How professional is professional?
By most measurements — food quality, training, value, general competencies — Australia has one of the most developed and sophisticated commercial cookery industry sectors in the world and in some respects, we lead the way in the culinary arts especially in conditions of employment.
Supporting the many impressive chef artisans who are shaping Australia as a great culinary center, we have a number of chefs associations including the Australian Culinary Federation, Les Toques Blanches and the Académie Culinaire de France. And a relatively new organization 10 years old as at 2025 (The Australian Institute of Technical Chefs A.I.T.C.) That aims to prevent people from claiming to be a chef without evidence.
They chefs’ associations run competitions, facilitate networking, offer workshops, organize social events, disseminate information through websites and newsletters, and arrange many other activities that one would expect from a professional association. They provide an immense service to the chef community; particularly given they are operated by honorary committees.
Excepting A.I.T.C. notwithstanding their good intentions, I suggest they all lack the most important element to make them a true professional organization.
They do not require applicant members to document their foundation training and development, nor do they request evidence of continuous development during a set period of association for subsequent approval.
Currently the minimum qualification to join a chef’s organization in Australia basically amounts to the ability to complete an application form and pay a fee and hope that no one in the organization questions the application. The process usually involves a cursory committee discussion based around “who know this applicant” followed by an inevitable stamp of approval and consequent lifelong endorsement.
Isn’t it time that chef’s associations introduced rules requiring prospective members to undergo examinations or demonstrate minimum documented qualifications? Not to mention setting fixed membership terms, at the end of which proof of continuous development is required?
If associations believe they are really “professional” and claim they represent professionals, why not go down this path and review admission prerequisites?
If commercial cookery is ever going develop into a bona fide profession in every aspect –
and not continue to be just a job identified by the now meaningless term “chef” (as understood by the public to mean anyone who can follow a recipe) — chef’s organizations must consider the difficult but evolutionary road necessary to protect the future by requiring members to justify their association in a more measured, objective way.
Obviously, a profound change in entry requirements will be seen as a threatening move by some who may not like the idea of being tested to prove their competence through official documentation or examination. This may apply particularly to those who wish to hide behind the obsolete term ‘chef’, because they believe it has some professional connotations for a respected artisan.
George Hill 08:31, 26 September 2011 (EST)