I?ve had a chance to read the article properly now. Whilst I agree with it?s general premise that cooking is becoming a lost art and that it ought to be taught in schools, as someone who works in the food industry I would take issue with some of it. Food Technology has a place in the modern world, just as much as Information Technology or Graphic Design, but it ought to be taught either alongside or as an extension of Domestic Science/Home Economics. This way the art of budgeting and cooking isn?t lost, but pupils who want a career in the food industry would benefit from the subject matter in taught in Food Technology. This is of particular relevance in the area where I live where there is an awful lot of food production, both of the convenience food type and the supply of fruit and veg.
The legislation that covers ?twizzleresque? foods (I love that word, twizzleresque!) also covers the packing of fruit and veg, the bagging of salad etc. Learning how to do a process flow and hazard analysis is relevant to all types of food. If you wanted to weave lentils, for instance, you would have to do the same paperwork and comply to the same legislation as if you were making plastic TV dinners. The major supermarkets in particular insist on compliance.
On the other side, I agree that there seems to be too much emphasis on processed foods, and I do think that this is wrong. There are countless threads here on Mumsnet bewailing the fact that people are uneducated and will feed their kids all kinds of crap, so surely subjects such as Food Technology should be teaching about healthy alternatives as well as how things are done at the moment. Perhaps a good project could be to take a currently manufactured nasty and make a viable, profitable, truly healthy alternative.
Perhaps GSCE is a little early to be getting into the finer detail but I would certainly say that there is a need for an A Level. I also think that Domestic Science/Home Ec should be taught to pre-GCSE anyway, so that all 14 year olds have a good basis in food knowledge regardless of the subjects they choose to study later on.
IMHO the author has reacted badly to parts of the subject because she doesn?t understand the terminology involved. There are no end of subjects that I don?t understand, but I wouldn?t rant about them in this way! We could also say that we brainwash our children in all kinds of subjects, we teach them that certain literature is better than others and to accept that our version of history is true (how will the Iraq war be taught in 100 years time I wonder?). If we teach our children to think for themselves, answering questions such as, ?Explain the advantages of irradiating food? could involve explaining disadvantages as well. (A slight aside, very little food is irradiated these days as most supermarkets will not accept it). I really can?t understand her objection to the other exam questions, she may not be able to answer them but that does not mean that they are pointless? A person who could answer them would have the pick of numerous good job opportunities in the food industry (either plastic or healthy organic food) in the same way that someone who could answer detailed questions on programming languages would be in line for a good job in IT.
I didn?t mean to waffle on for as long as this but hopefully the argument is a bit more balanced now.