Maggie Beer, Australia’s culinary icon, has built a reputation on the promise of wholesome, comforting food. Through her Maggie Beer Foundation (MBF), she has positioned herself as a champion of aged care dining, pledging to tackle malnutrition that affects a significant proportion of residents, as highlighted by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
With her infectious enthusiasm and celebrity appeal, Beer has secured millions in government funding, most notably a $5 million grant in 2023 to improve food in aged care.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing insists the government recognises the crucial role food and nutrition play in the quality of life for older Australians in aged care, noting that Beer’s expertise in home-style cooking and her advocacy since 2019 have justified $7,509,692 in funding to the MBF.
Yet as she now seeks another $15.3 million to continue her programs, the evidence suggests her initiatives have had limited reach, leaving taxpayers funding a largely symbolic effort.
Gourmet funding, rationed results
Since 2014, the government has invested over $7.1 million into the MBF.
Highlights include $500,000 between 2017 and 2019 for online training modules, $600,000 in 2019 for instructional videos, nearly $300,000 in 2020 for a two-day food congress, and the 2023 $5 million grant for the Improving Food in Aged Care through Education and Training program, which included six new videos and the Trainer Mentor Program (TMP).
An additional $1.7 million in 2024 helped sustain the program. Despite this funding, the impact has been limited.
The 2023 grant promised to upskill cooks and chefs across Australia’s 2,700 aged care homes. Yet by August 2025, the TMP had reached only 135 facilities, just 5 per cent of the sector.
Beer’s latest proposal would extend the program to 216 more homes by 2029, still leaving the vast majority untouched. This is a boutique initiative presented as systemic change while most residents continue to face the same challenges.
The bittersweet reality
Beer’s message is appealing. Nutritious, flavoursome meals can improve the lives of elderly Australians. The Department highlights the MBF’s collaboration with Accredited Practising Dietitians and Speech Pathologists to ensure nutritional rigour in its activities.
But the reality is less palatable. Programs funded through the MBF have not consistently translated into meaningful change. In 2019, the $600,000 training videos, intended as a free resource, came with a $480 price tag, $44 per half-hour module, restricting access for smaller providers and home carers.
The content itself has also been criticised. A 2024 Department of Health webinar highlighted that some online modules were impractical for typical aged care kitchens, featuring ingredients and techniques beyond the capacity of many cooks. Many participants discontinued the training after one session due to its limited applicability. The TMP, while better received, remains small in scope and available only to select facilities.
Meanwhile, malnutrition persists. The Department notes that a Basic Daily Fee (BDF) supplement, providing an extra $10 per resident per day, ran from July 2021 to September 2022 and was then embedded into ongoing funding, with providers now reporting food expenditure via Quarterly Financial Reports published on My Aged Care.
They also report a rise in median food and ingredient costs per resident per day, from $12.40 in Quarter 1 of 2022-23 to $15.49 in Quarter 2 of 2024-25, alongside a decrease in significant unplanned weight loss since 2021.
Yet reports from 2022 show a third of providers still spent less than $10 per resident per day on food, despite the $700 million annual supplement. Images of uninspiring meals- greasy chips, limp nuggets, and grey mush – illustrate the ongoing gap between funding promises and real outcomes
Beer’s response has often been more advocacy than measurable change. Her 2024 ABC series, Maggie Beer’s Big Mission, showcased a single Perth facility, offering a polished example rather than systemic progress.
Health economist Stephen Duckett warned in 2022 that the government has relied on Beer’s celebrity to create an impression of progress, diverting attention from underlying problems.
Questions of focus and accountability
Critics have also raised concerns about the commercial aspects of Beer’s initiatives. MBF programs are costly and Maggie Beer Holdings, where she is a director, posted a $4.4 million loss in December 2024. Previous issues, such as the 2014 ACCC reprimand for misleading product labelling, have led some to question whether image management sometimes overshadows impact.
Government support has also been questioned. Dietitians Australia argued that the 2023 $5 million grant would have been better spent on employing dietitians to oversee menus rather than funding celebrity-led workshops. Yet funding continued without adequate auditing, leaving uncertainty over how much reached actual improvements in meals.
