Striving for a holistic approach: exploring food education through Finnish youth centers

ABSTRACT

Food education has become an umbrella term covering various understandings of our relationship with food, originating from diverse research contexts. There is often the need to form a “holistic” understanding of what food education is and what it does. In this article, we explore a holistic approach to food education and how an informal learning environment can promote and contribute toward a holistic approach to food education. We conducted our study at four youth centers in Finland. The data were collected from seven focus groups of young people who took part in group discussions and whom we observed. We analyzed our data using content analysis. The young people developed food-related skills when discussing different food choices, planning meals, preparing food, and eating together. They evaluated their skills and talked about the kinds of food they made and why. They displayed “holistic thinking:” they created common meanings for food and considered issues related to the food system and environment. Our results indicate that informal settings comprise an important dimension of a holistic approach to food education. To improve food education in the future, we need not only a holistic approach, but also a more thorough understanding of its meanings and dimensions.

KEYWORDS:

• Food education
• holistic approach
• food preparation
• food choice
• youth centers

Introduction

The concept of “food education” has become common in international research publications since the late 1990s (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016, 96). Emphasizing the social and cultural aspects of food and eating, the phrase has become an umbrella term covering various understandings originating from diverse research and educational contexts (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016). Many of these publications (e.g., Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2015; Pendergast and Dewhurst 2012) emphasize the need to form a broader, “holistic” understanding of what food education is and what it does. As a result, a bewildering array of understandings exists because researchers from diverse scientific backgrounds tend to describe “holistic food education” differently or even leave the attribute “holistic” undefined.

Young people in the Western world engage in various learning environments related to food with different actors. The role of the school varies as home economics is no longer taught as a subject in many countries. Interestingly, there are more and more voices calling for this subject to be restored to school curricula (Lichtenstein and Ludwig 2010). Some researchers are arguing for new methods of teaching the subject, to explore its full potential (Beinert et al. 2020), while others recommend that more time being devoted to the subject would be sufficient (Ballam 2018). There are also calls for more student-centered methods that make use of modern food contexts that speak to the young and support their learning journey, ensuring their experiences are life-changing and last all their lives (Ballam 2021).

Home still plays a major role in developing food preparation skills and eating habits (e.g., Murcott 2014, 90–93; Wolfson et al. 2017, 232). However, changes in society, everyday life and work life have reduced the amount of time devoted to food preparation in many homes (Gatley, Caraher, and Lang 2014, 77–78). Therefore, young people now have fewer opportunities to learn from their parents or guardians. Alongside home and school, children and young people also learn food- and eating-related knowledge and skills during their leisure time and when they practice their hobbies, as is the case in Finland (Kauppinen 2018; Kauppinen, Kiilakoski, and Palojoki 2021).

Drawing upon both theory and empirical data, in this article we explore the existence of a holistic approach to food education and examine the role of youth centers in contributing to such an approach for Finnish young people. To understand the challenges surrounding the implementation of a holistic approach, we first compare and discuss some commonly used concepts. The concepts taken as examples here account for the following perspectives: food and eating are discussed in the context of health and nutrition (Contento 2011); social, cultural, economic, and environmental aspects are acknowledged (Kimura 2011); and sustainability and food safety issues are addressed (Swan and Flowers 2015). Second, we explore how an informal learning environment without a curriculum or a specific model can promote and contribute to a holistic approach to food education. Our empirical research was conducted at four youth centers in Helsinki, Finland.

Key concepts of food education

Skills and literacy

Food skills are used as a concept to explore individuals and their everyday food preparation skills and learning. Food skills are, in particular, skills in food selection, procurement, preparation, and eating (Porter, Capra, and Watson 2000, 51). This concept can be viewed from several dimensions, such as food preparation at home and professional food preparation, food preparation methods, and food economics (Fordyce-Voorham 2016, 266).

