The English version of the November 2026 issue of the Journal of Environmental Health (Volume 89, Number 4), published by the National Environmental Health Association.
Environmental Health To build, sustain, and empower an effective environmental health workforce Volume 89, No. 4 November 2026 Journal of
neha.org
Published by the National Environmental Health Association
Environmental Health To build, sustain, and empower an effective environmental health workforce Volume 89, No. 4 November 2026 Journal of
ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
ABOUT THE COVER
Consistent, high- quality retail food inspections are essential to prevent- ing foodborne illness and protect- ing public health. This month’s cover article presents findings from
International Perspectives: Development of Spatial Noise Maps and Perceived Health Risks for Itinerant Workers in Lagos, Nigeria ..................................................................... 8
ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
A National Census of Retail Food Inspector Standardization: Workforce Capacity, Training Practices, and Opportunities for Expansion in the United States...............................14
the first national census of retail food inspec- tor standardization, establishing a baseline for workforce development and expansion. Of 530 responding jurisdictions, 53% reported Food and Drug Administration-guided standardization, covering about 70% of U.S. retail food establish- ments. The authors estimate that standardizing approximately 7,940 additional inspectors would achieve an 85% national standardization target. Their recommendations outline opportunities for targeted investment, regional collaboration, and expanded training capacity, providing a measur- able pathway toward more consistent retail food safety oversight nationwide. See page 14. Cover images © iStockphoto: master1305
International Perspectives: Building a Multisectoral Coalition to Prevent Lead Exposure in Ethiopia .................................................................................................................................. 24
Building Capacity: People, Pipes, and Population Series—Part 4: A Director’s Framework for Real-World Modernization ..................................................................................................... 32
Direct From ATSDR: Reconstructing the Past to Protect Communities Today ............................... 36
The Practitioner’s Tool Kit: Reevaluating Quaternary Ammonium Compounds . .......................... 40
ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTITIONER
Environmental Health Calendar................................................................................................44
Spotlight on NEHA Resources: Supporting Our Students . .......................................................... 47
ADVERTISERS INDEX
CDP, Inc................................................................35 Handheld Scientific Systems...................................2 Hedgerow Software...............................................69 HS GovTech..........................................................70 JEH Advertising..................................................... 42 NEHA Awards.................................................39, 67 NEHA CP-FS Study Guide....................................35 NEHA Endowment Foundation Donors..............34 NEHA Membership................................................4 NEHA REHS/RS Credential..................................44 NEHA REHS/RS Online Study Course.................43 NEHA REHS/RS Study Guide...............................43 NEHA Student Research Competition..................46 NEHA/AAS Scholarship........................................46 NEHA/AAS Scholarship Fund Donors..................45 NSF......................................................................... 5
YOUR ASSOCIATION
President’s Message: Nobody Wants to Eat Your Poop .............................................................................. 6
Special Listing............................................................................................................................48
NEHA 2026 AEC Wrap-Up.......................................................................................................50
NEHA AEC 2027.......................................................................................................................65
U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ownership...............................................................................66
NEHA News...............................................................................................................................68
3
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
Join our environmental health community. It is the only community of people who truly understand what it means to do what you do every day to protect the health of our communities. Join us today. Your people are waiting. neha.org/membership Find Your People. Find Your Training. Find Your Resources.
in the next Journal of Environmental Health dmonis’ts h Environmental Aesthetics Awareness and Sustainable Nutritional Behaviors of Adults Living in Turkey h Identifying Effective Message Frames for Communicating About Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamina- tion in Drinking Water h Pilot Study of Air and Noise Pollution From Diesel and Electric Buses
Official Publication
An open access journal published monthly (except bimonthly in January/February and July/August) by the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), 1400 S. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 325, Denver, CO 80222-3658. Phone: (303) 802- 2200; Internet: www.neha.org. E-mail: jeh@neha.org. Volume 89, Number 4. © Copyright 2026, NEHA. Opinions and conclusions expressed in articles, columns, and other contributions are those of the authors only and do not reflect the policies or views of NEHA. NEHA and the Journal of Environmental Health are not liable or responsible for the accuracy of, or actions taken on the basis of, any information stated herein. NEHA and the Journal of Environmental Health reserve the right to reject any advertising copy. Advertisers and their agencies will assume liability for the content of all advertise- ments published and also assume responsibility for any claims arising therefrom against the publisher. Advertising rates available at www.neha.org/jeh. The Journal of Environmental Health is indexed by Clarivate, EBSCO (Applied Science & Technology Index), Elsevier (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences), Gale Cengage, and ProQuest. The Journal of Environmental Health is archived by JSTOR (www.jstor.org/journal/jenviheal). Full electronic issues from present to 2012 are available at www.neha.org/jeh. Recent issues are indexed on Scholastica at https://www.jeh.neha.org. All technical manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to peer review. Visit https://www.jeh.neha.org/for-authors for submission guidelines and instructions for authors. To submit a manuscript, visit https://www.jeh.neha.org/for- authors. Direct all questions to jeh@neha.org.
