<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Foodsci] Certified Food Scientist (IFT CFS) is
questi</title></head><body>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">Gary,</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">This comment is not
about Certification of food scientists but I needed to respond to your
comments about the<b> 2011 Guidelines and submitting annual
reports</b> in your message below. I believe your comment
"<font size="+1">Š</font>IFT 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<i> IFT 2011 Resource Guide for the
Approval and Re-Approval of Undergraduate Food Science
Programs. </i> 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. </font></div>
<div><font face="Symbol" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">* 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.</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">* 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. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><b>* The
three-page form-fillable annual report was a solution to this
problem.</b> 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. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">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. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">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. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">Wayne
Iwaoka</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222">Chair, Task Force to
develop the 2011 IFT Resource Guide for Approval and Re-Approval of
Undergraduate Food Science Programs.</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman" color="#222222"></font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 6:15 PM -0500 4/22/12, Gary Reineccius wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hello:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> 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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><i><b>In my view, we should not be
submitting program review information to HERB annually, we should not
support the Certified Food Scientist program<u> and</u> perhaps
consider boycotting IFT until changes are made in how IFT deals with
issues in our domain.</b></i><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><i><b> </b></i><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Gary Reineccius<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Professor and Department Head<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>University of Minnesota<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>