Getting caught altering an inspection report probably isn’t great for business

Posted on January 2, 2014 by Ben Chapman

Posting restaurant inspection results on regulatory websites and on media sites are a good exercise in public engagement, can increase discussion and sometimes lead to eating decisions. I like to read through the restaurant inspection report summaries we pick up through Google Alerts to see what’s going on. Sometimes the reports are all yuck and no risk factor – as they are often handpicked by media outlets. Often there are some decent examples of that can be used to show folks what not to do.

Like changing the date on a good inspection and replacing your current report with the old one.

According to the Dacula Patch, that’s exactly what Peking Chinese Restaurant was caught doing last week (amongst other stuff including some repeat violations).

Peking Chinese Restaurant
831 Auburn Road, Suite 610
Score: 90
Last Inspection: 12/26/13
Click here for report.

Observations and corrective actions:

Violation of Code: [.07(6)(l) ] Observed can of Raid and Home Defense bug spray being stored in facility. Both labeled for home use only. Only pesticided indicated to be used in food service establishments may be used. Both were discarded during inspection. Corrected On-Site. New Violation.
Violation of Code: [.10(2)(g) ] Inspection report from 12/14/11 posted. Inspection report had been altered to say 12/14/13. Most recent inspection must be posted at all times. Previous inspection report was voided. New Violation.
Violation of Code: [.05(6)(r) ] Soy sauce buckets being reused for food storage. Single use items may not be reused for food storage. **PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION** Repeat Violation.
Violation of Code: [.05(10)(g)(1)&(3) ] Single use containers stored out of protective sleeve with food surface up. Single use items must be protected from contamination by being inverted or stored in protective sleeve received in. All were inverted during inspection. Corrected On-Site. New Violation.
Violation of Code: [.05(7)(a)2,3 ] Sides of fryers and wok station observed with accumulation of grease. Equipment must be cleaned at a frequency to prevent accumulations. New Violation.
Violation of Code: [.07(5)(d) ] Hood filters observed with dripping oil. Ventilation system must be cleaned at a frequency to prevent accumulations. Increase cleaning frequency. **PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION** Repeat Violation.

Pretty shifty stuff.

Restaurant inspection grading scam in NZ

Posted on October 14, 2013 by Douglas Powell

People want some sort of grading system for the places where they spend their money on food.

There are lots of disclosure systems – A,B,C; red, yellow, green, numbers, web-based – and they can all be improved.

But in the absence of a credible system, someone will fill the vacuum, often with quackery or scams.

As reported by the Sunday-Star Times in New Zealand, a company set up by a convicted identity thief and a banned company director is under investigation, after they teamed up in a “tick” scheme for hygiene standards that drew in hundreds of businesses nationwide.

The Companies Office is looking into the activities of the Hygiene Foundation – including investigating those at the top of its management structure – after complaints from former employees and clients. The company has denied any wrongdoing, with a representative maintaining that the company is above board.

However, a Sunday Star-Times investigation has uncovered that: One of those running the Hygiene Foundation is Lance Ryan, aka Lance Jared Thompson, who was convicted of stealing the names of five dead people to claim welfare payments in 2005. The other is alleged to be David Blake, aka David Colin Hughey, who is currently serving a five-year director’s ban after he was found to be running a company while an undischarged bankrupt. It is illegal to manage a business for three years while bankrupt.

The company falsely listed big-name clients such as Pizza Hut owners Restaurant Brands and Southern Cross Hospitals on its website It handed out certification to its “cleanliness” program to some parties without undertaking any hygiene tests, to build a client base.

The company failed to pay many of its staff, and has since been ordered to pay almost $200,000 in unpaid wages and compensation through the Employment Relations Authority. The Hygiene Foundation Ltd was set up in 2012 with Ryan as its owner. It has since passed through several pairs of hands and is now wholly owned by another of Ryan’s companies – the Investment Foundation – of which David Blake’s wife Hayley Blake is also a shareholder. It promoted itself as a cleanliness advisory firm, offering a “White Tick Program” to clients that recognised they had met certain hygiene criteria via tests carried out by its technicians, potentially achieving the standards with equipment lent by the foundation itself. Companies could display the tick once certified.

