 |
|
| |
Food
competency framework: food skills and knowledge for young people
aged
7-9, 11-12, 14 and 16+ |
CFG
25/07 final
August 2007
Food competency
framework: food skills and knowledge for young people aged 7-9, 11-12,
14 and 16+
Foodaware aims to give consumers a strong voice in food policy
by bringing together the organisations which represent them. Our
members include consumer, women’s, family, ethnic minority
and enforcement organisations.
1. The proposals
FSA is seeking comments on its proposals to develop a consensus
view of the minimum food skills and knowledge that young people
should know, understand and be able to apply at the above ages,
and is encouraging organisations to adopt these food competences
voluntarily. The skills and knowledge are framed within four themes:
- Diet and health
- Consumer awareness
- Food preparation and handling skills
- Food safety
FSA stresses that the competences do not represent a curriculum
specification and apply equally to learning at school, in the home,
and through society and community experiences. The food competences
were commissioned from the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) and
have been the subject of informal consultation with a range of stakeholders
including young people.
2. General comments
Foodaware welcomes and strongly supports the work which has been
carried out to develop these competences. We have expressed concern
and called for action by food and health departments and agencies
to develop policies which would raise nutritional standards for
children and have acknowledged in our comments on ‘Getting
to Grips with Grub’ that nutritional education in schools
is only part of the answer. It is important that children and young
people develop practical knowledge, underpinned by understanding
the reasons for making particular choices in their daily diets.
The Getting to Grips with Grub competences were used as the basis
for this work by BNF which has reviewed curriculum requirements
and met with teachers and other interested parties to establish
consensus that the draft competences are appropriate to the different
age groups, allow progression and cover key facts and skills. As
a result we are not commenting specifically on the proposed competences
themselves which we are generally content with, but on the FSA’s
proposed approach.
3. Questions from FSA on the
Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
3.1 What do you think of the themes and
statements of skills and knowledge detailed in the food competency
framework? Are they consistent with what you would expect young people
of these ages to achieve? Are there any gaps?
We are content to accept the judgement of BNF as modified by the
consultations which have taken place to date on this matter. However,
we do have a few general comments. Firstly under ‘Food Preparation
and Handling Skills’ for 11-12 year olds the examples of broadening
the range of foods to eg couscous and lychees are poor examples.
It would be better to concentrate on broadening children’s
usage of locally available foods rather than encouraging the consumption
of foods from other countries, particularly fruit like lychees which
will command a high price and add no nutritional advantage over
more locally produced fruits such as greengages, loganberries or
redcurrants.
Secondly we believe that without more detailed guidance on the
information that needs to be provided, these competences are going
to be of little use to anyone asked to deliver them unless they
are food professionals and this is unlikely to be the case generally.
Further supporting material would be essential.
Foodaware members also consider that it is important to include
periodic review and monitoring of the application of the competences
to ensure that they are valuable in practice and capable of modification
where appropriate. Approaches should be practical, relevant to today’s
lifestyles (eating out, buying fast food, tasting sessions) and
include the spectrum of food from production on farm, through processing,
retailing, consumption, and digestion, to excretion and waste.
3.2 Do you agree with our assessment
that encouraging a voluntary approach to using the food competence
framework is most beneficial in terms of impact and cost?
The RIA considers three broad options for policy in this area:
- to do nothing
- publish the consensus view and encourage voluntary adoption
of their use across all sectors
- legislation to ensure that young people’s food learning
experiences (within and external to the curriculum) satisfy the
minimum competences for each age band
FSA’s preference is for the voluntary approach. It acknowledges
that to do nothing would result in the 14-16 competences standing
alone without a progressive framework to underpin it and could result
in inconsistent approaches being developed. Legislation is rejected
because of the complexity of local and national bodies in the fields
of food, health and education which would need to be involved, and
the resulting cost of compliance and inspection. FSA also considers
that a legislative approach could impact on food businesses, and
it views these competences as a minimum framework rather than a
statutory requirement.