Journal of Environmental Health (ISSN 0022-0892)
An Open Access Journal
Kristen Ruby-Cisneros, Managing Editor Ellen Kuwana, MS, Assistant Editor Hughes design|communications, Design/Production Cognition Studio, Cover Artwork Soni Fink, Advertising For advertising call (303) 802-2139 Technical Editors William A. Adler, MPH, RS Retired (Minnesota Department of Health), Rochester, MN Gary Erbeck, MPH
Retired (County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health), San Diego, CA Thomas H. Hatfield, DrPH, REHS, DAAS California State University, Northridge, CA Dhitinut Ratnapradipa, PhD, MCHES Creighton University, Omaha, NE
4
Volume 89 • Number 4
Public Health Officials and NSF Standards Development Your Participation is Essential, and Your Regulatory Expertise is Deeply Valued NSF/ANSI Standards are developed by Joint Committees, a collaboration of stakeholders affected by the standard. Standards development participation by regulators, engineers, and other public health stakeholders plays a role in shaping the standards that are cited in their regulations. It is critically important that your valuable expertise and voice are heard! Joint Committee participants also benefit from networking with other public health officials and participating industry representatives from across the country.
For more information or to participate in the standards development process, contact standards@nsf.org or scan code
NSF.ORG
YOUR ASSOCIATION
Open Access
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Nobody Wants to Eat Your Poop
Scott E. Holmes, MS, REHS
W hen my family is together, we en- joy playing board games such as Azul, CATAN, and Ticket to Ride. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we used to play Pandemic, but I can’t seem to get up the nerve to play that game anymore. When our kids were young, we often played the murder mystery game Clue. In Clue, you take turns gathering clues until you think you know WHO did it (6 potential culprits), WHAT they used (6 weapons), and WHERE it happened (9 rooms). When you think you’ve solved the mystery, you declare your findings: “I think it was Miss Scar- let, with the wrench, in the study.” Investigating an illness outbreak is similar to the game of Clue, but much more com- plicated. In the “Illness Outbreak Game” for environmental public health, you gather clues until you identify: • WHO was affected (from 2 to 1,000s of people) • WHAT caused the outbreak (100s of pos- sible microbes or toxins) • WHEN was the incubation period (from minutes to weeks) • WHERE did the outbreak happen • HOW did the illness spread • WHY did the illness outbreak happen (i.e., identifying the root cause) As the outbreak unfolds, you develop hypotheses (i.e., educated guesses) based on partial data while remaining open to other ideas as you gather new data. The goal is to stop the spread of illness and solve the mystery, thereby protecting the public’s health. Right? Yes, but for environmental public health, I’d add another very important “other reason,” which I share at the end of the column.
» Two food preparation staff became ill with similar symptoms approximately 24–48 hr after the reception. » Food was served buffet style. Buffet line utensils were not changed. No hand san- itizer was provided for guests. • Clue #4: Further findings from data analysis and epidemiology interviews showed that: » A likely food source was not identified. » The attack rate was highest in the wed- ding party and close family members. Frustrated that they could not identify the cause, our epidemiology team did not give up. They doubled down and searched for more clues to solve this outbreak mystery. Guests and staff were interviewed again, which led to new clues and new data. • Clue #5: The wedding party and guests who went through the buffet line early were more likely to become sick. • Clue #6: A child of a wedding party mem- ber had a “blowout” diarrhea accident dur- ing rehearsal. The child’s father changed the diaper and cleaned up the clothes. Sev- eral wedding party members helped care for the child afterward. • Clue #7: Staff saw a wedding party mem- ber washing a child’s soiled clothing in the hand sink in restroom A. • Clue #8: Individuals who used restroom A were more likely to get sick. • Clue #9: Norovirus was identified in stool samples. Conclusion The child’s diarrheal accident was likely the root cause. Norovirus probably spread in sev- eral ways: 1) changing the diaper and handling
Investigating an illness outbreak is similar to the game of Clue, but much more complicated.
Mystery at the Country Club The food safety program supervisor took a call from the groom’s mother. “I want to report a foodborne illness outbreak at the Country Club.” She insisted that she, her husband, the bride and groom, and other wedding party members became sick after eating food served at the reception. She said the magic words, “I have never been so sick in my life,” which usually means norovirus. So began the investigation of the Mystery at the Country Club. • Clue #1: Members of a wedding party became ill after the reception. • Clue #2: Main symptoms were vomiting and diarrhea. The incubation period was 24–48 hr (the norovirus alert went off). Hypothesis: Focus on food handlers and food preparation. • Clue #3: The environmental health assess- ment found that: » Food preparation and storage did not identify risk factors for foodborne illness. » No bare-hand contact was practiced. » Food preparation staff had not been ill or missed work in the past week.