However, former employees say the certificates were often handed out without any testing and the scheme was essentially a scam. Sharon Zer, who was hired as a regional manager on a salary of $78,000, said she and her colleagues were told to sign up customers for free in order to gain membership numbers before their hygiene testing equipment had even arrived. Companies were listed as members and got certificates, but never had the swab or air testing promised – essentially getting a “tick” for nothing. “

When the Sunday Star-Times visited the Foundation’s premises on Albert St, Auckland, its offices were empty and signs taken down. A man present at the address said he “had nothing to do with the company” and was just “using the space”. On Wednesday, David Blake said he was no longer involved with the company and was now working in “sales”. The next day, his phone line was disconnected. Lance Ryan’s phone was also disconnected by Thursday. However, he replied to an email denying the allegations in this story – saying the company had not acted illegally in any way. He denied that David Blake ever ran the Hygiene Foundation. “He worked for the company. He’s totally allowed to do that,” he said. Ryan said the White Tick system was completely above board. ” We spent in the tens of thousands of dollars on imported top-of-the-range equipment,” he said The company was no longer trading, he said. Its license had been sold to a third party and previous management “no longer had any say in the business”. Ryan said while he had “a past”, he had changed his name for a legitimate reason – both he and Blake were being blackmailed, he said. “If someone has a complaint about my actions as a director I encourage them to take it to the Companies’ Office or sue me directly. I did nothing wrong,” he said. “The Hygiene Foundation was not doing anything illegal.”

Here’s a more rigorous suggestion for disclosure in NZ.

Filion, K. and Powell, D.A. 2011. Designing a national restaurant inspection disclosure system for New Zealand.   Journal of Food Protection 74(11): 1869-1874 .

The World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of individuals in developed countries become ill from contaminated food or water each year, and up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food service facilities. The aim of restaurant inspections is to reduce foodborne outbreaks and enhance consumer confidence in food service. Inspection disclosure systems have been developed as tools for consumers and incentives for food service operators. Disclosure systems are common in developed countries but are inconsistently used, possibly because previous research has not determined the best format for disclosing inspection results. This study was conducted to develop a consistent, compelling, and trusted inspection disclosure system for New Zealand. Existing international and national disclosure systems were evaluated. Two cards, a letter grade (A, B, C, or F) and a gauge (speedometer style), were designed to represent a restaurant’s inspection result and were provided to 371 premises in six districts for 3 months. Operators (n = 269) and consumers (n = 991) were interviewed to determine which card design best communicated inspection results. Less than half of the consumers noticed cards before entering the premises; these data indicated that the letter attracted more initial attention (78%) than the gauge (45%). Fifty-eight percent (38) of the operators with the gauge preferred the letter; and 79% (47) of the operators with letter preferred the letter. Eighty-eight percent (133) of the consumers in gauge districts preferred the letter, and 72% (161) of those in letter districts preferring the letter. Based on these data, the letter method was recommended for a national disclosure system for New Zealand. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2011/00000074/00000011/art00010

NYC Salmonella cases rise in 2012 despite restaurant letter grades

Posted on October 8, 2013 by Douglas Powell

Restaurant inspection grades do not reduce rates of foodborne illness – not in any scientifically credible and measurable manner.

Publicly available grades, like the A, B, C of LA and New York City, or the red, yellow, green of Toronto do increase public awareness and discussion of food safety, enhancing the overall food safety culture for staff and patrons.

I understand the desire to say, hey, this program made fewer people sick, but we’re not there yet, so why overstate when it will only lead to disappointment (also valid in budget estimates and personal relationships, and pretty much everything).

The International Business Times reports New York restaurant-goers are eating up the city’s three-year-old grading system, but its effect on public health is still a bit of a mystery taste test.

Salmonella infections in New York City rose more than 4 percent in 2012 to 1,168 cases, up from 1,121 cases the year before, according to the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The uptick follows a much-publicized 14 percent decline in salmonella infections in 2011, the first full year that the letter grades were implemented. City officials had touted the initial decline as an early sign that the letter-grade posting may be contributing to a reduction in foodborne illnesses.

