[ΦTΣ] [FTS][Foodsci] Certified Food Scientist (IFT CFS) - reply
Rickstier4 at aol.com
Rickstier4 at aol.com
Fri Apr 27 14:28:21 EDT 2012
Dear Roger:
I agree with the comments that the time for reaching out is past. This
program needs to be put on hold and we, as an organization, need to take a step
back. Certification was discussed and rejected years ago in the days of
the Continuing Education Committee. I recall it being discussed as a source
of revenue and rejected as being too obvious a money grab. I was asked to
fill out a survey on the subject 1 - 2 years ago. I did not fill out the
survey because 1/2 way through the questions it became very obvious that the
design of the survey was slanted to give only one answer; "I am in favor
of a certification program."
Certificates and titles are much more important in other parts of the world
than in the US. Few of us add titles or credentials to business cards as
is done elsewhere. I, and I suspect many others, want to see a good
rationale for this program, besides the potential revenue. And, finally, as has
been alluded to, a program that was created after volunteers were asked to
sign non-disclosure agreements reeks of secrecy and lack of transparency.
Rick
Richard F. Stier
Consulting Food Scientists
627 Cherry Avenue
Sonoma, CA 95476, USA
TEL/FAX (707) 935-2829
email rickstier4 at aol.com
www.STRATECON-INTL.com
In a message dated 4/27/2012 6:46:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rclemens at ethorn.com writes:
Good morning, everyone.
We want to acknowledge all the recent emails and let you know that your
questions and concerns have been heard. Clearly the new IFT Certified Food
Scientist (CFS) program has highlighted a need for communication to our
membership. Overall, we simply could have done a better job gaining your
input. All of us at IFT are truly sorry if we were not effective in
communicating progress and listening to your thoughts. Please know that it was not
our intention to exclude anyone in the development of the CFS program. We
value your input and commitment to IFT and the food science and technology
profession. Working with the academic community as an important stakeholder
to IFT remains of utmost importance.
Over the next week, we will be reaching out to you with additional
information about a series of teleconferences to continue the dialogue. We welcome
your input as loyal IFT members. Ultimately, better communication will
help keep us all informed. To get us started, we wanted to provide the
following link, which we hope answers some of the questions that have been raised
in your emails.
_www.ift.org/careercenter/certification/Our-Journey.aspx_
(http://www.ift.org/careercenter/certification/Our-Journey.aspx)
Roger Clemens, DrPH
President (2011-2012)
Institute of Food Technologists
E: _raclemens at ift.org_ (mailto:raclemens at ift.org)
From: phitausigma-bounces+clemens=usc.edu at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
[mailto:phitausigma-bounces+clemens=usc.edu at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On
Behalf Of Davidson, P Michael (P Michael)
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:55 AM
To: Wayne Iwaoka; Gary Reineccius; Lee, Ken; Dennis R Heldman; Ted Labuza
PhD; David R. Lineback; Marcy, Joseph; Barbara Blakistone; Kokini, Jozef L;
Finley, John W.
Cc: foodsci at lists.osu.edu; ptsassociate at lists.osu.edu;
phitausigma at lists.osu.edu
Subject: Re: [ΦTΣ] [Foodsci] Certified Food Scientist (IFT CFS)
All,
While this is off the subject of certification, I have to agree with Gary
on the issue of annual reports to HERB. While I’m sure HERB had the “best
interests of food science programs in mind”, the CFSA was generally
strongly opposed to a yearly report. Additionally, the CFSA asked repeatedly that
HERB approve tracks which many programs offer other than the traditional “
science” track. Neither of these was done. This seems to be a serious case
of ignoring your stakeholders because, apparently, HERB is in a better
position to know what’s best for our students than we do.
In response to Ted and others as to certification, all I can say as a
member of the IFT Board of Directors, is that the viewpoint of academia was
strongly voiced at every stage in Board discussions concerning certification.
It still moved forward. As a member of the Board, I am ethically required
to support IFT Board of Directors decisions, which I do. However, I really
wish this ongoing discussion would have taken place 12-18 months ago. As Joe
Marcy, noted, this process has been moving along for several years.