6
Volume 89 • Number 4
https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.173644
soiled clothes of the ill child; 2) touching sur- faces (e.g., sink faucet handles, door handles) in restroom A; 3) caring for or holding the child who had diarrhea; and 4) touching the serving utensils in the buffet line. To the relief of facility management, nei- ther food consumption nor ill food handlers were associated with the illness outbreak. The food safety team worked closely with the restaurant staff to implement extensive dis- infection and sanitization, and enhanced ill- ness monitoring and exclusion strategies. No additional illnesses were identified. Mystery at the Nice Hotel My administrative aide texted, “Call me,” our super-secret bat signal for “Call me, immedi- ately!” She did not use it very often. A state senator called. His story was similar to stories we often hear. He attended an annual celebra- tion event at the Nice Hotel for the end of the legislative session, and he and others became very sick 2 days later. The attendee list read like a who’s who of state senators, elected and appointed officials, and lobbyists. This out- break registered at about 8.7 on my internal “outbreak fear factor scale.” One of our outbreak investigation goals is to get at least three stool samples for labo- ratory testing. This task can be harder than it sounds, since the most effective way to “cure” diarrhea is to ask for a stool sample. The underlying physiology is not well under- stood, but the psychology of “That is so gross!” is clear. The epidemiology team, how- ever, convinced several attendees to provide the much-needed stool samples. I had the awkward privilege of going to a senator’s home to deliver a stool sample col- lection kit. She did not look well. I expressed my sincere sympathy and thanked her for her willingness to help. When I handed her the stool sample kit, her face said, “Why did I agree to this?” I tried to delicately explain how to collect a diarrheal stool sample. This
relief was unmistakable, and they thanked us repeatedly for our thorough investigation. The Other Reason! I served for many years on the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR). CIFOR has developed guidelines, tools, and trainings to help food safety agen- cies investigate and solve foodborne out- breaks. The overarching goal is to reduce the risk of foodborne illness and protect public health. But the CIFOR guidelines also stress that structured food complaint systems and thorough illness investigations are vital to “protect food establishments from unfounded allegations of foodborne illness.” As environ- mental public health professionals, we have a responsibility to advocate for this aspect of foodborne illness outbreak investigations and to develop robust complaint systems and team approaches to foodborne illness investigations. Would you like to improve your food- borne illness outbreak responses? You will soon have a fantastic opportunity to do just that. Once again, the National Environmen- tal Health Association (NEHA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are part- nering to provide crucial funding to reduce foodborne illness and meet FDA’s Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards through the Retail Flexible Fund- ing Model (RFFM) Grant Program. Our team has worked hard to make it easy to submit for these grants. Don’t miss the chance to build a more robust foodborne illness response sys- tem by applying for this grant opportunity. The portal will open on December 9. Learn more at www.neha.org/retail-grants. And remember, as the poster image says, “Nobody Wants to Eat Your Poop!” Please take 20 seconds to wash your hands.
Poster courtesy of the Lincoln–Lancaster County Health Department.
moment became even more awkward when I said, “You can just drop it off at the health department.” Her look of dismay was unmis- takable, so I pivoted quickly and added, “Or I can pick it up tomorrow.” Laboratory analysis found norovirus in the stool samples. After analyzing data from doz- ens of interviews, we found no association between food and illness; staff had not been ill, and food preparation appeared safe. One attendee had diarrhea before the event. The epidemiology team reinterviewed attendees, and based on the additional data gathered— including contact with the person who was ill before the event, where each person sat, and who they greeted and interacted with—we concluded that this outbreak appeared to be spread person-to-person. We met with the hotel, events, and food managers to explain our conclusions. Their
sholmes@neha.org
NEHA membership connects environmental health professionals with the training, credentials, resources, peer network, and leadership support they need to grow in their careers and strengthen the profession. Whether you are considering membership for the first time, renewing your membership, or looking to make the most of your current benefits, NEHA provides practical support at every stage of your professional journey. Learn more at www.neha.org/membership.
Did You Know?
7
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
Open Access
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Development of Spatial Noise Maps and Perceived Health Risks for Itinerant Workers in Lagos, Nigeria
Introduction Noise exposure can contribute to health issues such as disturbed sleep, irritabil- ity, and increased stress (Byaello, 2023). A widespread and growing urban envi- ronmental hazard is noise pollution, par- ticularly in economically vibrant, densely populated areas such as Lagos, Nigeria. Ambient sound levels that are often above globally recognized safety levels have been identified in earlier analyses of noise level distributions throughout Lagos, reflecting the environmental strain of rapid urban growth. A study conducted in 32 locations throughout Lagos, for example, found that average sound levels ranged from 55.3 dB to 90.3 dB—well above the recommended limits set by the World Health Organization (WHO) of 55 dB during daytime and 40 dB at night—with no statistically significant difference between morning, afternoon, and evening hours (Ibitoye et al., 2017). Occupational noise exposure in Nigeria further illustrates the seriousness of the prob- lem. Research focused on industrial workers in Lagos revealed that noise-induced hearing loss was prevalent across many industries, including engineering, printing, and wood processing, while the use of personal hearing protection remained notably low (Ogungbe & Amosu, 2017). In a different setting in Nigeria, grain mill operators in Kwara State reported mean noise exposures of >102 dBA, with more than 90% of the operators lack- ing access to protective gear and >75% hav- ing transient hearing complaints, such as Charles Ugbede Ameh, MSc, MEng, CSP, CRSP, CMIOSH Centre for Occupational Health, Safety and Environment, University of Port Harcourt Ejikeme Ugwoha, MSc, PhD Centre for Occupational Health, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Port Harcourt Victor Emeka Amah, MSc, PhD Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Port Harcourt Safety and Environment, University of Port Harcourt