Foodaware understands the FSA’s desire to encourage and facilitate
voluntary action leading to the implementation of this framework
of competences across many aspects of society, including education,
leisure, domestic life and civil society. Food and health should
be fun! As responsibility for curriculum issues and education lies
with UK Education departments and is a devolved responsibility in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is outside the FSA’s scope
to make recommendations to education departments. Foodaware considers
that it is vital for FSA to continue to work with DfES and other
relevant bodies to ensure that these competences are built in to
further work on the curriculum at different stages. Indeed, while
acknowledging that implementation on the broad basis FSA has chosen
is necessary and should be supported, we remain of the view that
relevant competences should be built into the school curriculum.
We have commented strongly in the past that Food Technology has
been no substitute for Home Economics and continue to believe that
practical food preparation and cooking skills should be available
in schools as well as through voluntary out of school initiatives.
Legislative action is still needed to ensure food knowledge, understanding
and practical competences appropriate to all ages are in the curriculum
and this should continue to be pursued alongside the voluntary approach.
However, in the interim, FSA should consider how it can best support
the development of initiatives in this area. We see merit in FSA
providing some kind of endorsement for schemes which meet the criteria
and deliver specific competences such as the OFT’s role in
approving Codes of Practice for particular trades and recommend
that this possibility be explored.
3.3 Who do you see as best placed to
make sure that young people have the opportunities to acquire these
skills and knowledge? How should we promote these to young people?
Those who are in regular contact with young people and whom they
trust are best placed to promote new opportunities and encourage
take up. It must include their teachers, health professionals, care
workers, those organising play groups and out of school activities,
youth clubs and voluntary organisations working with children, scouts
and guides, and sports bodies such as community football clubs.
There is already significant activity but it needs support and further
encouragement at a time when there are many competing pressures
for children’s time. Traditional voluntary organisations may
already be involved in similar initiatives so introduction of the
new competences could merely replace other activity. We recognise
that in today’s society a variety of foods are available to
meet different personal preferences, and cultural differences have
a significant impact on what people eat and where they consume it.
Children from diverse ethnic backgrounds should also be included
in such activities, and promotion to those groups will need the
involvement of community leaders and faith groups. Children from
disadvantaged backgrounds will inevitably be much more difficult
to reach and television (including children’s programmes)
is likely to have the greatest influence on them. Continued action
with broadcasters and regulators to change advertising and the promotion
of unhealthy products around children’s programmes must be
included in the framework. Support from role models on television
and other media is also desirable and necessary to counter adverse
impacts through advertising.
Training will be vitally important to ensure that those promoting
the activity have sufficient knowledge to stimulate interest and involvement
and are themselves competent in this area. Who is likely to be sufficiently
well informed themselves to deliver the knowledge involved in reaching
the levels set out in these competences? In-service training will
be needed for almost all people delivering these competences even
in schools where there is a low skills base in this area.
3.4 What are the costs and resource implications
for industry and enforcement bodies of adopting a voluntary approach,
or a legislative approach?
From a consumer perspective, these questions are too narrowly drafted.
While there will be costs and resource implications for any organisation
which commits itself to involvement in this programme, the voluntary
approach allows those organisations to determine the level of resource
they wish to apply while the legislative approach would impose external
costs to be met by customers or taxpayers. These need to be assessed
against the vast cost to society of ill-health arising from poor
diets and the diseases which result from obesity, eating disorders
and poor nutrition. FSA cites estimates amounting to nearly £20
billion as the direct and indirect costs to society from obesity,
coronary heart disease and food-borne illness in the UK population
but there seem to be no estimates covering children specifically.
The voluntary approach may appear cost-effective because of the
lack of inspection and enforcement costs for the food industry and
public authorities, but the UK has suffered in the past from the
lack of sustainability of individual voluntary initiatives based
on short-term funding or pump-priming. There is a lack of data in
the draft RIA on the resource that FSA itself plans to commit to
this work and no information on the potential take up by different
partners or resources which may be released from e.g. health trusts
and other statutory bodies. Voluntary agencies generally have funding
pressures and will need to prioritise this area of activity to achieve
the desired outcomes. Some public funding will need to be made available
to stimulate collaboration with voluntary groups and take these
messages beyond the existing statutory and publicly funded agencies
and into communities. FSA must monitor the effect of that activity
to assess its impact and effectiveness. Finally, how will success
be evaluated and over what timescale?
|
|