The Maggie Beer Foundation was approached for comment regarding the financial outlay and the return on investment of the MBF’s initiatives. However, they declined to answer any direct questions.
Instead, the Maggie Beer Foundation offered up a generic website link detailing their Training and Education Programs for cooks, chefs, and aged care providers.
Funnily enough, what stood out most in their email response was the line, “Apologies for the delay in getting back to you—we’ve been very busy with training.” This comment, the precursor to refusing to answer any direct questions about funding or outcomes, felt like little more than a hollow excuse, reinforcing the sense that much of the Foundation’s efforts are more about appearances than meaningful outcomes.
Time for a new menu
Maggie Beer’s dedication to food and her desire to make a difference are not in doubt. But after more than a decade and millions of taxpayer dollars, the results have been boutique rather than broad.
The Department’s additional measures, like the Food, Nutrition and Dining Unit and dietitian-led reviews, are steps forward, but they underscore the limited impact of Beer’s initiatives. The sector cannot afford more glossy pilots and symbolic gestures while malnutrition remains entrenched.
It is time for government and providers to move beyond celebrity-led initiatives and invest in scalable, evidence-based solutions: dietitians embedded in services, enforceable food standards, transparent auditing and accessible, practical training for every aged care kitchen.
Maggie Beer’s heart may be in the kitchen, but her foundation’s track record is a stale disappointment. Let’s clear the table and serve our elderly something that actually nourishes them.
An absolute rort right from the start.
No surprise I been complaining about age care food for years it’s disgusting vile. It’s abuse Of the worst kind. Very kitchen in aged care should be fined they call themselves cooks please. You all should be called reheaters because that all they get. Where I work as an AIN. And in the last 3 years I work there
The residents never got a salad. Never got a peace. Of steak. If they were lucky they get a disgusting sausage on a bbq. No cakes for morning tea or afternoon tea just cheap biscuits. The cook was that lazy she cook. Eggs in the microwave their morning cereal was put in bowls on the table at 12am. By night shift. Soup was made from packs. And every tea time all they got was reheated frozen crap the residents don’t have a choice. And anyone that say otherwise is lying. Disgusting Disgraceful
Not every kitchen in aged care is the same, there are many out there that cook real food everyday and put love and care in the meals they produce. Its really disappointing to know that some aged care homes and not investing in their kitchen team to produce better food.
I agree with Helen. Not every aged care catering department is the same. The chefs at my facility cook outstanding 5 star meals every single day, fresh and never that cook-chill rubbish – ours are spectacular, tasty, photo-worthy examples, that our residents love! We work with our residents to get them the most wholesome nutrition we can, while also catering to their likes and dislikes.
I’ve seen other facilities where I wouldn’t feed that slop to my dog, but I am very proud of the chefs that I work with! Please do not tar us all with the same brush because you have seen 1 very bad example. In fact, why don’t you report them to the aged care commission food and dining complaints line? The number is on the department website, I don’t know if Hellocare would let me share it here in the comments – but bonus, you can report them anonymously and they will never know it’s you!
That’s absolutely appalling, how dare they treat the elderly with such contempt. Pls write to government and detail what you have seen. These places tend to hire people newly into the country and pay them less – you know the old saying – you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Maggie Beers heart seems to be more in self promotion
She has shown no interest in what people in aged care want to eat or the difficulties finding solutions to 80 or 100 or more people with differing palates and differing food interests at differing times of the day
She has always been extremely expensive, in money and time , and always on her terms
Perhaps working on site with the chefs and their teams and with the elderly might actually teach her a few humbling lessons and be more conducive to addressing the gentle appetites of the elderly
We have used the Maggie Beer menu at our Facilities and had all the training. THE RESIDENTS DONT LIKE IT! So much food is wasted, even though they have a choice. Residents would like the good tasty old fashioned food like, Steak and kidney pudding. Shepard’s pie. Bangers and mash with onion gravy. They are not the generation for Cous cous or grains or Polenta. Maggie Beers food is too fancy!
Just make it old school, tasty and nutritious and make it look good on the plate. You really don’t have to throw all that money at her.