Abstract Noise pollution is a persistent environmental health concern in rapidly urbanizing cities, such as Lagos, Nigeria. Studies have documented elevated ambient noise levels in urban environments, yet limited attention has been given to itinerant workers who are routinely exposed while working in markets, motor parks (sprawling areas where buses connect places), and traffic corridors. Our study measured environmental noise levels and developed spatial noise maps at 20 high‑activity locations in Lagos to characterize patterns of exposure relevant for itinerant workers. A calibrated sound level meter was used to obtain A‑weighted equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq) during peak morning and evening periods, and geographic coordinates were collected for spatial analysis. Measured noise levels ranged from 58 dBA to 84 dBA across locations, with most values exceeding the community noise guideline of 70 dBA set by the World Health Organization. Traffic junctions and major motor parks consistently recorded the highest levels, whereas markets showed comparatively lower, but still elevated, noise exposure. GIS-based interpolation revealed the spatial clustering of high‑noise zones along major transportation corridors. Our study’s findings add spatial evidence to existing urban noise research by identifying specific exposure hotspots relevant to mobile occupational populations. Further, our study demonstrates the utility of noise mapping as a practical environmental health tool for visualizing community noise burdens and informing targeted noise management strategies. The findings are relevant to environmental health practitioners and urban planners seeking data‑driven approaches to mitigate environmental noise exposure in densely populated cities. Keywords: noise pollution, itinerant workers, occupational health, Lagos, GIS mapping, hearing risk
8
Volume 89 • Number 4
https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.173645
Map of the Study Locations in Lagos, Nigeria FIGURE 1
Methods
tinnitus (Shehu et al., 2020). Despite being underrepresented in the literature, these find- ings imply that itinerant workers who travel between locations, frequently in unstruc- tured or semi-structured settings, could be equally vulnerable. Furthermore, the mapping of noise expo- sure and its correlation with the perceived health effects on the community draws atten- tion to the wider ramifications of high sound levels in Lagos. There are noticeable tempo- ral differences in noise exposure between residential and commercial areas. By creat- ing spatial noise level maps and assessing related health risk indicators, our study aims to advance the knowledge of noise exposure among itinerant workers in Lagos.
CMS Bus Stop Motor Park, and Ikeja Along Motor Park), and major traffic junctions (Ajah Roundabout, Cele Junction, Iyana Ipaja Junction, Maryland Junction, Ojota Interchange, and Allen Roundabout). We selected these locations as representa- tive of the daily mobility and work-related exposures of itinerant workers who traverse marketplaces, motor parks, and traffic cor- ridors. Figure 1 depicts the study area and sampling locations. Data Collection Instruments A digital sound level meter (Class 2, IEC 61672 compliant) was used to measure noise levels, and a handheld GPS device was used to record the geographic coordinates of each
Study Area Lagos, Nigeria, is a highly urbanized and densely inhabited city with a large volume of economic activity, major traffic, and migra- tory work. We selected 20 sampling sites from three categories of high human and commercial activity to record noise expo- sure patterns pertinent to itinerant workers. Included in the 20 sites were major mar- kets (Balogun Market, Computer Village, Mile 12 Market, Alaba International Market, Oyingbo Market, Idumota Market, Oshodi Market, and Aswani Market), large motor parks (Oshodi Motor Park, Berger Motor Park, Mile 2 Motor Park, Ajah Motor Park,
9
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
Morning Hours Noise Level Map for Study Locations FIGURE 2
sampling point. Prior to data collection, the sound level meter was calibrated using estab- lished protocols (Paiva et al., 2019). Sampling Design and Procedure Two daily peak times, morning (7 a.m. to 10 a.m.) and evening (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.), which correspond with times of increased commer- cial and traffic activity, were used to record noise data at each of the 20 locations. To rep- resent the typical human ear location, mea- surements were made at a height of approxi- mately 1.5 m above ground (ISO, 2017). At each sampling site, A-weighted equiva- lent continuous sound levels (Leq) were monitored at 5-min intervals over a 30-min sample period (6 readings per session) each
morning and evening. The noise exposure at that location and time was represented by averaging these values. To guarantee mea- surement validity and consistency, environ- mental factors such as wind, rain, and abrupt disruptions were recorded (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). Spatial Analysis and Noise Mapping GIS software (ArcGIS 10.8) was used to pro- cess and analyze the GPS coordinates and associated noise level data. The inverse dis- tance weighting (IDW) technique, which cal- culates noise intensity values for unsampled points based on closeness to sampled points, was used to do spatial interpolation (Oyedepo & Saadu, 2009). This method made it easier
to create noise contour maps for Lagos that differentiated between exposures in the morning and evening. Health Risk Assessment Reports from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and WHO, along with previous research on noise-induced hear- ing loss in Nigerian workers (Ogungbe & Amosu, 2017; Shehu et al., 2020) were used to evaluate the health risks associated with increased noise exposure. To infer potential dangers to itinerant workers, self-reported adverse effects (e.g., hearing problems, sleep disturbance, stress, irritability) noted in
10
Volume 89 • Number 4
Evening Hours Noise Level Map for Study Locations FIGURE 3
Discussion The observed noise exposure patterns in our study indicate that transportation- related activities are the dominant con- tributors to environmental noise in Lagos. Spatial clustering of elevated noise lev- els around traffic junctions and motor parks aligns with findings from previous urban noise studies (Atilade et al., 2020; Oyedepo, 2014). Markets exhibited rela- tively lower but persistent noise exposure, reflecting variations in commercial activity and traffic flow. The application of spatial noise mapping enhances interpretation by visually identifying exposure hotspots and supporting location-specific environmental health assessments.