According to city health officials, the annual number of salmonella infections is a useful indicator of trends in food-related illnesses: Salmonella cases occur relatively frequently and about 95 percent of them are believed to be caused by eating contaminated food.

New York’s letter-grading system — in which restaurants are required to display a large A, B or C grade in the window of their establishment — was instituted in July 2010. Since that time, the Health Department has published a progress report every six months, updating New Yorkers on the system’s effectiveness. But those reports stopped coming after 18 months: the last one was published in January 2012.

Asked why the reports stopped, the Health Department told International Business Times that city officials “continue to evaluate the letter-grading initiative and are looking at the impact of the improved inspectional program on restaurants and on hospitalizations and emergency visits for foodborne illnesses.”

While popular with the public, the grading system has been described as unnecessarily burdensome and even humiliating by restaurant owners and food handlers who complain of steep fines, arbitrary inspections and bloated hearings procedures.

Patti Jackson, a veteran New York chef, said, “The grades are punitive and silly, but I don’t think they’re the worst thing that’s ever happened. They’re just a giant throbbing pain in the ass.”

Maybe. Or maybe the grades hold people a little more accountable. How best to improve the system?

Going public on restaurants in New Zealand

Posted on September 24, 2013 by Douglas Powell

People want to know what’s in (or on) their food.

Some people care about different things: I care about the microbes that make people barf.

But when people buy food at a grocery store, restaurant or market, they don’t really know what they’re getting, because “food safety is the number 1 priority” or “we’ve done it this way for years and never made anyone sick” or “trust me.”

One attempt to fill that gap is making the results of food inspections public. It’s popular with local voters, and similarly popular with media.

The New Zealand Herald is the latest to embrace the dirty dining trend, running daily summaries of the worst offenders.

New Zealand has a hodgepodge of inspection disclosure systems, so the series focuses on the biggest city, Auckland, which does have a letter grading system.

Last month Central Auckland’s dirtiest eating establishments were named.

Food grades in the former Auckland City region show 10 restaurants and cafes have received E grades, with 29 given a D grade.

The New Zealand Herald online asked readers if they were influenced by the food grading system. Nearly 13,500 readers responded and just over half said they used the rating to make a call about whether to dine there. Or not.

But to the every day diner, how do these places really stack up?

A few brave members of the online team have decided to put their bellies on the line and review all 29 of the D listers, revealing one a day for the month of September. D grade eateries are reviewed twice a year, according to Auckland City Council. While they are subject to change, our list is correct as of the last week of August, 2013. If the grade is changed at the time of publication this will be made clear in the review.

In capital city Wellington, city council records given reluctantly to Fairfax NZ show 38 premises were issued with cleaning or repair notices in the past financial year, including four that were forced to close.

The list of notices is publicly available information but it was released only after the council told the businesses on the list that it was “extremely reluctant” to provide their names.

Council operations and business development team leader Raaj Govinda said in a letter sent to all premises before the list was released, council was not able to withhold names from the public, though it was “extremely reluctant” to provide the list and “has not done so willingly.”

That will do nothing to build consumer confidence.

Other councils, including Auckland and Palmerston North, list the hygiene ratings for all eateries online.

Yesterday, Govinda said Wellington was considering doing that but it did not want to put businesses at risk.

“In general, council is not in the business of trying to close people. We have got a regulatory duty.”

But unlike the U.S. version of the restaurant lobby, Wellington Restaurant Association president Mike Egan said it was important for restaurants to be held accountable, as closure notices were often a last resort, adding, “Those places would have had ample opportunity normally to put things right and it’s about a failure to either take it seriously or react appropriately.” Putting ratings online could be a “big carrot” for good practice, he said.

We have some experience with restaurant inspection disclosure systems. Even in New Zealand.

Filion, K. and Powell, D.A. 2011. Designing a national restaurant inspection disclosure system for New Zealand.   Journal of Food Protection 74(11): 1869-1874 .

