It is mid-afternoon in the restaurant. Lunch cleanup is winding down as dinner prep begins. The kitchen is active and running as expected. From the inspector's perspective, things look good.

A covered pan on the prep line draws attention. It is rice prepared earlier, now cooling before going into the walk-in refrigerator.

The inspector pauses.

A short conversation follows—why cooling matters, how foods like rice can support bacterial growth, and what to do differently. The rice is transferred into shallower pans to cool faster.

It takes a few minutes. The inspection continues. Service moves on.

This interaction happens thousands of times a day across the U.S.—no violation, no score, just a conversation and a correction in the moment. Nothing that would make a headline. But it only works because of the judgment, training, and consistency of the workforce behind it.

That is prevention. 

These interactions represent the last line of defense in the food safety system, and prevention depends on the competency of the workforce behind them. Long before an outbreak is detected or clinical systems respond, risk is identified, taught, and reduced in real time by professionals working across regulatory agencies, industry, and retail environments. Their effectiveness depends on a workforce prepared to apply sound judgment consistently in real-world conditions.

That work depends on competencies that are rarely visible but consistently applied: understanding microbial risk, assessing time and temperature controls in real conditions, recognizing when something is "off" before it becomes a violation, and communicating risk in a way that leads to action.¹

The Workforce Behind Food Safety Prevention

Prevention does not happen by chance. It depends on a workforce that is trained, credentialed, data-enabled, and supported by coordinated federal investment. These are the conditions that allow prevention to occur consistently across jurisdictions and over time—and current workforce research suggests each is under pressure.^1–4 

Prevention must remain the north star. It will not sustain itself. Without continued investment and alignment, the system drifts toward reaction; sometimes slowly through inconsistency, sometimes much faster.

What should give us pause is that we now have enough data to see where the pressure points are located.

Workforce Data Reveals Emerging Pressures

Over the past several years, the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) has expanded its research on the environmental health workforce, providing a clearer picture of where the field is strong, where it is vulnerable, and what must change. That work includes NEHA's 2025 guide, "Pillars of Governmental Environmental Public Health," and the NEHA–Food and Drug Administration (FDA) retail food training needs assessment series in the Journal of Environmental Health.^1–4

Recent workforce data points to several signals that help explain where this system is under pressure. The first signal is demographic. The workforce is experienced but approaching transition. Data show that 92.8 percent of respondents hold a bachelor's degree or higher, 65.5 percent are age 40 or older, and 51.1 percent have more than ten years of experience. At the same time, prior findings indicate that 26 percent of the broader environmental public health workforce plan to retire within five years.^3,4

This is more than a simple staffing shift. It is a transfer of knowledge that is often informal and difficult to replace. The ability to interpret risk, navigate gray areas, and communicate in ways that lead to action is built through experience. As the workforce retires faster than it is replaced, maintaining that capability will depend on training that replicates real-world decision-making and builds judgment, not just knowledge.

The second signal is how the next generation learns. There is strong demand for scenario-based, hands-on, role-specific, hybrid, and asynchronous approaches. At the same time, newer professionals enter the field with unprecedented access to information. The challenge is no longer access, but building the depth of understanding needed to apply that information in real-world conditions.

“Prevention in food safety is not only a public health function. It is an economic one.”

The third signal comes from competency data. The profession is strong in foundational, procedural, and inspection-based work, but requires further development in analytical, evaluative, and judgment-based practice. Training needs assessment findings highlight gaps in areas such as data analysis, risk-based decision-making, and communication—particularly where relevance is high, but exposure is limited.¹ These gaps include surveillance, data application, plan review, variance evaluation, technical assistance, and risk communication. They are developmental, not deficiencies, and are often strengthened over time through experience and structured learning.^1,5

Prevention in food safety is not only a public health function. It is an economic one. Disruptions from foodborne illness—outbreaks, recalls, loss of consumer confidence—carry real costs for businesses, supply chains, and communities. A workforce that can consistently prevent these events contributes to stability well beyond the inspection itself.

From Information to Judgment: Closing Competency Gaps

The retail food findings reinforce these points. In the NEHA–FDA Retail Food Training Needs Assessment, 2,267 professionals across 49 states identified high-relevance, low-exposure needs in areas such as active managerial control, root cause analysis, risk-based inspection, data analysis, program evaluation, and risk communication.^1,3 These are central to modern food safety practice; yet training access and opportunities to build applied competency are not always keeping pace.³

Replacing a workforce is not just about filling vacancies; it is about rebuilding judgment. That does not happen without structure. A profession grounded in defined competencies and reinforced through credentialing establishes a baseline for consistency and a pathway for development over time.² As the workforce transitions, that structure becomes more important, not less.