Food literacy has been commonly used in studies where there is more emphasis on health and nutrition (Truman and Elliott 2019); however, in recent years, perspectives on sustainable development have also been discussed (Renwick and Jordan Powell 2019). Generally, food literacy includes both cognitive and practical skills, aiming to include both individual and social levels (see Table 1) (Vidgen and Gallegos 2014). However, practical skills and an awareness of social meanings related to food have received less attention (Truman, Lane, and Elliott 2017, 369–370). In a broader sense, food literacy aims to bring together food skills, food culture, the global food system, health-related activities, and environmental sustainability (Pendergast and Dewhurst 2012, 249–251). It combines food and nutrition knowledge and food skills, as well as individual abilities and behaviors (Ronto et al. 2016, 550; Vidgen and Gallegos 2014, 54). Interestingly, despite different definitions, food literacy has been the key concept behind food policies across the world (Palumbo et al. 2019) and at the communal level (e.g., Slater et al. 2018). Yet, according to Vidgen and Gallegos (2014), food literacy does not have a common definition accepted by the research community. Even in 2019, the definition of the concept varied based on the context of its application (Renwick and Jordan Powell 2019; Thomas et al. 2019), and still in 2022 there were inconsistent understandings of the concept depending on the context (Fingland, Thompson, and Anna Vidgen 2021). The common feature of these studies is that they focus on individuals of varied age groups who may or may not possess food skills or food literacy. The agency of these individuals is implicit, and they are seen as actors in each context, rather than being capable of changing that context. The holistic view remains poorly defined because many of these studies imply that covering a wide array of elements relevant to food education is enough for the study to be “holistic” (see e.g., Pendergast and Dewhurst 2012).

Table 1. Examples of a holistic approach using key concepts related to food education.

Citizenship and agency

Food-related citizenship emphasizes an understanding of the food system and encourages taking action to promote sustainability. It builds on everyday actions and highlights people’s ability to influence through their choices (Wilkins 2005, 71). It combines active, food-related behavior related to the formation and maintenance of sustainable food systems (Wilkins 2005, 72). In a sociological study, Gómez-Benito and Lozano (2014, 152) defined a food citizen as “the individual who has access to enough healthy, quality food or who mobilizes himself to achieve it.” The concept of food citizenship helps to expand the debate about the rights and duties of citizens regarding the field of food (Lozano-Cabedo and Gómez-Benito 2017, 2) and to understand the roles that individual and collective actors have in a food system (Mendez, Gina, and Farrell 2021, 16–17). These two explanations help to see food choices at a systemic level.

Food agency aims to define how individuals set and achieve food-related goals (Trubek et al. 2017; Wolfson et al. 2017) and to consider the interaction between individual choices and social structures (Lahne, Wolfson, and Trubek 2017, 97; Trubek et al. 2017, 298–299). People with food agency are empowered to prepare food and healthy meals and to improve their nutritional status (Trubek et al. 2017). Food agency combines internal factors that shape individual functioning and external factors related to interaction and community (Wolfson et al. 2017, 1152). 2020) study, which took place in the US, indicated that food agency is an effective tool to understand cooking and food skills and behaviors. These definitions emphasize the active role of individuals as members of their society, supporting previous concepts that focus on individuals. The drive to devise a holistic approach is articulated in the abovementioned examples through the coverage of both individual and societal factors.

Everyday life

Recent Finnish research on food education has added two new concepts that focus more on values and active agency. The concept of sustainable values regarding food and meals (ruokasivistys in Finnish) focuses on good manners, social skills, respect for food, and responsible choices in everyday life (Lintukangas and Palojoki 2016, 30). It brings together internalized knowledge, skills, and know-how to comprehend the meaning of food in one’s life. In everyday practice, the concept is reflected in the rational use and economy of food, minimizing wastage, and responsible and caring behavior toward oneself, others, and the entire living environment (Lintukangas and Palojoki 2016, 30). In this definition, the attribute “internalized” is important: it emphasizes a deep understanding of food-related facts and an explicit knowledge-in-practice relationship to food-related knowledge. This is in contrast with the approaches that do not clearly discuss the quality of knowledge obtained. Knowledge can be rote-learned or passive, or can just remain a cognitive component among the behavioral components in a study that is designed to cover as many factors as possible (e.g., Venter 2006).

