Food education could see another nail in the coffin, with the Department for Education (DfE) setting out new proposals to demote the subject at GCSE.
The reform would replace the existing ‘EBACC’ model, which was originally brought in to ensure students studied a sufficient suite of ‘technical/academic’ topics.
During these years, uptake in practical subjects like art, design technology and food saw a sharp drop. The Food Technology GCSE, which stood at more than 100,000 students in 2004 (pre EBACC), plummeted to just over 55,000 in 2011 post EBACC.
The intention is to increase topic breadth, offering young people more rounded educations.
It would see English, Maths and Science each with their own separate slots, two additional GCSEs coming from a list of ‘breadth’ subjects, and another two from ‘choice’ slots.
Food and Nutrition would come under ‘choice’ – a move which experts warn could have devastating impacts on the sector and wider society.
Impacts on choice and talent
For Robin Leaper, education and careers manager for the Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST), such a change would risk this vital subject becoming invisible to pupils.
He pointed to many universities which are already struggling to recruit for their food science and nutrition courses due to a “lack of a clear educational route through school”.
In fact, a Times Higher Education analysis published last year found that nearly a fifth of undergraduate food, agriculture, and related studies programmes closed between the 2024/5 and 2025/6 academic years.
As the industry looks to grow, with ambitions to expand investment, exports and innovation, it will need a steady flow of new talent to achieve these goals.
But as Caroline Keohane, head of industry growth at the Food and Drink Federation cautions, if food is placed at a lower-priority, the financially squeezed school system could axe the topic from its timetable altogether.
This risk is further intensified by the already higher costs of delivering food lessons - including facilities and ingredients.
We’re just really concerned that these decisions now will be drying up the pipeline.
Caroline Keohane, head of industry growth, FDF
Inconsistency and a lack of focus
The industry experts I spoke to believe the subject belongs in the breadth category, joining subjects such as Art and Design, History, Geography, Languages, Music, Dance, Drama, and Design and Technology (D&T).
Interestingly, Food and Nutrition is nationally recognised as part of D&T throughout key stages one to three. However, for key stage four (GSCE) it sits outside of it.
Food is already vulnerable in many settings due to constraints on space, equipment and staffing. The pressure caused by this new model will make the subject more likely to be deprioritised.
Robin Leaper, education and careers manager, IFST
Teachers had been calling for its separation from D&T with a hope to improving the subject’s contents and investment – what they didn’t expect was for it to be decoupled at GCSE level alone.
Louise Davies, founder of the Food Teachers Centre (FTC), says she’s not been able to “get to the bottom” of why the UK Government chose this route, which has resulted in an inconsistent and unequal separation of the two topics.
Food education is critical to a healthier population
Critics of the proposal are quick to point out the irony of pushing food to the side-lines amidst the ongoing health crisis we find ourselves in - and I have to agree.
It seems a bizarre choice to push food so far down the agenda despite the Government Food Strategy highlighting a need for a joined-up approach to health and nutrition.
“Nutritional awareness and practical cooking skills are fundamental to supporting a healthier population and reducing long term pressures on NHS spending,” contends Leaper.
“The proposal of putting GCSE Food and Nutrition within only the ‘choice’ slot directly opposes the aims of the National Food Strategy, specifically point 2 of the Good Growth section (Food sector attracts talent and develops skilled workforce in every region).”
Ruth Dolby director at Food Science Fusion , Co-Founder at How Many Beans?, shared similar views, calling the plans “short-sighted” and another “retrograde step in the nation’s health, wealth and food security”.
She pointed to ‘better’ times when the topic of food was taught with a cross-circular approach (e.g. Biology including food safety/basic microbiology), arguing that a move back to this model would be much more beneficial for society.
A lack of know-how has resulted in UPFs
With further education courses closing and recruitment issues persisting in the sector for several years, it’s hard to disagree with the view that the industry is already feeling the consequences of previous government decisions.
This was an area Dolby was keen to emphasise, using ultra processed foods as an example: “Why were UPFs developed? The gap in NPD created by removing Home Economists was taken by chefs with little to no food science and no multi-disciplinary communication skills training to enable them to talk to other departments that don’t understand food.
“Process specialists and chemists were then required to make them suitable for large-scale, rapid production, so they added stabilisers and substituted ingredients to help products withstand harsh factory conditions and achieve longer shelf life.
“Sensory testing showed that consumers responded well. However, little attention was paid to the effects on the body, from disruption of the brain-gut axis reducing satiety signals to the impact on teeth from foods that require minimal chewing and increase sugar plaque. Result: a blend of UPFs for the masses and elite dining for the few who can afford it.”
This is hypothesis was also shared by another expert.
Wishing to remain anonymous, the reputable industry source told Food Manufacture: “Part of the reason we face the UPF situation is that many commercial food products are produced with a combination of chefs and chemists, rather than food scientists who have a deep understanding of food, food systems, the commercial environment, and the future challenges we face and how food science, rather than chemistry, can help solve them.”
This is going to cost us
Speaking further with said industry expert, they emphasised the long-stretching impacts of these possible changes.
“There needs to be a system approach to building a pipeline to produce good quality food science graduates to help us build a better food future. Everything from how we recruit students and teachers, to what we teach them,” they said.
“And, of course, this is not just for the sake of food, but for the sake of economic growth, increased exports and investment in UK businesses, increased manufacturing productivity, achieving sustainability targets, health wellbeing and reduced spending for the NHS on non-communicable diseases, and of course, food security.”
Overall, the message from industry is clear: If these changes go ahead, it will have damning consequences for UK health and food security.
And the cost and effort to fix it by the time government realises? Significant.
