidence, or by adult anxieties about religion, caste and purity?
In an evidence-guided system, the answer would be simple. The National Family Health Survey-6 shows that India’s child nutrition challenge remains grave: 29.3 per cent of children under five are stunted and 31.8 per cent are underweight. Behind these percentages are children whose bodies do not grow as they should, whose immunity is fragile, whose learning is blunted, and whose school life begins with a disadvantage. Improved protein intake, alongside calories is the solution.
In such a country, removing a low-cost source of high-quality protein from a school plate demands more than sentiment. It requires evidence. The nutritional case for eggs is uncomplicated and strong. An egg is affordable, easy to cook, simple to distribute and familiar across India. It provides high-quality protein and essential amino acids, along with vitamin B12, choline, selenium and nutrients needed for growth and brain development. For a rich household, an egg may be one item in a varied diet. For a poor child, it may be among the most nourishing foods received all week.
That is why the state-wise picture matters. PM POSHAN, generally called the mid-day meal scheme, allows states and UTs to decide menus according to local needs while meeting nutrition norms. Eggs entered mid-day meals in some states in the mid-1990s. Yet analyses of government data show that around 13 states provided eggs as an option in 2025-26, down from 16 states in 2015-16. Over the past decade, several states have either dropped eggs or considered removing them. When children need dietary variety, the menu has shrunk.
The states that provide eggs acknowledge local food habits and nutritional need. Southern India has been more consistent. Tamil Nadu introduced eggs decades ago. Karnataka expanded egg provision after focusing on districts with anaemia. Andhra Pradesh has persisted with eggs despite vegetarian providers. Kerala, Telangana and several eastern or tribal states have also used eggs in child nutrition programmes. The principle is simple: a public meal should strengthen nutrition where diets are inadequate.
The opposition to eggs seldom arises from nutrition science. It usually comes from politics. Vegetarian pressure groups, religious organisations and local elites invoke sentiment, purity, satvik food or community preference. These words may sound benign. Their consequence is not. One section’s dietary preference becomes a rule for everyone.
That is unjust in a country as varied as India. India is not a vegetarian nation. Food habits differ by region, caste, tribe, religion, income and ecology. Many Dalit, Adivasi, backward caste, Muslim, Christian and other communities have long consumed eggs and animal-source foods. For their children, the egg is ordinary food. To remove it because some adults consider it impure is to smuggle hierarchy into a meal.
Food in India has always carried social meaning. It has marked caste status, ritual purity, exclusion and power. The mid-day meal scheme challenged this by asking children from different backgrounds to sit together and eat. Its achievement was civic, not merely caloric. When eggs are banned because they offend the powerful, children receive a lesson no school should teach: the food of their homes is inferior.
There is a constitutional question too. The Indian State is secular and plural. It cannot elevate one community’s dietary code into public policy. The right to food has been read into the right to life under Article 21. A school meal should not merely relieve hunger; it should advance nutrition. A child’s nutritional right cannot be hostage to another household’s preference.
This does not mean vegetarian families should be dismissed. Some parents may not want their children to eat eggs. Their choice deserves respect. But respecting one family’s preference does not require denying another child nutritious food. The answer is not prohibition. It is choice.
Practical solutions exist. Eggs can be served on specified days. Children who do not eat them can receive milk, banana, chikki, pulses or soya. Schools can arrange separate serving. Parents can opt in or out. This requires clarity, not dogma.
A blanket ban, or an approach close to one, is the poorest response. It does not protect vegetarian children; they can be offered alternatives. What it does is deprive egg-eating children, often poorer, of protein they need. It allows adult opinion to overrule an undernourished child’s need.
School meals must be guided by evidence, not ideology. What do children need to grow, learn and remain healthy? The answer must come from paediatric science, nutrition data, local food habits and poverty.
India speaks of human capital, demographic dividend and Viksit Bharat. Such phrases are hollow if children remain stunted and undernourished. The first investment in the future is not a tablet or coding lesson. It is a child nourished enough to learn. Nutrition deficits in childhood can impair development in ways later feeding cannot fully reverse. Protein deficiency and undernutrition increase chronic disease risk in adulthood.
The midday meal is not just lunch. For millions, it is the State’s promise. Removing eggs from that plate is not a minor menu change. It is a public health decision. A school meal should not become a site for cultural policing. It should remain a promise that no child will be too hungry or undernourished to learn.
Dr Chandrakant Lahariya is a practicing physician and a former WHO Staff member