What a wicked waste!
You are absolutely correct!! I work in MSU, and when the “new and improved” salads and dishes came out, there was so much waste. Putting pomegranate in salads is fine, UNLESS you have dentures, or missing teeth. The seeds get stuck, residents refuse to eat because it is uncomfortable and unfamiliar, similarly with some of the “fancy” meals on the menu. Some residents prefer sandwiches.. Go figure. Our Residential home generally has excellent food. So good, that resident’s family members willingly pay to eat with their loved ones.
Congratulations for tackling this issue. I have no doubt the Maggie Beer Foundation is sincere in its intentions, but we actually need enforcement of good food standards. I agree with the proposal in this article.
like the dementia charities, and many dementia researchers and organisations, despite the lack of translation into practice or real change, governments hand out money based on ‘celebrity status, ‘high profile researchers’, and high profile charities… despair is all that most people with dementia and their families get
I think not! A waste of money. Yes Ms Beer knows about food but spending money like that when it could be used in other ways for Aged Care!
Another example of the government throwing money at something without working with the supplier regarding the scope of deliverables then blaming the other party for failing. Bold statements about the financial standing of MBF is vague as one would need to look at the financials to determine where the business is suffering as I imagine there are many sectors within the business, and like many businesses one sector may be propping up another. The Department has not illustrated how they have worked to push for improved nutritional food and menus but are happy to push their (lack of) responsibility onto a third party – the scape goat. As per Stephen Duckett, indeed a diversion tactic by the government. “..some online modules were impractical for typical aged care kitchens, featuring ingredients and techniques beyond the capacity of many cooks….”- can’t be employing any type of qualified cook or chef if they can’t utilise ingredients or techniques!! As for Dieticians – the poor quality of food offered in homes is a sad indictment on dieticians and government. They are very much the foundation of funding and design and totally responsible for malnourishment with the next layer of guilt being on the aged care home management who have obscene salaries with bonuses for filling beds, and if the hierarchy in these organisations was rationalised we could see improved quality of meals and increased number of carers. The Dept needs to stop using scapegoats and flouting words like transparency and enforceable standards and instead actually deliver; act, audit and enforce, NOT just tick boxes.
Here here. Agree with this 100%. Stay in your lane Maggie and leave food to the people who are properly qualified.
Our facility has been one of the lucky ones who were selected for the Maggie Beer trainer mentorship program. I can tell you that it has had a major impact on us, however nothing is ever going to change in aged care food unless more money is put into it. You can have an amazing cook/ chef in the kitchen. But one person can only do so much, the new standards have made catering for aged care homes extremely difficult to navigate. ITs all about the individual and rightly so, however a lot of aged care kitchens operate with one cook/ chef it is near impossible to cater to all residents’ individual needs wants and preferences all of time. If aged care food is to improve across the board, we need more passionate, skilled people, more than one cook to prepare breakfast lunch and dinner, never mind the mid meal snacks and all the other things the new standards cover. The pay is minimal also, cooking in aged care is a very demanding and at times a soul-destroying occupation, most people do it because they love it, however we seem to be losing a lot of experienced staff due to stress and burn out. If things are to change money needs to be put into the right places like keeping the experienced people and providing them with the support, they need to run their kitchen and support the cooks with more hours in the kitchen to accommodate all the individual needs and wants the new standards support.
Employing more dieticians to oversee menus wouldn’t solve much either, unless the dietician has extensive knowledge of how each individual aged care home operates, how many staff are available to make the meals they recommend etc. I feel that in order for anything to improve take some guidance and suggestions from the people who actually work in kitchens of aged care homes. They are the ones who know the obstacles we are all facing when it comes to improving the food across the whole country.
We had a government-sent dietician attend our facility recently and make all sorts of recommendations about our food. Told us our residents should be eating twice as much cereal for breakfast, 2 days a week more fish and more salads (in WINTER…?), among other ridiculous ideals. If we tried to offer our residents twice as much cereal, they’d push it away and not eat anything at all, because the amounts would be overwhelming to someone with dementia.
The recommendations appeared to be based on Average Joe Body-Builder, rather than an elderly person in aged care, with limited energy expenditure or needs.