related studies were considered in addition to the measured decibel levels. Results Environmental noise levels varied across study locations and time periods. Morning noise levels (Figure 2) ranged from 58 dBA at Oshodi Market to 83 dBA at Allen Round- about, whereas evening levels ranged from 61 dBA to 84 dBA at these locations, respectively. Traffic junctions and motor parks consis- tently had higher recorded noise levels than did market locations. Most measured values exceeded the WHO community noise guide- line of 70 dBA. Spatial noise mapping revealed pro- nounced clustering of high-noise zones
along major transportation corridors. Areas exceeding 75 dBA were associated primarily with traffic junctions and large motor parks, whereas moderate noise zones were distrib- uted across commercial market areas. The spatial distribution of ambient noise levels in the 20 selected areas during the evening hours (Figure 3) also showed a notable variance in ambient sound inten- sity, with recorded noise levels at Oshodi Market of 61 dBA and at Allen Round- about of 84 dBA. Plotting these readings on a map helps assess the environmental health risks to itinerant workers in these locations by offering a clear visual frame- work for identifying high-, mid-, and low- noise zones.
11
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
The morning-hour noise level data gath- ered from 20 selected locations around Lagos, Nigeria, demonstrate spatial diversity in environmental noise exposure, reveal- ing a combination of business, transporta- tion, and market-dense zones. The resulting noise level map developed from our study data serves as a spatial visualization tool that shows noise pollution intensity and its spread across the city. Our study dataset’s lowest noise level (58 dBA) was recorded at Oshodi Market, whereas the highest noise level (83 dBA) was recorded at Allen Roundabout. This maximum value exceeds the daytime com- munity noise guidelines recommended by WHO (1999, 2018), which suggest outdoor environmental noise levels of approximately 50–55 dBA to minimize annoyance and adverse health effects. The recorded level, however, remains below the occupational noise exposure limits established by OSHA and ACGIH for workplace settings. Such high noise levels in most of the study locations indicate a serious public health risk, particularly for itinerant work- ers who are exposed to loud noise levels for long periods of time. Ajah Motor Park (78 dBA), Iyana Ipaja Junction (79 dBA), Allen Roundabout (83 dBA), and Maryland Junction (79 dBA) are high-noise hotspots. During peak hours, these locations typically have heavy traffic and close-knit commuter interactions. The recorded elevated val- ues are within noise ranges that have been linked to a higher risk for heart problems, stress, hearing loss, and sleep disorders, particularly for individuals who are exposed daily to these noise levels (Basner et al., 2014; Münzel et al., 2018). Although recorded levels of noise were not as high as at traffic junctions, the areas with moderately high noise levels such as markets (e.g., Balogun [67 dBA] and Idumota [69 dBA]) and most motor parks (e.g., Oshodi [66 dBA] and CMS Bus Stop [69 dBA]) can contribute to chronic exposure risks. Of note, Oshodi Market (58 dBA) was an outlier, fall- ing below both OSHA and ACGIH thresholds (and closer to the WHO guideline), which could indicate a relatively quieter market environment during data collection or a tem- porary variability in activity levels. Itinerant workers are disproportion- ately affected by noise-related health risks
because they frequently spend a lot of time in places such as transportation hubs and traffic intersections, where noise levels typically are highest. Long-term exposure to noise levels >70 dBA is known to cause cardiovascular strain, stress, and hearing impairment (Goines & Hagler, 2007; WHO, 2018). This pattern highlights the need for 1) public health interventions, such as health surveillance, noise education, and hearing protection programs for at-risk worker populations (e.g., itinerant workers) and 2) urban noise control strategies, such as designated quiet zones, green buffers, and traffic flow redesign. Moreover, the application of GIS-based noise level mapping improves the capacity to spatially analyze and communicate envi- ronmental noise burdens. The usefulness of noise maps for identifying urban noise hotspots, prioritizing mitigation measures, assessing population exposure, and sup- porting environmental planning and policy development has been widely demonstrated in previous studies (Bocher et al., 2019; Ran- pise & Tandel, 2022). We used the noise map developed from the morning data in our study as a diagnostic and planning tool. This map identified important noise exposure sites and helped us to pri- oritize solutions in accordance with environ- mental health objectives. Ambient noise levels >70 dBA during the day and evening can contribute to cardio- vascular stress, hearing loss, and disturbed sleep, along with other negative health effects (WHO, 2019). Of note, most of the 20 loca- tions had noise intensities closer to the higher WHO threshold for evening noise limits and fell short of the more conservative OSHA and ACGIH thresholds, indicating a widespread environmental risk for itinerant workers in these locations. For the purposes of this study, measured noise levels were categorized as moderate (60–70 dBA), high (71–80 dBA), and very high (>80 dBA) to facilitate interpretation of the spatial noise map. According to our study data, Oshodi Market (61 dBA), Balo- gun Market (68 dBA), Oshodi Motor Park (68 dBA), and CMS Bus Stop Motor Park (70 dBA) were classified as moderate noise zones; Mile 2 Motor Park (71 dBA), Idumota Market (72 dBA), Oyingbo Market (72 dBA), Aswani Market (74 dBA), Alaba International
