Rethinking Food Safety Training

As funding constraints continue to impact both regulators and industry, food safety training must evolve to better meet the needs of today’s workforce while maximizing value and impact.

To better understand the barriers that limit participation in training courses and to identify opportunities for improvement, the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) conducted a brainstorming session with past trainees to gather firsthand experiences and challenges related to training. Early discussions identified familiar challenges: budget constraints, competing priorities and staffing limitations that make it difficult to participate in traditional in-person training.

Building on these insights, AFDO conducted a second phase of structured, two-hour focus groups with industry and regulatory participants. A standardized set of questions guided the discussions, and topics included how cost and other factors influence participation, preferred training formats and where gaps exist in both technical and soft skills. Together, these conversations provided a clearer picture of how training is experienced and where it can improve.

Focused Groups.

In late 2025, AFDO facilitated seven virtual focus groups, each bringing together three to eight participants. Six of the groups explored training needs across the retail and manufactured food sectors, including perspectives from both state and local regulatory agencies as well as industry representatives from regional and international companies and trade associations. A seventh group focused specifically on state produce safety programs.

Collectively, these discussions captured a broad cross-section of the United States, with participants representing 20 states across the Northeast, Midwest, South and West — ensuring that both regulatory and industry viewpoints from nearly every region were included.

Discussions were designed to identify the most pressing technical and soft skill needs, as well as effective training approaches to support consistent, defensible and risk-based food safety oversight. Each session was recorded to support accurate transcription and analysis, and facilitation methods — such as virtual whiteboards and live polling — were used to capture input from all attendees.

Food safety training priorities were initially identified through an earlier brainstorming session and AFDO course evaluations. These inputs were used to guide focus group discussions. Training priorities included topics such as risk-based inspections, communication skills (such as verbal judo), HACCP and specialized processes, conflict resolution and an education-first approach to compliance.

Through these discussions, participants identified additional training needs and highlighted the most critical priorities. They also explored how training should be delivered to diverse food safety audiences across both regulatory and industry settings. While participants validated many of the existing priorities, they also identified new gaps. This strong alignment reinforces the consistency of training needs across stakeholders, while also highlighting opportunities to refine and expand training approaches to better meet real-world demands.

A Results-Driven Approach.

Participants emphasized that training needs across soft and technical skill areas are equally essential for strengthening the food safety workforce. Soft skill priorities included communication for mutual understanding, critical thinking, food safety culture and professionalism. Technical skill needs focused on report writing, regulatory interpretation and food emergency response, along with budgeting and grant writing.

Participants consistently noted that they look for training that’s engaging and features hands-on learning with an emphasis on peer-to-peer interaction and case studies that reflect the day-to-day work of both regulatory and industry professionals. Many participants noted that a role-based structure, with training tailored to specific audiences — from new inspectors building foundational competencies to experienced professionals advancing into leadership roles or preparing to serve as instructors through Train-the-Trainer programs — was preferred. This approach ensures that course content is both relevant and immediately applicable. Flexibility to meet a range of scheduling, budget and workforce constraints was also important.

At the same time, focus group participants made it clear that course format matters. There remains a strong preference for in-person training, particularly for areas such as communication and conducting inspections. However, participants also acknowledged that virtual and hybrid options are increasingly necessary given reduced funding, staffing changes and time constraints.

There is added time commitment for travel to an in-person course. Instructors of an in-person delivery need two extra days beyond the course itself for travel and time to set up a training location. The costs associated with in-person training, including travel, staff time and instructor logistics, have made an in-person format more difficult to sustain.

For example, AFDO offers a suite of training courses and has expanded the use of virtual and asynchronous training while maintaining a strong focus on quality. This style of course incorporates interactive participant guides, up-to-date facilitator materials and scenario-based learning to ensure a high-value experience. Post-course evaluations indicate that participants view well-designed virtual and asynchronous training as equally effective and engaging as in-person offerings.