The dietician did approve our menu as healthy and nutritious for the most part (other than needing more fish, which our residents have told us they hate…)
It’s all well and good to send these dieticians in to check menus and what-have-you, but they need to be dieticians with experience with elderly people and be familiar with dementia as well!
Fooled by charm, smiles and big personality!
Again, the elderly have been “used”.
Your article has confirmed my suspicions that the MBF was more show than do. Thank-you for investigating the situation and making it public.
It has become an absolute travesty to see that both Aged Care and Disability care has has been eroded by trinkets and beads being offered to appease the public relations gods and fool the masses into believing that something has actually been done! Sadly the only noise we in the front line hear, is the gurgle as more money disappears down the proverbial drain,
When will someone listen ?
Crap providers will always take short cuts. If crap providers aren’t booted out if the sector, nothing will change. Sadly many are huge supermarket providers with so many “facilities” (they are not homes) and governments wont touch them… Meanwhile small providers who do care and cook proper meals, not Cordon Bleu or reheated mush, are being slowly but surely pushed out due to ongoing over regulation and the never ending changes. Politicians are concerned only with “optics” and what appears to make them
Look good, and that is bipartisan… thus Maggie Beer will continue to receive huge grants and nothing notable will change…
Perhaps it is time to make specialised training for all food preparation staff a part of residential aged care food service staff. Make registered chef training with nutrition knowledge units part of training mandatory with accredited courses provided via TAFE nationwide. Maybe Maggie Beer’s training units could be incorporated into such a mandated program. Sadly unless and until food and nutrition qualifications are mandated for all elder services nothing will change. Relying on a voluntary scheme in a largely privatised industry is always doomed to limited success if not outright failure. Food quality and safety should be part of a strict accreditation process.
When Maggie Beer attended the facility I was working at in Grovedale near Geelong about 8 years ago I will never forget the way that two very elderly and very confused residents were in a photo opportunity with her. They were pictured in the “Maggie Beer” garden holding a cane basket overflowing with vegetables with her grinning inanely between the two residents. Following the photo opportunity she took off leaving the two vulnerable people standing with their vegetable basket. It was awful. I do not believe her initiatives were realistic on any level particularly for the chefs and kitchen hands. Since the incident above I have always felt the aged care healthy good initiative is less about the residents and way more about her and her foundation.
Totally unrealistic! Our residents want good old fashion food that they had at home not 5 star dining , Our food waste has tripled since our menus have changed and the new dining room experience has been implemented..not to mention the extra pressure on staff to deliver fine dining .. Residents are not given a choice like they were before it’s all for show, more focus on resident care and what they would like to eat would be more beneficial then Maggie’s unrealistic input… if companies can pay her that amount then they can put more staff on to care for our elderly!
What did any-one expect would be the outcome from giving her foundation $50 million?
She saw a business opportunity and used her celebrity and friendships in the govt to secure that money.
It would have been better spent on dieticians attending each aged care facility to ensure the menu was appropriate and monitoring weight and nutritional levels.
It made me sick to watch her at the Royal Commission, knowing she would never deliver.
Maggie Beer’s campaign to transform food in Australian aged care facilities, while well-intentioned, is a prime example of celebrity advocacy that overpromises and underdelivers. Her approach, marked by a “savior” mentality typical of out-of-touch celebrities, dismisses the expertise and challenges of aged care workers, damaging relationships and delivering no change after 15 years. Backed by research on celebrity chefs’ “cult of personality” and mounting evidence of stagnant outcomes, her advocacy, amplified through her polished TV persona, amounts to costly PR that fails to address the sector’s structural barriers.
Her warm, carefully crafted and fiercely protected public image, honed through her cooking shows, fits the mold of the relatable, caring celebrity reformer. This persona has cultivated a strong emotional connection with the public, with viewers forming parasocial relationships that make her a trusted voice on health and ethics. However, this polished media image clashes with the reality on the ground. Just ask many across the aged care industry outside of the C-suite, and her approach has been described as arrogant. Reports suggest she entered the aged care space implying everyone was clueless, undermining their experience and lived realities. This savior-like behavior echoes Roy C. Wood’s 2000 study, which critiques how a media-driven “culinary cultism” can elevate chefs into rock-star figures, with their celebrity personas overshadowing any practical contributions.