Market (74 dBA), Ikeja Along Motor Park (75 dBA), Mile 12 Market (75 dBA), Ajah Motor Park (77 dBA), Ajah Roundabout (77 dBA), Cele Junction (77 dBA), Berger Motor Park (77 dBA), Ojota Interchange (79 dBA), and Computer Village (79 dBA) were clas- sified as high noise zones; and Iyana Ipaja Junction (80 dBA), Maryland Junction (83 dBA), and Allen Roundabout (84 dBA) were classified as very high noise zones. Vehicular activities and traffic congestion are major contributors to elevated environ- mental noise levels, particularly in densely trafficked urban areas where road traffic is the predominant source of noise pollution (Mann & Singh, 2022; Oyedepo, 2014). These patterns were reflected in our study by the concentration of high and very high noise levels at motor parks and traffic inter- sections, including Allen Roundabout, Mary- land Junction, and Iyana Ipaja Junction. Our findings are consistent with previous studies that attributed elevated urban noise levels to heavy traffic volume, congestion, vehicle operations, and frequent horn use in trans- portation corridors (Atilade et al., 2020; Oyedepo, 2014). Furthermore, mapping noise levels in our study was geared at making it easier to perform both spatial and temporal compari- sons, demonstrating how some areas might be more exposed to noise pollution in the evenings due to increased commuter and/or commercial activities. The highest noise lev- els recorded were at the Allen Roundabout and Maryland Junction intersections (84 dBA and 83 dBA, respectively), which are notori- ous for their high traffic levels in the evening hours, which increases noise exposure for itinerant workers. These high noise levels highlight the urgent need for urban noise mitigation mea- sures to protect public health, particularly in commercial and transportation hubs. Strate- gic urban planning, the implementation of noise barriers and green buffers, land use and zoning reforms, and stronger enforcement of environmental noise regulations have been identified as effective approaches for reduc- ing population exposure to environmental noise (Ranpise & Tandel, 2022; WHO, 2018). Conclusion Our study documented elevated environ- mental noise levels across key commer-
12
Volume 89 • Number 4
cial and transportation locations that are frequented by itinerant workers in Lagos, Nigeria. Spatial noise mapping identified traffic junctions and motor parks as domi- nant noise hotspots, demonstrating wide- spread exceedance of WHO community
noise guidelines. By providing location‑spe- cific and visualized noise exposure data, our study findings support environmental health practice via evidence‑based identifi- cation of priority areas for noise control and urban planning interventions.
Corresponding Author: Charles Ugbede Ameh, MS, MEng, CSP, CRSP, CMIOSH, Centre for Occupational Health, Safety, and Environ- ment, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Email: charles_ameh@uniport.edu.ng, engineer ameh@gmail.com
References
Atilade, A.O., Coker, J.O., Idowu, I.A., & Ogede, R.O. (2020). Evalu- ation and analysis of traffic noise in Lagos State Polytechnic, Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Physics , 28 (2), 179–210. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343982071 Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C., Janssen, S., & Stansfeld, S. (2014). Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet , 383 (9925), 1325–1332. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61613-X Bocher, E., Guillaume, G., Picaut, J., Petit, G., & Fortin, N. (2019). Noise modelling: An open source GIS based tool to produce envi- ronmental noise maps. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Informa- tion , 8 (3), Article 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8030130 Byaello, K. (2023). Impact of noise pollution on community health and well-being in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal Wetenskap Health , 4 (4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.48173/jwh.v4i4.203 Goines, L., & Hagler, L. (2007). Noise pollution: A modern plague. Southern Medical Journal , 100 (3), 287–294. https://doi. org/10.1097/smj.0b013e3180318be5 Ibitoye, A.Z., Aweda, A.M., & Ofojebe, P.C. (2017). Assessment of noise level distributions in Lagos Metropolis and the potential for adverse health effects. Journal of Environmental Health , 79 (10), E1–E5. ISO. (2017). ISO 1996-2:2017, Acoustics—Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise. Part 2: Determination of sound pressure levels . https://www.iso.org/standard/59766.html Mann, S., & Singh, G. (2022). Traffic noise monitoring and model- ling—An overview. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29 , 55568–55579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21395-4 Münzel, T., Schmidt, F.P., Steven, S., Herzog, J., Daiber, A., & Sørensen, M. (2018). Environmental noise and the cardiovascu- lar system. Journal of the American College of Cardiology , 71 (6), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.015
