By LISA  JENNINGS

Email Print

SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 07, 2009 ) —The ongoing investigation here of three moonlighting food inspectors who face allegations of improprieties when administering food-safety certification exams has raised questions about the oversight of such programs nationwide, a public health official has charged.

Last month, more than 520 restaurant operators across California were notified that their employees’ food-safety certification is no longer valid because of inappropriate testing and certification procedures by the three food inspectors, who were not identified. The food inspectors were acting as independent contractors, administering the tests for personal profit outside the purview of the city’s health department.

City health officials said they had firsthand accounts that the test-givers were either issuing certificates without giving the exam, or providing the answers to test takers before or during the test.

No wrongdoing on the part of the restaurants or the individual certification holders is alleged, health officials said.

Two of the three inspectors no longer work for the health department and the third remains under investigation. All three potentially face criminal charges in the case.

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, director of occupational and environmental health for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said the case illustrates the need for stricter standards for the food-safety certification process in California and elsewhere, a process thousands of restaurant workers go through across the country every year.

Because such certifications are portable, the issue potentially affects any jurisdiction where such certification is mandatory, Bhatia contended.

“There needs to be an accountable testing procedure, a whole law is based on it,” Bhatia said. “This undermines environmental law. It’s a very serious issue.”

Sue Hensley, senior vice president of communications for the National Restaurant Association in Washington, D.C., which offers the accredited ServSafe certification exam, said they were still investigating the case, and that it was too soon to make judgments about the effectiveness of the system.

“There are some alleged bad actors at play, but there’s not necessarily anything wrong systematically,” she said. “Their actions should not be taken as casting doubt on an extremely strong system.”

California is among 17 states and the District of Columbia that require restaurants to have at least one employee who has passed an approved and accredited food-safety certification exam. Another 36 states have at least one jurisdiction with similar requirements, according to the NRA.

The goal of such laws is to ensure that at least one employee has received adequate food-safety training and could disseminate information on safe practices to other food handlers.

Food-safety training courses vary widely from city to city, ranging from free online courses that can be completed in an hour, to longer classroom training sessions that extend over several days.

Ultimately for certification, however, workers must pass an exam authorized by one of three national sources: The National Registry of Food Safety Professionals, the NRA or Prometrics—all three follow the standards established by the Conference for Food Protection and are accredited by the American National Standards Institute.

The tests, which generally cost about $30, are administered by individuals approved by one of the three organizations.

In the San Francisco case, 542 of the certificates that were invalidated were issued by the National Registry and another 194 were by the NRA’s ServSafe program.

Prometrics, a testing agency that administers exams for a wide range of industries, ranging from dermatology to anti-money-laundering specialists, was not mentioned in the case.

In letters to both the National Registry and the NRA, Bhatia expressed concern that the exam administration practices were not properly monitored and that both groups would be “as concerned as we are that the reliability of the [certification exam] has been compromised, and will wish to conduct an investigation and take other steps to protect the integrity of its certification.”

The NRA’s David Gilbert said the association sees food safety as its paramount concern.

By LISA  JENNINGS

Email Print

David Gilbert, the NRA’s chief operating officer, said in a statement that the association shares Bhatia’s concern about potential abuses and that the association has been working with investigators.

“Food safety is our paramount concern,” Gilbert said. “We remain confident that the quality of ServSafe curriculum continues to be the ‘best practice’ for the industry, as evidenced by the thousands of individuals certified in California and the tens of thousands of individuals certified nationwide each month. Those individuals play a critical role in the safe preparation of restaurant meals across the country, and we will continue to work to ensure that they have complete confidence in the effectiveness and integrity of the program.”

Hensley added that exam security protocols are in place and that the three food inspectors under investigation have had their test-giving privileges suspended. The NRA is investigating further by contacting each of the examinees impacted.

Larry Lynch, president of the National Registry, said he was “highly insulted” that his group’s oversight is in question.

The National Registry spends thousands of dollars each year on cheat detection alone, he said. Sophisticated software is used when grading the tests to identify potential patterns of cheating, for example, and the group sometimes gets reports of abuse that are immediately investigated.

Lynch said the group sometime sends out secret shoppers to go through the testing process to catch “bad apples” in the act. When cheating is discovered, exam givers are “disassociated,” or no longer approved to give the test.

“There are shady operators out there,” said Lynch, noting that there are no legal sanctions against those who are disapproved.

Lynch contended that certification mandates could also put restaurant operators under pressure “to meet the needs of regulators rather than addressing the broader implications of food safety. It almost provides an incentive to cheat.”

In the case of the three inspectors in San Francisco, Lynch said he was contacted by investigators last year. The registry’s internal investigation showed no indication if impropriety.

All three have lost privileges through the registry, however, because they violated their employee contracts by moonlighting, Lynch said.

The moonlighting was a secondary problem, said Bhatia, but one that also must be addressed.

In San Francisco, food inspectors have been reminded that they must report to their employers any work they are doing in which they profit from the restaurants they regulate, a potential conflict of interest.

Across the country, it’s not unusual for restaurant inspectors to conduct private food-safety audits, for example, or to provide private training in restaurants to help operators better comply with the rules.

“Moonlighting itself isn’t a problem, but they need to notify their employers,” he added. “Soliciting business from those whom they regulate I would consider a conflict of interest. It creates duress on restaurants to use their services.”

The restaurants whose certification was revoked—including 345 in San Francisco and another 183 outside of the city—have 60 days to become recertified. Operators also have the option of showing that another employee is certified.

San Francisco health officials have also sent letters to their counterparts in 57 other California counties that are likely to be affected because the certifications are portable.

The restaurants impacted included units of major chains such as Burger King, McDonald’s, Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits, Johnny Rockets and Round Table Pizza, as well as independents and smaller multiunit concepts such as Crepevine and Squat & Gobble Café & Crepery.

One of the restaurant operators affected—who asked not to be identified fearing possible retribution from food inspectors—said he holds the certification himself, though he routinely pays the $100 for employees to become certified because he believes it benefits them.

One of the food inspectors under investigation had planned to do the private training in one of his restaurants before he “got busted,” the operator said.

“It made me a little uncomfortable, but if the badge people want to come in, you want to accommodate them,” he said. “These things tend to get personal.”—ljenning@nrn.com