The Maggie Beer Foundation has used its $7.51 million in funding to develop “free” (but not free) online modules and well meaning but questionable mentorship, with good intention to upskill staff in nutrition and dining. But these efforts fall flat when confronted with the realities of aged care floors: chronic understaffing, kitchens forced to prioritize safety over flavor due to a number of conflicting legislations.
Industry feedback highlights that her training is impractical, designed without accounting for time-poor staff or limited resources, leading to high dropout rates. This disconnect is starkly illustrated by the fact that only 135 of ~2,700 aged care homes (5%) have engaged with the Trainer Mentor Program, underscoring its incredibly limited scope despite millions spent. This failure to address practical constraints has strained relationships with aged care providers and staff, who feel dismissed by her implication that they “don’t know what they’re doing.” The arrogance inherent in this top-down approach aligns with the savior complex Wood critiques, where celebrity chefs position themselves as singular solutions, sidelining any other expertise. Front-line workers have expressed frustration in industry forums, noting that Maggie Beer’s interventions, like her TV series are nothing but well directed and heavily edited PR stunts.
Other advocates have worked collaboratively on resident rights, funding reform, and transparency, often engaging directly with policy mechanisms and staff. These less glamorous but more effective efforts contrast sharply with Maggie Beer’s celebrity-driven model, which risks overshadowing their contributions.
The MBF’s $7.51 million in funding has not delivered systemic change. Its 2025 Impact Report offers anecdotes but avoids hard data on reduced malnutrition rates. Her recent plea of “no money” left, despite millions spent, underscores the inefficiency of her approach. Her feel-good TV series, a social experiment that prioritizes heartwarming optics have many ordinary Australians believe she has the answers. As Wood warns, such celebrity advocacy risks being “crass” when it prioritizes spectacle over impact, and aged care residents deserve evidence-based reform, not costly celebrity spectacle that has delivered nothing over a 15-year period.
Maggie Beer’s campaign to transform food in Australian aged care facilities is a prime example of celebrity advocacy that overpromises and underdelivers. Her approach, marked by a “savior” mentality typical of out-of-touch celebrities, dismisses the expertise and challenges of aged care workers, damaging relationships and delivering no change after 15 years. Backed by research on celebrity chefs’ “cult of personality” and mounting evidence of stagnant outcomes, her advocacy, amplified through her polished TV persona, amounts to costly PR that fails to address the sector’s structural barriers.
Her warm, carefuly crafted and fiercly protected public image, honed through her cooking shows, fits the mold of the relatable, caring celebrity reformer. This persona has cultivated a strong emotional connection with the public, with viewers forming parasocial relationships that make her a trusted voice on health and ethics. However, this polished media image clashes with the reality on the ground. Just ask many across the aged care industry outside of the C-suite, and her approach has been described as arrogant. Reports suggest she entered the aged care space implying everyone was clueless, undermining their experience and lived realities. This savior-like behavior echoes Roy C. Wood’s 2000 study, which critiques how a media-driven “culinary cultism” can elevate chefs into rock-star figures, with their celebrity personas overshadowing any practical contributions.
The Maggie Beer Foundation has used its $7.51 million in funding to develop “free” (but not free) online modules and well meaning but questonable mentorship, with good intention to upskill staff in nutrition and dining. But these efforts fall flat when confronted with the realities of aged care floors: chronic understaffing, kitchens forced to prioritize safety over flavor due to a number of conflicting legislations.
Industry feedback highlights that her training is impractical, designed without accounting for time-poor staff or limited resources, leading to high dropout rates. This disconnect is starkly illustrated by the fact that only 135 of ~2,700 aged care homes (5%) have engaged with the Trainer Mentor Program, underscoring its incredibly limited scope despite millions spent. This failure to address practical constraints has strained relationships with aged care providers and staff, who feel dismissed by her implication that they “don’t know what they’re doing.” The arrogance inherent in this top-down approach aligns with the savior complex Wood critiques, where celebrity chefs position themselves as singular solutions, sidelining any other expertise. Front-line workers have expressed frustration in industry forums, noting that Maggie Beer’s interventions, like her TV series are nothing but well directed and heavily edited PR stunts.