Ogungbe, A.S., & Amosu, W.C. (2017). Impact of noise pollution on the hearing capability of industrial workers in Lagos State, South- west, Nigeria. Archives of Current Research International , 6 (4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/ACRI/2016/29605 Oyedepo, O.J. (2014). Evaluating performances of traffic noise mod- els. Nigerian Journal of Technology , 33 (4), 442–446. https://doi. org/10.4314/njt.v33i4.4 Oyedepo, O.S., & Saadu, A.A. (2009). A comparative study of noise pollution levels in some selected areas in Ilorin Metropolis, Nige- ria. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 158 , 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0570-5 Paiva, K.M., Cardoso, M.R.A., & Zannin, P.H.T. (2019). Expo- sure to road traffic noise: Annoyance, perception and associ- ated factors among Brazil’s adult population. Science of the Total Environment , 650 (Pt. 1), 978–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.09.041 Ranpise, R.B., & Tandel, B.N. (2022). Urban road traffic noise monitoring, mapping, modelling, and mitigation: A thematic review. Noise Mapping , 9 (1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/ noise-2022-0004 Shehu, W.T., Sawyerr, H.O., & Ibrahim, M.L. (2020). Occupation noise exposure and hearing impairment among grain millers in Ita-Amo Market, Ilorin Metropolis, Kwara State, Nigeria. Jour- nal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research , 31 (11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/jammr/2019/v31i1130332 World Health Organization. (1999). Guidelines for community noise . https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/66217 World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2018). Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/ item/9789289053563
Now you can listen to the Journal of Environmental Health to stay informed, inspired, and connected. Our new Inside the JEH podcast brings the latest research to life through engaging conversations that highlight key findings and practical applications—all in a convenient 15-minute or less episode. The podcast makes it easier than ever to stay informed about the issues shaping our profession. Listen at https://www.youtube.com/@nehawebmaster/podcasts.
Did You Know?
13
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
Open Access
A National Census of Retail Food Inspector Standardization: Workforce Capacity, Training Practices, and Opportunities for Expansion in the United States
Chintan Somaiya, MBA, MS National Environmental Health Association Gagandeep Gill, MPH, DrPH National Environmental Health Association Rance Baker National Environmental Health Association Roseann DeVito, MPH, PMP National Environmental Health Association Lindsay Fahnestock, MPH, DrPH Public Health Sciences, California Baptist University Sukhdeep Chera, DO A.T. Still University David Dyjack, DrPH, CIH National Environmental Health Association Manjit Randhawa, MPH, MD National Environmental Health Association
Abstract Retail food inspector standardization is central to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (VNRFRPS), specifically Standard 2 (Trained Regulatory Staff). No national data existed on standardization implementation across state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) agencies, which constrained policy development and technical assistance. The National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), via a $36 million FDA partnership called the Retail Flexible Funding Model (RFFM) Grant Program, administered the Retail Food Regulatory Workforce Standardization Census. The 52-item web-based instrument was codeveloped over 19 months (May 2022–December 2023) and administered from July 2024 to January 2025 to approximately 3,000 SLTT agencies (response rate of 16.8%). Descriptive analyses characterized standardization models, workforce capacity, training requirements, performance criteria, and barriers. Among 530 responding jurisdictions (in 45 states), 281 (53%) reported FDA- guided standardization, 61 (12%) reported non-FDA-guided standardization, and 188 (35%) reported no formal process. The census showed that FDA-guided jurisdictions regulate approximately 70% of U.S. retail food establishments, averaging 1,887 facilities per agency versus 690 for nonstandardized agencies. State-level adoption was 77%, compared with 49% adoption at the local level. Barriers included time constraints (48%), staffing (30%), and access to training (13%). Projected nationally, an estimated 1,545 jurisdictions and 9,340 inspectors remain outside FDA-guided standardization. Based on these projections, reaching 85% standardization would require approximately 7,940 additional inspectors. FDA-guided standardization is scalable, covering approximately 70% of the nation’s retail food establishments, and improves inspector preparation. In this article, we present six strategic recommendations to address regional capacity, cross-jurisdictional collaboration, resource allocation, alternative delivery models, and a proposed standardization broker program to advance consistency in retail food safety inspection. Keywords: retail food safety, retail food inspection, food safety regulatory workforce, inspector standardization, workforce capacity, workforce development, inspector training, Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards, regulatory program capacity building, food safety inspection consistency
Introduction Foodborne illness remains one of the most pervasive and preventable public health challenges in the U.S. An estimated 48 mil- lion illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths occur annually, which repre- sent an economic burden >$75 billion in 2023 USD (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2025, 2026; Hoffmann et al., 2025). Retail food establishments, restau- rants, grocery stores, institutional kitchens, and similar settings are frequently implicated in foodborne illness outbreaks, and retail food inspection is a primary mechanism for reducing that risk. The quality and consistency of these inspections, however, are not uniform. Stud- ies have reported meaningful variability among inspectors’ detection of violations, inspection outcome bias due to scheduling, and divergent risk-factor assessment across jurisdictions (Ibanez & Toffel, 2019; Jones et al., 2004; Lee & Hedberg, 2016; Lein- wand et al., 2017). These differences have consequences: Inconsistent inspection qual- ity undermines the comparability of regula- tory data, reduces public confidence, and can leave food safety risks undetected.
