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
Powered by FlippingBook