The first condition is training—and it must be reconsidered to address identified gaps in judgment, decision-making, and communication. If the work requires interpretation, communication, and defensible decision-making, training cannot rely on information transfer alone. Again, it must be structured, scenario-based, and designed to build critical thinking in context.

Building the Infrastructure for Prevention

Through national workforce research, training infrastructure, and credentialing, NEHA is helping define the operational backbone required for prevention at scale. These efforts focus on sanitation, food safety, and outbreak prevention with an emphasis on application, targeting core competencies such as risk assessment, time and temperature control, environmental microbiology, and hazard analysis.

Training aligns with foundational areas including HACCP, applied food microbiology, and operational risk management, alongside credentialing pathways like Registered Environmental Health Specialist/Registered Sanitarian (REHS/RS) and Certified Professional—Food Safety (CP-FS), reinforcing a consistent structure of knowledge, practice, and professional standards.

Delivered online and accessible across jurisdictions, these programs support local capacity, particularly where internal training infrastructure is limited, by extending consistent, evidence-informed training into onboarding, continuing education, and program development. At scale, this direct-to-workforce approach supports more consistent application of food safety principles and strengthens the ability of professionals to identify and address hazards before they result in illness.

Why Federal Investment Matters

Federal investment has been central to building the training infrastructure that supports a workforce already under pressure from turnover and uneven training capacity. Programs like the Retail Flexible Funding Model (RFFM) directly address these gaps by expanding access to training, strengthening workforce development, and aligning practices across jurisdictions. Workforce research makes the stakes clear: many state, local, tribal, and territorial programs lack the capacity to deliver training in specialized and emerging areas.^1,3 Without sustained support, those gaps will widen and prevention will become uneven.

To sustain prevention at scale, four actions are required:

1. Sustain and expand federal workforce training investments, including programs like RFFM
2. Standardize competency-based training and credentialing pathways across jurisdictions
3. Invest in applied, scenario-based training that builds real-world decision-making
4. Strengthen data systems that support timely, consistent decision-making in practice.

The profession is not starting from weakness, but from strong foundational competence paired with growing complexity. The question is whether the systems around the workforce will evolve fast enough to move the next generation from information to judgment—and keep prevention at the center.

“Prevention is not automatic. It depends on whether the last line of defense is prepared, supported, and able to act with consistency when it matters most.”

Workforce Capacity Shapes Food Safety Outcomes

This leads to a larger question: do these workforce characteristics matter at the system level? Answering that question requires data, and emerging research shows that they do.

Recent studies point to a clear pattern: jurisdictions that invest in workforce development, standardized practices, and continuous improvement show more consistent implementation of food safety practices. While not always visible at the inspection level, these differences emerge over time. Programs that build internal capacity through training, consistent processes, and data-informed decision-making are better positioned to identify and address risks early.

This suggests that outcomes are shaped not just by regulations, but by how effectively they are implemented through people and systems. Workforce competency, program structure, and access to training influence how consistently prevention is achieved. While this does not establish direct causation, it points to a clear association—stronger programs align with more consistent and stable implementation over time.

That signal is enough to shift the conversation. If prevention depends on consistent, real-world decisions across thousands of establishments, then the strength of the workforce, and the systems that support it, becomes central to public health.

Prevention is not automatic. It depends on whether the last line of defense is prepared, supported, and able to act with consistency when it matters most.

Sustaining Prevention in a Changing Environment

The expectation for preparedness remains, but the conditions are changing. A transitioning workforce and increasing complexity mean preparation can no longer follow a business-as-usual approach. The gap is no longer access to information, but the ability to interpret and apply it in real-world settings.^1,5

Training must shift from content delivery to applied capability. Programs need the capacity—through funding, staffing, and tools—to support that shift. Emerging technologies, including data systems and artificial intelligence, can extend training and reinforce decision-making, but only if aligned with how prevention actually occurs in practice.

These efforts directly support broader federal priorities focused on prevention and upstream health protection. Initiatives such as Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) and Make Our Children Healthy Again emphasize reducing risk before it becomes illness, which requires a workforce trained to recognize, interpret, and act on risk before it reaches the clinical system.

Food safety is central to that approach. The ability of environmental health professionals to prevent illness before it reaches the clinical system directly supports these priorities. Ensuring the workforce is trained, supported, and equipped to act consistently connects prevention to measurable public health outcomes.

