Is the review of SF Knight’s health certificate strict?

Not strict.

The current requirement for delivery riders to hold a health certificate to work is not a nationwide requirement. Some provinces and major cities have issued relevant measures for the supervision and management of food safety in online catering services, emphasizing that personnel delivering takeaways must hold health certificates. This is a further emphasis on food safety. Local takeout platforms have repeatedly reiterated their strict compliance with regulations, claiming that all riders entering the industry undergo strict health certificate review. Some platforms also upload health certificates to the client for supervision by ordering users.

However, the recurring problem of fraudulent health certificates makes this regulation and the publicity of the food delivery platform appear to be in vain. As ordinary consumers, we have no ability to distinguish authenticity from authenticity, and we have no way to verify it. Even if all platforms publish photos of IDs, we cannot easily identify them as easily as retrieving the authenticity of industrial and commercial licenses. And it is obvious that the ability of food delivery platforms to verify the authenticity of health certificates also has shortcomings.

Forging health certificates currently seems to be very simple and convenient, with low cost and high efficiency. However, the real health certificate still requires a physical examination and then a week or so to get it. Without a strict review system, it is inevitable that there will be opportunistic loopholes left for others to take advantage of. Objectively speaking, there are omissions in the platform review, including "cannot" and "unwilling" reasons. "Can't" is because there is no unified format for health certificates. The formats of health certificates issued by different places and hospitals are different, which makes it difficult to review. At the same time, there is no unified number and it is impossible to verify the certificate number, not to mention the counterfeit certificate industry's influence on this field. Counterfeiting has already reached its peak; "unwillingness" means that the intensity and punitive measures against counterfeiting are almost non-threatening, and the platform's repeated releases do not seem to have had much negative impact. Therefore, the problem of lax management in this field does not exist. A fundamental change.

If fake health certificates can successfully pass the platform review and people who do not meet the health conditions can successfully work and deliver meals, then this regulation is just superficial and of little significance. Moreover, it is impossible for the regulatory authorities to review the information of all riders one by one. This loophole may be difficult to close.

Since last year, the issue of fake health certificates for riders has been widely reported. However, there has been no substantial progress in solving the problem. The self-discipline of the platform has obviously lacked motivation, and this problem will ultimately need to be further clarified and solved by the regulatory authorities. Whether it is to unify the number of the health certificate to ensure that the platform can check the authenticity, or to require the platform to uniformly process the health certificate instead of individual processing, first of all, we must make it clear that "strictly controlling food safety" cannot be just a clause or a takeaway advertisement. It must have the vitality to truly implement it.