[ΦTΣ][Foodsci] Certified Food Scientist (IFT CFS) - reply

Fri Apr 27 16:01:57 EDT 2012

Re: [Foodsci] Certified Food Scientist (IFT CFS) is questiRoger -- you have reached out and you are receiving additional feedback.  It should very evident that additional communications cannot overcome the lack of communications up to this point.  The only step that will lead to open communications is assurance that further promotion of the CFS program is delayed until the Board has had an opportunity to revisit the previous decision.  It seems evident that key groups of IFT members have previously expressed serious concerns about certification, and those concerns were not communicated to the Board.

This should an opportunity to begin with an open dialog about an issue that has brought out the passions of many IFT members.

                                                                                                                  Denny Heldman

Dennis R. Heldman, PhD
Heldman Associates
5224 Kings Mills Rd; #314
Mason, OH 45040
drheldman at earthlink.net
203-770-0508

From: Roger Clemens 
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 8:54 AM
To: Davidson, P Michael (P Michael) ; 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) - reply

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 

Roger Clemens, DrPH

President (2011-2012)

Institute of Food Technologists

E: 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] On Behalf Of Wayne Iwaoka
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:40 PM
To: Gary Reineccius; Lee, Ken; raclemens at ift.org
Cc: foodsci at lists.osu.edu; ptsassociate at lists.osu.edu; 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/phitausigma/attachments/20120427/c57580da/attachment.html>