Food sense (ruokataju in Finnish) ambitiously aims to combine people’s everyday understanding of food choices with their understanding of the food system (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016, 99). The need for a more holistic approach has been the main reason for the development of the concept of food sense (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016, 94–96). Food sense seeks to take into account the progressively deepening and complex nature of food learning using three levels of food sense: understanding, applying, and re-defining (Janhonen, Torkkeli, and Mäkelä 2018, 196). Food sense focuses on a personal understanding of and active agency regarding food choices, as well as the ability to perceive the social, cultural, and everyday meanings of eating (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016, 99). Food sense can also be understood as an individual thinking skill that supports the incorporation of food knowledge into young people’s lives and changing everyday situations. The concept has been developed and tested in three contexts: school (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016; Janhonen and Elkjaer 2022), home (Janhonen, Torkkeli, and Mäkelä 2018), and youth centers (Kauppinen 2018).

Both of these concepts aim to set individual understandings in a broader context of the surrounding world and global phenomena. They enable the active use of individual values, awareness, and courage in everyday food choices.

A holistic approach to food education

The researcher is never a passive observer of the research subject but is always an active part of the system (Deutsch 1998). A holistic approach to educational sciences sees learning and education as ongoing processes (e.g., lifelong learning). It sees humans not only as learning individuals but also as social subjects who are at the same time both individuals and central parts of the whole (e.g., society, own culture or ethnic group). This kind of holistic approach is like a puzzle, where the whole is only understood when all the pieces are in place (Akmençe, Akpinar, and Akmençe 2015, 3). Interestingly, pedagogic perspectives have been rare in studies focusing on food education. Individuals are always learning subjects whose learning processes require understanding, combining, and interpreting different food-related skills (Palojoki 1997).

While exploring what a holistic approach could mean in the context of food education, we contrasted concepts that focus on individual perspectives with those that emphasize community and society. As a result, we developed a continuum (from individual to society) that includes six elements representing the focus of our research (Table 1).

Food education is often viewed as individual knowledge and skills related to food and eating (e.g., Fordyce-Voorham 2016). Cognitive skills are emphasized because food-related knowledge is recognized as multilevel and complex (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016). Food education can combine the aspects and activities of individuals, community, and society, as reflected in the concept of citizenship (Gómez-Benito and Lozano 2014). However, the interaction between individual activities, cultural and social structures, and values is central to food education and could also be linked to agency (cf. Lahne, Wolfson, and Trubek 2017). Agency refers to proactive actions to achieve a common objective of a community. It is associated with the will to be active, goal-oriented, responsible, and motivated (Greeno 2006, 538–540). Agency involves the ability to influence and understand available resources (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, 963–964). It also promotes people’s understanding and learning (Kauppinen 2018; Kauppinen, Kiilakoski, and Palojoki 2021). Since one of the goals of food education is to understand the broader meanings of eating in society (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016), the concepts used should also reflect a perspective on the food system (cf. Cullen et al. 2015).

Food literacy has a broader definition than food skills and food citizenship. Food sense emphasizes active agency and personal experiences (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016), whereas food agency emphasizes individual capabilities and the role of social interactions (Wolfson et al. 2017). Both concepts, food sense and food agency, share the idea that individual motivation to learn and act is strengthened by the ability to set goals and make decisions. To succeed in that, one’s capabilities, available resources, and boundary conditions (e.g., time and common rules) should be identified and utilized.

Elements related to food education are important (Table 1), but as pieces of a puzzle, they do not as such form a holistic way of thinking or a holistic picture. When discussing a holistic approach, different levels of relating the personal through the community to society must also be considered. A holistic approach represents a continuum of individual levels of learning, leading to activities as part of a community and society. As shown in Table 1, movement along this continuum may also start from a societal perspective, such as food security. The focus on interactions between the elements and levels is vital; it makes a holistic approach dynamic, showing how challenging it is to understand something that is constantly changing, whether this is the individual or society, or any cognitive, affective, or behavioral factors related to them.