14
Volume 89 • Number 4
https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.173646
The consequences of inspector incon- sistency extend beyond routine regulatory gaps. In 2024, the U.S. experienced a notable increase in food recall-associated morbidity, including 1,400 reported illnesses, 487 hos- pitalizations, and 19 deaths (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2026b). These events, driven largely by pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes , Salmonella , and Shiga toxin- producing E. coli (STEC), typically originate upstream in the food production and distri- bution system. These illnesses underscore the broader importance of a fully functional food safety system across all control points, including retail. At the retail level, food inspector stan- dardization is a foundational mechanism for ensuring consistent identification and con- trol of well-established foodborne illness risk factors, including poor temperature control, inadequate cooking, and cross-contamina- tion. Food inspectors who are trained in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code and proficient in risk-factor identifica- tion, risk control plan development, and the principles of the hazard analysis critical con- trol point (HACCP) plan are better equipped to detect and correct unsafe practices at the point of service, thereby interrupting trans- mission pathways that contribute to sporadic illness and localized outbreaks. A national census of the standardization landscape, therefore, serves as a measure of the regula- tory system’s capacity to deliver consistent, risk-based oversight at the final point of con- sumer exposure. In response, FDA has sought to address this variability through inspector standard- ization, which stems from a structured, competency-based process formally defined as the process “whereby a candidate dem- onstrates the knowledge and skills to satisfy requirements for a standardized food safety inspection officer as stated in the procedure” (FDA, n.d., 2024, 2025, 2026c). Standardiza- tion serves four core purposes: 1. Public health protection: Improving inspection quality to reduce foodborne ill- ness risk. 2. Consistency: Ensuring uniform interpre- tation and enforcement of the FDA Food Code across jurisdictions. 3. Competency: Ensuring regulatory staff possess adequate knowledge to perform accurate, thorough inspections.
4. Risk-based focus: Strengthening the ability of inspection personnel to prioritize efforts toward the greatest public health hazards. The standardization process is multistep, rigorous, and functionally tiered, and in this way extends beyond the initial FDA-led evaluation to a broader, cascading workforce development system. Inspector candidates must meet eligibility requirements outlined in the FDA Procedures for Standardization of Retail Food Safety Inspection Officers. Next, they must complete formal training, which includes coursework required under Stan- dard 2 of the Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (VNRFRPS) via trainings on the FDA’s LearnED learning management system. Candidates must also gain field experience and complete required joint and independent inspections. FDA Retail Food Specialists then evaluate each candidate’s interpretation and science-based application of the FDA Food Code . Standardization confirms that the can- didate can perform inspections across six per- formance areas: 1) identification of risk factors and interventions, 2) knowledge of good retail practices (GRPs), 3) application of HACCP principles and risk control plan development, 4) correct use of inspection equipment, 5) effective communication, and 6) demonstra- tion of risk-based methodology. Candidates who demonstrate proficiency receive national recognition as an FDA-standardized Retail Food Safety Inspection Officer (FSIO). This initial FDA standardization, however, represents only the first layer of the system. FSIOs are expected to apply the same proce- dures within their states or jurisdictions to evaluate and standardize additional inspec- tion personnel, creating a distributed, scalable model in which most standardizations occur through FDA-standardized state or local offi- cials rather than by direct FDA involvement. This cascading structure enables broader workforce coverage but also introduces dependence on local capacity and continuity of qualified standardized personnel. To maintain competency and alignment with current regulatory expectations, stan- dardized inspectors are required to undergo periodic restandardization (typically every 3 years) to ensure continued proficiency with the most recent version of the FDA Food Code and evolving inspection practices. Main- tenance also requires that these inspectors
Article Summary
What is already known about this topic?
Foodborne illness remains a major public health burden in the U.S., and retail food inspections are a critical defense against preventable outbreaks. Studies have shown that inspection quality varies across jurisdictions, and that inspector training, experience, and interpretation can influence detection of violations and consistency in regula- tory oversight. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Stan- dards identify inspector standardization as a key workforce competency, yet no national assessment had quantified how widely inspector standardization has been implemented across retail food regulatory agencies at the state,
local, tribal, and territorial levels. What is added by this article?
This article provides the first national census of retail food inspector stan- dardization practices across U.S. state, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory agencies. It quantifies the proportion of jurisdictions using FDA-guided, non- FDA-guided, or no formal standardiza- tion processes; identifies workforce, training, and implementation barriers; and estimates the number of jurisdic- tions and inspectors remaining outside FDA-guided standardization. The find- ings establish a national baseline for inspector standardization and define a measurable workforce development opportunity to improve consistency in retail food safety oversight.
What are the implications for the practice of environmental public health?
The findings indicate that inspector standardization should be treated as a national environmental health workforce infrastructure priority rather than as an isolated training activity. Expand- ing FDA-guided standardization via targeted funding, regional collaboration, and cross-jurisdictional support could strengthen inspection consistency, improve regulatory preparedness, and increase the capacity of smaller agen- cies to identify and control foodborne illness risk factors. Establishing scalable standardization delivery systems offers a practical pathway to more uniform retail food safety oversight and stronger public health protection nationwide.
15
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70Powered by FlippingBook