Filion, K. and Powell, D.A. 2009. The use of restaurant inspection disclosure systems as a means of communicating food safety information. Journal of Foodservice 20: 287-297.

The World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of individuals in developed countries become ill from food or water each year. Up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food prepared at foodservice establishments. Consumer confidence in the safety of food prepared in restaurants is fragile, varying significantly from year to year, with many consumers attributing foodborne illness to foodservice. One of the key drivers of restaurant choice is consumer perception of the hygiene of a restaurant. Restaurant hygiene information is something consumers desire, and when available, may use to make dining decisions.

Make it mandatory; Brisbane voluntary restaurant star system sorta dumb

Posted on July 13, 2013 by Douglas Powell

The Gold Coast is a tourism mecca for the Australian state government of Queensland, but the locals aren’t so impressed.

The beaches are awesome, but tacky development and the influence of the underworld undermine claims to tourism credibility.

So do some of the restaurants.

Paul Weston writes that some of the Gold Coast’s best and award-winning restaurants have been hit with the biggest fines following inspections by Gold Coast City Council environmental health officers.  

A Bulletin investigation has uncovered details of 35 restaurants prosecuted in the first five months of this year, along with 93 businesses in 2012.  

A Right to Information investigation has revealed the names of the four restaurants which sparked the major prosecutions along with repeat offenders.  

The biggest fines were given to Lemongrass Thai (Main Beach), Eddie’s Crazy Fish Sushi Bar (Southport), India@Q Restaurant (Mermaid Waters) and Good Choice Restaurant (Helensvale).  

Legal action in the Southport Magistrate’s Court for breaches like filthy work conditions and poor hygiene led to the restaurants being fined almost $50,000.  

Lemongrass Thai Restaurant won the Best Thai in the Queensland Restaurant and Catering Awards in 2006 and was a People’s Choice winner at a Gold Coast magazine awards a year earlier.

The other restaurants have been applauded by several reviewers on tourism websites..

The findings come after a public backlash where diners demanded greater transparency from Gold Coast City Council, which refused to release details of prosecuted businesses.

Queensland Health is reviewing the system and pressure is building for all councils to follow Brisbane and introduce an Eat Safe rating system.

But that system is voluntary and completely ineffectual. Having other areas follow a flawed system is not going to do anything to boost tourist confidence.

Worst areas for hygiene scores in UK restaurants

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Douglas Powell

In a rating of restaurant hygiene based on public inspection scores in the UK, the SE25 area of Croydon has been listed as one of the “worst areas,” as a takeaway in Selhurst area, just outside of the SE25 postcode, received the highest food safety fine ever levied by Croydon Magistrates — £30,000 after failing to meet standards since 2005.

Consumer group Which? Ma gazine collected data from thousands of local authorities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2011 onwards.

East London Lines reports the results come from individual councils’ food and safety inspections carried out in accordance with guidelines set by the Food Standards Agency.

The guidelines provide a 0-6 scale, scoring food outlets from 0 meaning “urgent improvement necessary,” to 5 meaning ‘very good.’

Although the subheading of the “Which?” article uses the word “eateries,” the data includes food outlets such as takeaways and restaurants, but also schools and hospitals.

“Which?” reported that 44 per cent of the 85 inspected outlets in the SE25 area of Croydon scored less than 3. The average score for Croydon was 2.65.

The worst in the country was Bexley with an average score of 2.62.

East London Lines spoke to the Food Safety Team at Croydon Council who said that “there are many reasons why the average ratings vary from place to place”.

One of the suggested reasons is that there may be variation in the way in which people are grading. The spokesman said that some people may be “tougher than others.”

Croydon Council stressed that “whilst those premises with low scores do have things that they should improve they are not considered to be an immediate health risk.”

When asked about the high percentage of low scores, The Food Safety Team commented that a low score does not necessarily reflect the hygiene of premises.

Lots of smaller businesses and owners who do not have English as their first language often do not have a proper written health and safety system and “this prevents them scoring over one on the hygiene rating system, regardless of how good they are.”

