The European dimension requires that, in addition to the national rules of each Member State, there is a set of common guidelines common to all. They are elaborated so that, among other reasons, the circulation of goods and products has ensured safety and hygiene criteria. BTSF is an initiative of the European Commission, disseminated by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and operationalized by the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA). It is aimed at organising a Community (EU) training strategy in the areas of food law, feed law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as well as plant health rules (European Commission, 2016; European Union, 2013).

The pedagogical evaluation – pedagogical review– is a requirement of the training project. It is described as a way of guaranteeing that training was developed in an andragogic approach, with adequate methodologies and motivational strategies. It is a transversal perspective, in a pedagogical matrix, that intends to analyze all the development of the training process, providing an evaluative character. While seen as a sine qua non condition for the development of accountability and responsibility processes, evaluation is an act of justification and explanation of what it is done, how it is done and why it is done. This means that, in many cases, it is needed to develop somehow processes of evaluation or self-assessment (Afonso, 2009a). The same author (Afonso, 2014) affirms that there are a series of consequences of the evaluation that are imposed and adopted by a large part of the capitalist countries in the name of democraticity and transparency and under the name of responsibility or, more generally, accountability. In this combination, the regulatory role of evaluation is evidenced, a reality equally applied to the BTSF initiative. According to Ferreira (2016), an evaluation with a regulatory function implies that the evaluation is focused on the learning process and it analyzes the information collected, according to the criteria for accomplishing the tasks. It is on these criteria that it is important to reflect, in order to obtain a more sustained and consistent evaluation. As MacDonald (1987) points out, the work of the evaluators "works as a resource to satisfy certain interests and values" (cit in Afonso, 1998).

In the double perspective of researcher and evaluator, and according to Fernandes (2010), there is a big interest in developing evaluation practices in education increasingly reflected and grounded, capable of generating more elaborate, more credible and more useful evaluation statements. Therefore, this proposal presents an analysis of the work of the pedagogical review in the BTSF initiative, as an evaluator, considering structural dimensions – evaluation indicators – and individual dimensions – perspectives of the stakeholders of the initiative. It is the need to clear approaches, conceptions and evaluation theories in order to articulate them, thus enriching the practices and results of evaluations. It is an idea that, in principle, recognizes the relevance of the theory, but also recognizes the relevance of the practices and personal experiences of the people who participate in the evaluation processes (Afonso, 2009b). The objectives are, therefore, to analyze the evaluation processes in the training of the BTSF initiative, having the reference of the regulatory role of evaluation.

Afonso, A. J. (1998). Políticas Educativas e Avaliação Educacional. Braga: Universidade do Minho. Afonso, A. J. (2009a). Nem tudo o que conta em educação é mensurável ou comparável. Crítica à accountability baseada em testes estandardizados e rankings escolares. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 13, 13-29. Afonso, A. J. (2009b). Políticas Avaliativas e Accountability em Educação — subsídios para um debate iberoamericano. Sísifo. Revista de Ciências da Educação, 9, 57-70. Afonso, A. J. (2014). Questões, Objetos e Perspetivas em Avaliação. Avaliação, Campinas; Sorocaba, SP, 19(2), 487-507. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced Mixed Methods Research Designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. European Commission. (2016, 13/07/2016). Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/btsf/index_en.htm European Union. (2013, 17/08/2015). Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/about-eu/agencies/executive_agencies/chafea/index_en.htm Fernandes, D. (2010). Acerca da articulação de perspectivas e da construção teórica em avaliação educacional. In M. T. Esteban & A. J. Afonso (Eds.), Olhares e Interfaces: reflexões críticas sobre avaliação (pp. 15-44). São Paulo: Cortez Editora. Ferreira, C. A. (Producer). (2016, 25/07/2016). Avaliação das aprendizagens: entre a certificação e a regulação. Retrieved from http://correiodaeducacao.asa.pt/72863.html MacDonald, B. (1987). Evaluation and control of education. In R. Murphy & H. Torrance (Eds.), Evaluating Education: issues and methods (pp. 36-48). London: Harper & Row/Open University.