Prevention has always been the foundation of the food safety system. Maintaining it will require alignment. A workforce that is trained, credentialed, data-enabled, and supported is not aspirational. It is the condition required for prevention to function at scale.²

The decision to cool a pan of rice correctly will never make headlines. But multiplied across thousands of establishments, it determines whether prevention holds—or fails.

Note

The Bioeconomy Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Bio‑ISAC) is a nonprofit, member‑driven organization that serves as a trusted hub for sharing and analyzing threat information specific to the life sciences, biotechnology, and broader bioeconomy sectors. Its mission is to improve cybersecurity and biosecurity resilience by enabling confidential, two‑way exchange of intelligence on vulnerabilities, incidents, and emerging risks among industry, academia, and government, and by supporting coordinated vulnerability disclosure, workforce training, and practical guidance at the cyber‑bio interface.

References

1. Fahnestock, L., S. Streuli, G. Gill, R. DeVito, J. DeFrancesco, M. Randhawa, D. Dyjack, and R. Baker. "Decoding training needs: Using relevance and exposure to identify training needs in the retail food regulatory workforce." Journal of Environmental Health 87, no. 1 (2024): 24–32. 
2. Bare, G., T.N. Kim, C.W. Hedberg, N. Dutra, C. Walker, and D. Dyjack. "Pillars of governmental environmental public health: A guide to scalable environmental public health programs." National Environmental Health Association. 2025. https://www.neha.org/Pillars-of-Governmental-Environmental-Public-Health. 
3. Baker, R., S. Streuli, G. Gill, J. DeFrancesco, C. Somaiya, R. DeVito, D. Dyjack, and M. Randhawa. "Decoding training needs: Developing a needs assessment tool to inform workforce capacity building in retail food safety." Journal of Environmental Health 86, no. 6 (2024): 34–38. 
4. Streuli, S., G. Gill, R. DeVito, L. Fahnestock, J. DeFrancesco, C.K. Somaiya, D. Ramirez, R. Baker, D. Dyjack, and M. Randhawa. "Decoding training needs: Exploring demographic data to understand retail food regulatory workforce composition and inform capacity building." Journal of Environmental Health 86, no. 8 (2024): 34–40. 
5. National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) "Analysis of REHS/RS exam performance and job task alignment." Unpublished internal report. 2026.

Further Reading

• Norton, R.A., M. Sachs, and C.A. Young. "A Future View of AI-Enhanced Biosurveillance and Comprehensive Food Safety Programs." Food Safety Magazine December 2023/January 2024. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/9110-a-future-view-of-ai-enhanced-biosurveillance-and-comprehensive-food-safety-programs​.
• Norton, R.A., M. Sachs, M. and C.A. Young. "Cognitive Security, a Growing Concern for Food Safety: Part 6." Food Safety Magazine August/September 2025. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/10630-cognitive-security-a-growing-concern-for-food-safety-part-6.
• FDA. "Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption." Federal Register 89, no. 88 (2024): 29618–29702.​ Link:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/06/2024-09153/standards-for-the-growing-harvesting-packing-and-holding-of-produce-for-human-consumption-relating 
• Guiterrez-Rodriguez, E. and A. Adhikari. "Preharvest Farming Practices Impacting Fresh Produce Safety." Microbiology Spectrum 6, no. 2 (April 2018). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11633564/.​
• Flach, M.G., O.B. Dogan, M.F. Miller, M.X. Sanchez, and M.M. Brashears. "Comparison of Three Preharvest Sampling Strategies to Monitor Pathogens in Cattle Lairage Areas." Journal of Food Protection 87, no. 4 (April 2024): 100425.​ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38428462/. 
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "Understanding Pre-Harvest Routes of Fresh Produce Contamination in Soils." National Agricultural Library, Food Safety Research Projects.​ 2013. https://www.nal.usda.gov/research-tools/food-safety-research-projects/understanding-pre-harvest-routes-fresh-produce.
• Rood, L., C. Kocharunchitt, J. Bowman, et al. "Potential for in-field pre-harvest control of foodborne human pathogens in leafy vegetables: Identification of research gaps and opportunities." Trends in Food Science & Technology 158 (April 2025): 104928.​ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224425000640. 
• Norton, R.A., C.A. Young, and D. Gerstein. "Bringing New Technologies to Bear for Biosurveillance." Food Safety Magazine April 23, 2024. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/9424-bringing-new-technologies-to-bear-for-biosurveillance.​
• Norton, R.A., M. Sachs, and C.A. Young. Food Safety Magazine. July 2, 2024. "Two Tools for One Health and Biosurveillance." https://www.food-safety.com/articles/9590-two-tools-for-one-health-and-biosurveillance.