Following Mike Baker’s AP stories a couple of weeks ago on commercial kitchen inspection reports in North Carolina newspapers and radio shows across the state are running with the story.

The Raleigh News & Observer called for a revisit of the grade posting system increasing the penalties assessed for yuck-factor violations.

Considering that "on hundreds of occasions" eateries with insect or rodent issues have scored 100 or higher (because there’s a provision for bonus points), the current system clearly flunks the test of public protection.

A Durham Herald Sun editorial on the coverage included my take on posting grades and the inspection system:

"From an inspection standpoint, I think we’re definitely focusing on the right things when it comes to a risk-based system," he said Tuesday. "We’re weighting things correctly … based on the CDC and WHO risk factors."Although diners (and reporters) tend to obsess about rodent and insect infestations, Chapman said, there’s a difference between the stuff that would make someone queasy if he knew about it (like eating an insect, a relatively low-risk event) and the stuff that will make him a lot more than queasy (like eating food that’s been sitting out at a temperature in a range that encourages bacterial growth).

I like risk-based inspections a lot, and believe that posting grades and making reports available for review is a must.  The resulting increased dialogue from these articles is a good thing.  For restaurant patrons interested in a reality show-style tour of a restaurant’s hygiene practices, North Carolina’s inspection grading system provides a needed sneak peak.

Estimates suggest up to 70% of foodborne illnesses are acquired outside of the home. Every week there is at least one restaurant-related outbreak reported in the news media somewhere in the U.S..  Cross-contamination; lack of handwashing; and, improper cooking or holding temperatures are all common themes — the very same infractions that North Carolina restaurant inspection grades report.

There are limitations to a grade system because an inspection only reflects conditions at one point in time, however, the information collected by inspectors, no matter how limited, needs to accessible and clear.  

But the system can be improved, risks (perceived and real) translated better to meet the needs of an information-hungry public. And that’s something the industry, public health and academics can all work on together.

NC’s restaurant inspection system works not just because of posting grades, but because of the regulators’ mandate to engage in a dialogue with restaurant operators and, more importantly, the public, about food safety risks.

A grade should reflect how restaurant staff behaved while an inspector was present; the challenge is to motivate employees and managers to practice good food safety day-in-day-out, whether an inspector is present or not.