After hearing presentations of the Electromagnetic Spectrum sections which was the final section on the study of waves, Grade 7 students investigated the pros and cons of food irradiation. Since the invention of irradiating food in the 1920's, it only became a practice in 1965 in the U.S. after World War II out of desperation to make food last longer. However, researchers are still unsure of its effects on humans when we eat the irradiated food.
The issues which were discussed in the textbook were:
- Does Irradiation Destroy Nutrients in Food?
- Does Irradiation Change the Food Itself?
- Will Irradiating Food Make People Less Careful About Handling Food?
After given the assignment, Grade 7 students researched pros and cons in small groups. After the research, they discussed with partners what they found and as a whole group for whichever position they were taking. After comparing notes with each other, they then held a group debate giving reasons for or against food irradiation. I was impressed with the level of thinking and research skills that students displayed. Many good points were made on both sides. After a 40 minute heated discussion, students pulled together from both sides (for and against) to make a proposal to the government regarding the safety and/or use of irradiation.
To Grade 7 Students:
Step 1: Please introduce what we did in class to begin your blog post regarding this topic.
Step 2: You may use question 1: In your own words, explain the problem of food irradiation which you gained from reading page 89 in your textbook.
Step 3: Then, give some pros and cons for both sides that you gained either from your research or from the discussion you had in your group. List some reasons for and against: food irradiation.
Please include the following in your blog post:
What was the proposal your group gave? Do you believe science in this case was a good invention? Why or why not? How was science used to address a global food problem with irradiation? Is it effective in solving the global food problem? Why or why not? Are there any moral, ethical, or environmental implications of the use of irradiation to solve global food issues? If you think there are, what are they and why do you think so?
Step 4: Answer question 3: You see two containers of a food at the supermarket. One is irradiated; one is not. The price is the same. Which would you buy? Explain why.
****How did your thinking change throughout the debate, if at all? How did this type of activity help you to see both sides or at least explore the issues further? Did you like it? Why or why not?