Research question

In our study, we explored a holistic approach to food education and how an informal learning environment without a curriculum or a specific food education model or objectives can promote and contribute toward a holistic approach to food education. The context of our research was four youth centers in Helsinki, Finland, and our main research question was the following: How do the different levels and elements of a holistic approach to food education appear in youth centers?

Materials and methods

Research context and participants

In the Finnish formal education system, food education starts with early childhood education and continues until the end of comprehensive school, where home economics is a compulsory subject for all pupils (Kauppinen and Palojoki 2019; National Nutrition Council 2018; Haapaniemi, Palojoki, and Taar 2022). In addition to schools and homes, young people learn skills related to food and food preparation through informal learning outside of school (Kauppinen 2018; Wolfson et al. 2017). In many Finnish cities, leisure-time food education is part of youth education, although it is not always recognized as such. In recent years, youth centers have begun to offer young people regular opportunities to cook together (Kauppinen 2018). Youth centers provide informal learning environments (Kauppinen, Kiilakoski, and Palojoki 2021, 13–14) that are not defined by curricula or other predetermined objectives, are learner-led and voluntary, and motive young people to learn new knowledge, skills, and abilities (Eshach 2007, 173–174). These centers give young people opportunities to think about food-related issues from different perspectives.

We gathered the qualitative data for our research in 2016 at four youth centers in Helsinki. In Finland, youth work is seen as education that is independent and differs from formal education and social work. Municipalities are the main providers of youth services, but parishes and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also run such centers. Traditionally, these facilities have been considered the main arenas for municipal youth work, but the significance of cross-sectoral cooperation has increased lately (Forkby and Kiilakoski 2014, 7–8). At Finnish youth centers, young people can meet their friends, participate in activities, socialize with peers, and get encouragement and help from adults. Social interaction plays an important role in all of the activities available which are also mainly based on the interests of young people.

Food and food-related practices are part of the social construction of youth centers (Kauppinen, Kiilakoski, and Palojoki 2021, 2). Young people may bring their own snacks and buy snacks from a kiosk or café on the premises. Youth centers and other leisure-time foodscapes can also serve as learning environments (Kauppinen, Kiilakoski, and Palojoki 2021, 14).

In 2015, the four youth centers that made their premises available for our research launched a youth kitchen project (Nutakeittiö in Finnish) to promote healthy eating among young people, strengthen their food preparation skills, and promote sustainable consumption. The project was implemented in cooperation with a grocery store chain that donated surplus food to the youth centers. Using this surplus food or food bought from stores, young people designed meals based on the ingredients available, prepared the food, and ate with their peers. Hunger was the primary motivation for preparing food at the youth center, but the young people were also interested in food preparation (Kauppinen 2018, 132). These four centers were the only facilities actively involved in the youth kitchen project at the time we collected our data.

Youth workers invited young people to participate in the study. It is possible that they may have recruited certain types of young people and thus inadvertently introduced biases into the participant selection process. To avoid this and to involve even more participants, the first author asked the young people to invite other peers who could and would like to take part in the discussions. Participation was voluntary, and all interested persons were allowed to participate if their parents approved. Only one participant was excluded due to a lack of parental permission. As described above, all young people in Finland attend home economics classes in school, so the study participants already had some knowledge and skills related to food and food preparation. They were able to discuss where they had learned what they knew and to strive for a holistic perspective on food at the individual, community and societal levels. Their common knowledge also made it possible for them to describe, how formal, informal, and non-formal learning environments are connected to each other.