Other advocates have worked collaboratively on resident rights, funding reform, and transparency, often engaging directly with policy mechanisms and staff. These less glamorous but more effective efforts contrast sharply with Maggie Beer’s celebrity-driven model, which risks overshadowing their contributions.
The MBF’s $7.51 million in funding has not delivered systemic change. Its 2025 Impact Report offers anecdotes but avoids hard data on reduced malnutrition rates. Her recent plea of “no money” left, despite millions spent, underscores the inefficiency of her approach. Her feel-good TV series, a social experiment that prioritizes heartwarming optics have many ordinary Australians believe she has the answers. As Wood warns, such celebrity advocacy risks being “crass” when it prioritizes spectacle over impact, and aged care residents deserve evidence-based reform, not costly celebrity spectacle that has delivered nothing over a 15-year period.
Great article. Not many authors would have the courage to take on the Australian Government’s vote-winning “solution” to aged care… Maggie Beer! This whole effort has been a lazy and financially wasteful attempt to ‘fix’ aged care, something the industry has been doing for years with real chefs, not celebrities.
Personally, I’d like to believe Maggie is unaware of this shameful exercise. But given how much she stands to gain financially, it’s hard to accept. More likely, she’s been complicit in exacerbating a crisis, donning a cape, flying in, and “saving” everyone from a problem that largely didn’t exist.
Even the senior appointments in her Foundation raise red flags. These roles seem less about real change and more about building political influence to keep funding flowing. It feels like a PR operation with a kitchen attached.
As someone in the industry, I’ve seen how impractical these ideas are. A colleague was told directly by Maggie to drive 2.5 hours daily to collect farm-fresh eggs. It’s a nice story for TV, but completely disconnected from the realities faced by aged care kitchens. Imagine 2,700 chefs doing this every day! Efficient? Productive? Sustainable?
Let’s be clear: if this were a business, it wouldn’t pass any Return on Investment test. So why should taxpayers keep footing the bill for a program with limited reach and impact?
The millions already spent could have been invested in proven, scalable solutions that deliver actual benefit. These are the kinds of measures that truly improve nutrition and wellbeing for residents. Note: Aged Care is already doing this and seeing the benefits. Maggie will clearly throw these gains into her data and claim credit for it.
It’s time to stop funding celebrity-driven optics and start putting taxpayer money toward real, evidence-based change that makes a difference.
Great article. She has also received some millions $ from Flinders University.
No more money to Maggie.
I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN AN AGE CARE FOR A YEAR NOW AND FIND THE FOOD STALE, MUSHY,LACKING IN NUTRITION. I SUPPOSE IT IS THE SAME IN NEARLY ALL OF THEM IN THEIR ENDEAVOUR TO CUT DOWN ON COSTS.
I have worked in Aged Care for decades and can honestly say that food, nutrition and monitoring of residents is taken very seriously. It is easy and fashionable to criticise agedcare providers when the truth is that the funding was grossly inadequate for decades. No one wants to pay for care, and families think that criticising the food is a substitute for not caring for their elderly family members. If families partnered in care the outcomes would be better.
Great article !
It is difficult to understand how the money provided to the MBF has influenced change to residents nutrition.
For those I know in the industry which is many, the anecdotal evidence does not support improved outcomes that are linked to this tax payer funded initiative.
I agree wholeheartedly with the attached article. We do not need celebrities promoting aged care. We need dedicated personnel who ca spend the dollars wisely. The government needs to take back aged care from privatisation.
Boutique rather than systemic is on point I had a. Complaint in with ACQSC about food for my husband for 6 months. The facility paid lip service to the food, dining and nutrition rights. Who cares on a Sunday if lunch for a resident is appallingly. When the CEO of a facility is never there and is tucking into roast and trimmings at home
Maggie, should be made to pay all the money back. That is an obscene amount of money for no result and no improvement in the care of the elderly.