Mike
************************************************
P. Michael Davidson, Professor and Head
Department of Food Science and Technology
2605 River Drive
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-4591
PH: 865-974-7331; 865-974-0098
FAX: 865-974-7332
************************************************
From: _foodsci-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu_
(mailto:foodsci-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu)
_[mailto:foodsci-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu]_ (mailto:[mailto:foodsci-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu])
On Behalf Of Wayne Iwaoka
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:40 PM
To: Gary Reineccius; Lee, Ken; _raclemens at ift.org_
(mailto:raclemens at ift.org)
Cc: _foodsci at lists.osu.edu_ (mailto:foodsci at lists.osu.edu) ;
_ptsassociate at lists.osu.edu_ (mailto:ptsassociate at lists.osu.edu) ;
_phitausigma at lists.osu.edu_ (mailto:phitausigma at lists.osu.edu)
Subject: Re: [Foodsci] Certified Food Scientist (IFT CFS) is questionable
Gary,
This comment is not about Certification of food scientists but I needed to
respond to your comments about the 2011 Guidelines and submitting annual
reports in your message below. I believe your comment "ŠIFT operating
without considering the opinions of the academic leadership" is somewhat
misleading for the work that was done on the 2011 Guidelines. I was the chair of
the Task Force that developed the IFT 2011 Resource Guide for the Approval
and Re-Approval of Undergraduate Food Science Programs. The guidelines
were developed by a group of food science academics, food industry personnel,
and food science students - all of whom were keenly interested in the
direction of food science education. The Task Force went out of its way to
solicit input at the CFSA meeting in Corvallis, OR in Nov. 2009, and also from
the IFT membership at large at the 2010 annual meeting. Many of the CFSA
and member recommendations were included in the new guidelines, however, many
Task Force members did NOT agree with the one CFSA's recommendation that
an annual reporting section not be included.
* The main reason is that several of the FS programs requesting a 5-year
re-approval from HERB provided limited or no evidence that they had carried
out the assessment of learning they proposed five years earlier (at
initial approval). Almost nothing was done to improve the quality of food
science education in these programs during the 4-year period leading up to
re-approval.
* It appeared that many programs had put their proposals on the
backburner after obtaining IFT approval and then had to scramble to report what they
did for re-approval. Thus, during the last several years, HERB had to
defer re-approval of FS programs because of missing or insufficient
information on program or course assessment.
* The three-page form-fillable annual report was a solution to this
problem. The Task Force felt that this would remind and assist programs to work
on sections of their proposals over a 4 year period rather leave it to the
end. Also, a shorter Re-Approval document containing all the annual
reports was developed to make it easier for re-approval.
I hope this provides some rationale why we had to do something different
in the 2011 guidelines. The good intentions of 2001 guidelines didn't work
as envisioned.
Lastly, I do hope you change your mind about not submitting annual program
review information. If others followed your suggestion, it would
definitely delay their FS programs from developing a better curriculum for our
future food scientists.
Wayne Iwaoka
Chair, Task Force to develop the 2011 IFT Resource Guide for Approval and
Re-Approval of Undergraduate Food Science Programs.
At 6:15 PM -0500 4/22/12, Gary Reineccius wrote:
Hello:
I had the opportunity to express my (strongly negative) opinions about the
Certified Food Scientist program directly to Roger Clements a couple
months ago when he spoke at the Minnesota IFT section meeting. I covered many of
the points each of you have raised and hope that the emails he is
receiving now might have an impact on this program and more broadly, the path IFT
is taking in decision making.
The process is one of IFT operating without considering the opinions of
the academic leadership. I believe it was two years ago when Bob McGorrin
presented the proposal to department heads (CFSA/ANDP meeting), that we
should be providing information to the IFT HERB group annually instead of every
5 years. At this meeting, every department head spoke against this change
and show of hands resulted in a unanimous vote against IFT implementing
annual reporting. It was interesting that 2 months later, IFT informed all of
us that we would be required to present some materials for HEBB every year
from then on. At the last joint head's meeting (CFSA/ANDP), there was a
presentation (by John Huff) and discussion of the proposed Certified Food
Scientist program. Again, without exception, there was opposition to the
program and now ... IFT is implementing the program. I am extremely concerned
that IFT is choosing to ignore our input. If opinions were mixed and no clear
stand was evident, IFT may take an action they favor, however, they chose
to act directly contrary to our views.
In my view, we should not be submitting program review information to HERB
annually, we should not support the Certified Food Scientist program and
perhaps consider boycotting IFT until changes are made in how IFT deals with
issues in our domain.
Gary Reineccius
Professor and Department Head
University of Minnesota
_______________________________________________
Phitausigma mailing list
Phitausigma at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/phitausigma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/phitausigma/attachments/20120427/82c09b0e/attachment.html>
More information about the Phitausigma
mailing list