The final sample included 20 young people aged between 13 and 17 years (7 girls and 13 boys) who were active participants in the youth kitchen project. This sample is small compared to the overall number of young people who visit youth centers; however, it was sufficient, considering the number of those who participated in the project during data collection. The group sizes and number of groups formed at the different youth centers were influenced by the young people’s schedules, the fact that only a few young people had committed to the activities at some youth centers, and the young people’s desire to take part in discussions with their own friends.

Data collection

Qualitative data were collected from seven focus groups of young people. Two group discussion sessions were held with each focus group, resulting in a total of 14 discussion sessions. The primary data for this study (the group discussions) were supplemented by secondary data obtained from observation of activities such as planning meals, dividing tasks, choosing ingredients, preparing food and eating together (Catherine and Rossman 2006, 100–101). During the observation phase, photographs of the youth centers’ environments and activities were taken to support the entries. This secondary data helped us understand the young people’s activities and develop reliable interpretations of food education in youth centers.

We used the cultural interview approach (Rubin and Rubin 2005, 10–18) to gather different perspectives and interpretations from the participants (Hennink 2013, 13). A discussion guide, including a list of questions, was designed to address the issues that were relevant to the research. The first author ensured that the discussion followed the themes of the study and provided prompts if necessary. Our aim was to encourage the young people to engage in discussion voluntarily, so we used the questions only if the discussion did not proceed naturally. Depending on the situation, the following themes were discussed: learning things related to food (home economics, home, other sources), looking for information about food or food preparation, talking with peers about food and eating, advising and getting help from peers, guidance from the youth workers, learning outcomes in the youth kitchen project and the usability of the skills and knowledge learned for example, at home or at school.

The aim of the first group discussion was to collect data on food education. The perspectives that emerged in the first discussion were summarized and presented to the group in the second discussion. This ensured that the young people were correctly understood and could discuss the themes of the study in depth. The second discussion raised new issues and reinforced our understanding of what the young people felt was particularly important.

Analysis

The group discussions were recorded (6 hours and 19 minutes in total) and transcribed (113 pages). Observations were documented in a research journal (37 pages). Immediately after each discussion, the first author compiled descriptive summaries to capture instant impressions. In addition, the first sessions with each focus group was transcribed and analyzed for the first time before the second session with the same group. In the second session, the young people were given the opportunity to refine and/or correct the entries and interpretations made at that stage.

The analysis was conducted using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Wilkinson 2004) to examine the existence of the elements and levels of the holistic approach in the data (Table 1). The main themes from the discussions were deductively analyzed based on the holistic approach to food education presented above. First, we used the six elements – knowledge related to eating habits, knowledge and skills related to food preparation, cognitive skills, social and cultural aspects, agency and food system – as tools to analyze the data. Second, on the basis of these elements, we formed links from personal knowledge, skills, and understanding to communality – that is, from the personal level to the community and society levels. In the last stage of the analysis, we also analyzed observation data, and linked our findings to the levels. We ensured the trustworthiness of the results by repeating the analysis twice.

The first author collected and analyzed the data and drafted the initial manuscript. In the analysis phase, the first author reviewed the results with the youth workers and with the second author. Both authors conceptualized and designed the study and reviewed and revised the manuscript. Finally, both authors read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Results

From the personal level to the community level

We found that the young people’s knowledge and skills played a major role in the choices they made and what they ate. Dynamics at home played an important role, namely, what was eaten at home, what factors influenced what was eaten there, and what the eating habits at home were like. Alongside home, the young people felt that school meals also influenced eating habits and that their role was twofold. On the one hand, school meals were thought to support healthy eating habits, but on the other hand, skipping school meals could lead to less healthy choices. As individual contributors to eating habits, the young people talked a lot about what is healthy and what is not. They were also able to name where they developed food-related knowledge and skills.

We talk at home about what is healthy. And in home economics lessons. I know that school food is healthy. There’s that plate model. But the food isn’t always good. (Girl 1, 14, group D)

However, we found that awareness was not always reflected in the eating habits and choices of the young people (cf. Palojoki 2003; Palojoki and Tuomi-gröhn 2001. Their eating habits were illustrated by the choices they made when choosing food and getting snacks outside school and in the home environment. In addition, the young people were aware of how much food they and their families could afford to buy, and even their moods drove their eating habits. The young people stated that their preferences, financial situation, and peer choices had an impact on their own food choices.