Focus group feedback highlighted the importance of clear, intentional word choice when defining and describing a course. Participants emphasized that course descriptions should clearly convey both the content and the value attendees will gain. They also noted the benefit of bringing regulatory and industry professionals together in the same courses, creating opportunities for shared learning and mutual understanding.

Training Delivery Insights.

Participants emphasized that the training format should align with the complexity and nature of the topic. In-person training remains the preferred approach for complex subjects and skill-building areas, particularly those requiring practice and feedback.

At the same time, participants highlighted a growing need for brief, on-demand refresher training to address real-time issues — such as recalls, traceability and inspection communication — including both how regulators convey information and how industry interprets it. They also expressed a clear preference for shorter, more focused webinars and identified interactive methods as critical for reinforcing learning.

Focus groups also consistently highlighted the value of bringing regulators and industry together in shared learning environments. These settings foster mutual understanding of how food safety systems operate in practice — both within establishments and during inspections. Regulators gain insight into operational challenges such as production schedules and sanitation constraints, while industry professionals gain a better understanding of regulatory expectations and inspection decision-making. These shared perspectives strengthen communication, improve consistency and ultimately support better food safety outcomes.

Closing the Soft Skills Gap.

There was strong consensus that soft skills are not optional. They are core competencies with direct, practical impact on day-to-day work. Industry voices independently raised a disconnect that soft skills are often undervalued by leadership, while technical skills tend to be prioritized because they are easier to justify and measure. This perspective emerged organically during discussion and underscores a broader gap in how training value is recognized.

Food safety professionals understand that soft skills are essential to effective job performance and organizational success. Professionals are regularly expected to communicate complex technical information, influence food safety culture, build trust and navigate conflict. In practice, soft skills provide a vehicle that enables a shift from an enforcement-driven mindset to one rooted in education and relationship-building.

At the same time, participation in training is often driven by a need for professional development and career growth. With organizations already invested in training, there is an opportunity to rethink how that investment is structured. Integrating soft skills into technical training — rather than treating them as separate or secondary — can help close this gap. Existing courses such as inspection training or active managerial control already demonstrate how technical and soft skills can be effectively combined.

Managers also have a role to play. Even in environments where leadership support is limited, they can reinforce the importance of soft skills by embedding them into everyday work, modeling effective behaviors and creating opportunities for team-based learning. Low-cost strategies such as role-playing, case studies and peer discussion provide practical ways to build and reinforce these skills over time.

Conclusions and Next Steps.

What stands out most from these discussions is that training challenges are not confined to a single sector. They are interconnected and increasingly focused on how food safety knowledge is applied.

Communication emerges as the most universal and urgent need. Regardless of sector, food safety professionals struggle to translate complex regulatory or scientific concepts into language that operators, executives or the public can understand. Whether verbal during an inspection or in written reports, the ability to communicate effectively is essential — not only for clarity, but for professionalism and accountability.

Closely tied to communication is the need for interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence. Success in today’s food safety landscape depends on building relationships, earning trust and working collaboratively across organizations. This is especially important in environments where maintaining trust and engagement plays a key role in compliance outcomes.

Across the regulatory sectors of retail, manufactured food and produce safety, the workforce is described as having diverse experience levels. New hires often require foundational training in plain-language communication, report writing, relationship-building and workload prioritization. At the same time, more experienced professionals seek opportunities to strengthen leadership, coaching and decision-making.

Industry participants emphasized the need for training that supports implementing food safety practices and strengthening food safety culture within organizations. They also valued opportunities for shared learning with regulators, particularly to better understand inspection expectations and improve alignment across food safety systems.

Training cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach. It must be flexible, role-based and able to support professionals as they progress through their careers. The most effective training programs will reflect how the food safety workforce actually operates: across sectors, roles and career stages. By aligning training with these realities, organizations can better equip professionals to meet evolving demands and deliver consistent, effective food safety outcomes.