The participants evaluated their skills using their school’s grading system. Most gave their skills a good or excellent rating, and they believed that they were able to prepare food in everyday life. In discussions, they were also able to identify skills that they wanted to learn or improve, such as cooking a steak, seasoning, and following instructions. The young people who participated in the group discussions were also able to assess each other’s food preparation skills, as shown in the following conversation:

Boy 3 (14, group F): I’m an expert in seasoning. He (Boy 2, 14) is the frying man, and he (Boy 3, 14) is the man who does everything else.

Boy 2 (15, group F): Why do I feel like I still do the most?

Boy 3 (14, group F): You’re a frying man. You never want to do seasoning. It gets on your nerves if somebody puts soy sauce in food.

Boy 2 (15, group F): Well, yeah. Anyway, we taste together. You two put too much.

Boy 1 (14, group F): Well, but you (pointing to Boy 2) are the best of us. You know everything.

The division of tasks was often based on expertise. Young people were asked for help on tasks that they themselves or their friends believed they were good at (e.g., Boy 2, 14).

In our data, the question of the healthiness of food emerged most often compared to other themes. Health was examined through comparisons between “healthy” and “unhealthy.” Moreover, young people highlighted contextual differences, such as between school meals, family meals, and eating with peers. They were able to provide details about the food they eat:

Half of the plate is salad at home, 1/3 fish, meat, chicken, shrimp, egg. There is potato, pasta, rice, in the other 1/3 [shows an imaginary plate in the air with his hands]. But now I’m going to tell you what I eat. Half of the plate is salad, one part is fish, and the other part is pasta or rice, sometimes. I eat dark pasta. It’s healthier. I drink water. Sometimes milk and sometimes juice. But I don’t always follow the plate model and don’t eat enough vegetables. (Boy 1, 15, group G)

In terms of health, young people also paid attention to the health of others and even the social impact of their choices.

The shift toward communality: understanding the cultural, social, and everyday meanings of food

The young people brought up many meanings of food preparation and eating. The aspects of social interaction and cultural differences were most prominent when they talked about food preparation and eating with their friends.

It was noted during the study that the young people cared not only about what they ate but also about what others ate. The data showed that when planning their meals, young people took into account the needs and preferences of the other young people they were eating with. They also highlighted good ways to prepare food and eat together to get to know people and have fun together:

There are new friends here. It’s fun if you give some good food to your friends or family and they like it. It will make you feel good. It makes me feel good. I like it. (Girl 1, 15, group G)

Caring about what one eats and about what others eat can be based on weight- and appearance-related pressures of society and is also driven by environmental concerns to guide eating in a more sustainable direction (Sage 2014). In our study, too, the young people discussed health and sustainability issues. They talked about good and bad choices and divided the choices into “right” and “wrong.”

For the young people, food was one part of their everyday routines and nutrition; they also appreciated eating together and preparing food for people other than themselves. Food preparation for others and with others highlighted the different habits and choices linked to lifestyle, diet, and religion. Meanings were shared when discussing different foods and food preparation methods during shared tasks and meals.

Acting and influencing in the community and society

Food preparation skills played a central role in our data. As young people prepared more food and felt that they coped with the preparation, they also took more responsibility for their eating habits (Kauppinen 2018, 76). Based on this study, we concluded that the young people were not only learning new things when preparing food in the youth center but were also utilizing and deepening their already existing knowledge and skills. Together with their peers, they were solving problems and developing common approaches:

But it is always the case that we are creative, and we act based on what has been done before. If we want to do something and we do not have a specific raw material, then we will think together and come up with the idea that now we will do this and hope it will be good. Usually, we succeed. (Boy 2, 15, group F)

When food is prepared together with peers, existing knowledge translates into action, and new knowledge accumulates (cf. Wenger 2009). Peer learning reinforces the self-esteem of the skillful person as she or he helps another young person to learn, and it enables learning and application of what has been learned for both.

Based on our data, we concluded that food preparation and eating together in youth centers were educating young people regarding some crucial characteristics of the food system. In some centers, youth workers are responsible for the supply of raw materials; however, as part of other youth kitchen projects, young people fetch food from the shop before the actual food preparation, and especially in those centers, the food chain from store to plate becomes clear. When youth workers go shopping with young people, there is an opportunity to discuss details such as the price of food and the origin of the ingredients, locality, sustainability, and culture:

We were together [with the youth worker] in the store, and we discussed how much we should buy. (Boy 1, 16, group E)

Yeah, in the store, of course. And we looked at the prices. (Boy 2, 16, group E)

And whether the item was from Finland. (Boy 1, 16, group E)

The young people raised issues related to environmental education and sustainable consumption. It was most prominent when discussing wasted food and waste sorting, though it was also associated with food preparation skills. Deepening food preparation skills, particularly meal planning skills, is a way to reduce waste and remaining food (Simona et al. 2018).

In youth centers that also undertake cultivation, young people get to experience primary production and learn about the origin of food (cf. Smeds 2017). In these kinds of youth centers, it is easier for young people to understand the food system from the beginning through practice. Growing vegetables by themselves and picking berries and mushrooms in the youth centers in Helsinki educate them about the relationship between food and nature.

Preparing and eating food with peers creates an inspirational and versatile learning environment (Kauppinen, Kiilakoski, and Palojoki 2021). In addition, leisure activities can motivate young people to cook (Kauppinen 2018). According to our study, young people developed food-related skills and knowledge when discussing different food choices, planning and preparing food, and eating with their peers in the youth centers. They also evaluated their skills and talked about what kind of food they were preparing and why. In these conversations, they showcased a “holistic approach:” they created common meanings for food from social and cultural viewpoints, and they considered issues related to the food system and environment.

Discussion

As our data revealed, food education in informal learning environments such as youth centers, in addition to formal education and learning at home, can strengthen a holistic approach related to food and eating. Preparing food and eating with peers come across as meaningful and inspiring to young people. When young people learn with their peers in a context that is meaningful to them, the knowledge and skills acquired form a whole and can be incorporated into their daily activities (Kauppinen 2018). The results of this study also show that, at least when asked, young people are able to assess their knowledge and skills and relate their skills to those of other young people. When striving for a holistic approach to food education, young people need adults to lead them in discussions on what kinds of knowledge and skills exist and how and where their knowledge and skills have evolved.

Young people’s activities and choices are guided by their understanding of the phenomena linked to food and eating and by the positive and negative consequences of these phenomena experienced by themselves, other people, the community, and the environment (Janhonen, Mäkelä, and Palojoki 2016; Kauppinen 2018). For the development of a holistic approach to food education, it is essential that young people understand food-related phenomena by interlinking what has been learned previously in the different learning environments, such as at school, at home, and at youth centers.

It is likewise important to understand that food choices can be made in very different ways depending on the age of the actor. Young people want to influence things that are important to them. They are able to learn with peers in meaningful environments, as this allows the integration of school-learned knowledge into everyday life (Kauppinen 2018). In this way, youth centers differ from formal education and schools as arenas for food education because schools may not have the capacity to create the necessary connections between food and young people’s everyday lives and experiences. If a holistic approach is viewed as a puzzle, where the whole is only understood when all the pieces are in place (Akmençe, Akpinar, and Akmençe 2015), then youth centers provide an important piece and learning context for food education.

As discussed in this article, there are many concepts associated with food education and, likewise, many understandings of what a holistic approach means. This variety has its foundations in different scientific disciplines and methodological paradigms. From the point of view of a holistic approach to research, food education needs to be viewed across traditional disciplines so that the perspective is neither confined to a particular discipline or discourse, nor to school context only. A holistic approach helps to identify complex interactions and interdependencies (Rohweder et al. 2008). Achieving a holistic approach requires discussions and shared understandings between different disciplines, actors, and experts. It requires an urge to define what a holistic approach really means in a study. At worst, a holistic approach is only used as an attribute reflecting the need to cover as many aspects of the research problem at hand as possible.

Ethics statement

We followed the ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences published by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (2019). Prior to beginning, the study was approved by the City of Helsinki. Before conducting the group discussions, the data collector explained the purpose of the study to the participants and informed them of the level of commitment required from them. Participants were also ensured that their responses would be kept confidential. This information was also provided in written form, and the participants were asked to discuss their roles in the study with their parents. Finally, verbal consent was obtained from the participants. In accordance with the norms and practices of the youth centers, parental consent was sought for participants under the age of 15. According to the guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (2019, 19–23), an external ethical review is not required in this type of study if the participants are 15 years old, or if there are participants under 15 years of age consent has been obtained from a parent or carer.

Strengths and limitations

From the viewpoint of trustworthiness of this study, the role of the researcher is always important. Our analysis and interpretations are partly affected by our professional histories. The first author has extensive professional experience in the field of youth work as both a practitioner and researcher. The second author has studied food-related learning in informal and non-formal settings and developed food education in Finland. However, during both the collection and analysis of data for this study, the first author paid attention to her role and ability to understand young people. Each group of young people was asked to participate in two discussions to enable the authors to completely understand the perspectives of the young people and avoid misunderstandings. The group discussions were supplemented with observations that deepened the contextual understanding of the comments of the young. This qualitative study was conducted among a limited number of respondents in one city of Finland. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to a large extent. Despite this, the study’s findings resonate with the challenges related to food education in wider international contexts.

Conclusion

In this article, we have discussed a holistic approach that includes six concepts of food education and explored how young people’s experiences of informal food education form an integral part of a holistic approach. These six key concepts overlap, and the research community rarely shares a joint understanding of their definitions. The relationship between these concepts, particularly food literacy, food sense, and food agency, needs to be further clarified. Multidisciplinary discussions, in turn, would help to develop shared understandings of these concepts and define what is meant by a holistic approach.

Food is part of everyday lives at all times, and young people especially encounter different formal and informal food learning environments that are not always linked. Many pieces of the puzzle are provided for the young, but these pieces do not necessarily form a coherent picture (see Akmençe, Akpinar, and Akmençe 2015). When developing and researching food education, it is important to build a complete picture of food-related learning events, identify factors that influence food decisions in different contexts and learn about the connections and consequences of one’s choices. This may be called a holistic approach, but educators and researchers should nevertheless articulate more clearly what it means for their endeavors.

It is also necessary to consider and reflect on how educators’ and researchers’ professional and scientific backgrounds influence the way in which concepts are constructed and evaluated. Conceptual development is always anchored to the societal context and the food system of the home country of the researchers. This makes the conceptual comparisons, as we have offered here, useful. Every once in a while, researchers have to stop and reflect upon what kind of conceptual apparatus they are using and why. From the perspective of future food education, a holistic approach is needed, but with a more thorough understanding of its dimensions.

In conclusion, food is a tool for learning in both formal and informal learning environments because it reflects so much more than health and the healthiness of food choices. Examining the concepts related to food education has revealed the challenges that many, partly divergent and partly parallel concepts may pose. It is important to be aware of this when planning and implementing food education projects and programs in which these concepts are applied and where the holistic approach is utilized. The most effective model in different situations depends on the purpose and goal; it is necessary to choose the framework that best contributes to the achievement of the objectives (Truman, Bischoff, and Elliott 2020, 442). However, from the perspective of a holistic approach, one should always take into account the different levels from the individual through to society (see Table 1); the fact is, choices and actions of the individual are always related to other people, the environment, and society.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Elli Suninen and Rachel Troberg Foundation