Croydon Council said that they are working with these businesses to improve their grading.

East London Lines found that the claims published by “Which?” do not correlate with information on “Scores On the Doors,” although both use council’s FSA data as their source.

Scaremongering mixed with sense: 20/20 looks at dirty restaurants

Posted on November 20, 2012 by Douglas Powell

Roy Costa did some extra work with ABC’s 20/20 on a piece about restaurant food safety that Eater branded as scaremongering.

And it sorta is, but Roy was right about the role restaurant inspection disclosure has in creating some sense of accountability; he was also right when he said that unless there’s a food safety culture, these infractions are just brushed off.

Do fines even matter? NYC councilor drafting bill to change restaurant inspection fine structure

Posted on August 13, 2012 by Ben Chapman

A colleague at the vet college shared a story with me about restaurant grades a couple of months ago. He and his son went into a local sushi place and it was dead – they had no problem getting a seat during the usually busy lunch rush. He asked the manager what was up and she said that business had been down since they had been given a low score during a routine inspection.

That made him pause a bit, they ordered lunch and ate, but hadn’t been back. I guess some folks do make choices based on posted restaurant grades.

In New York, inspections and grade postings have been a hot topic for the past few months – and as Doug wrote a few weeks ago, the requisite whining from both sides is a bit tiring.

In attempt to take the clean doesn’t mean safe statement to a more pragmatic level, NYC councilor Christine Quinn is (I think) trying to make the health department to refocus their fine structure away from clean infractions and focus on safety (but it’s billed by the New York Daily News as "shrinking penalties for citations that don’t involve food").

In my ideal regulatory environment fines would be based on risk to public health – and so would disclosure grades.

“They are definitely working on the bill,” said Robert Bookman, counsel to the New York City Hospitality Alliance, an influential new restaurant group. “There’s a universal feeling among the City Council that something must be done to rein in the Health Department.”

The likely legislative changes include shrinking penalties for citations that don’t involve food — problems like broken tiles and dented food cans, sources said. The legislation is also expected to waive fines for eateries that score an A after appealing a lower grade.

If, as expected, the bill clears the Council, it would need a thumbs up from Mayor Bloomberg, who hasn’t shown much of an appetite for overhauling the controversial system.

City Hall expects to bank a record $48 million in restaurant fines this fiscal year — a 50% increase from the $32 million collected in 2009, budget records show.

While the fine rhetoric is captivating, the biggest penalty to a restaurant might be a poor risk-based inspection grade.

Time warp: Guelph still baffled by restaurant grades

Posted on April 5, 2012 by Douglas Powell

Ten years after neighboring Toronto initiated its red-yellow-green restaurant grading system, eight years after we said Guelph sucked at providing public information on restaurant inspections, and six years after other Ontario communities began adopting a variety of additional information disclosure systems such as websites and letter-grades, Guelph is trying to catch up.

The self-proclaimed capital of all things food in Canada is maybe, possibly, considering disclosure.

The Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public health is signaling that it may want to make the results of its food safety assessments more readily accessible to the public.

The Guelph Mercury editorial board concludes that’s a welcome and overdue direction for this organization to take.

The agency is engaging in survey efforts with the general public and with food service providers to gain input on whether, and how, to place more information about health unit restaurant inspection results and the like more into the public realm.

There are two surveys on the health board’s website, www.wdgpublichealth.ca, one for the public at large, the second for food preparation businesses like restaurants and caterers that are regularly inspected, on whether and how reports should be made accessible.

To date from both groups, it’s been virtually unanimous that such information would be appreciated.

“We thought the number would be high, but we didn’t really think it would be 99 per cent,” health protection manager Shawn Zentner said Wednesday.

Cutting-edge excellence.

In a 2005 audit, the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph unit only released the results of local restaurant inspections after a formal access to information request was made and paid for.

We know. A couple of my students tried to get some results in 2004 and were told to pay up and wait 4-6 weeks.

It’s all painfully archaic.

Epidemiology links to Panera in Jersey norovirus outbreak; spokesperson highlights that staff weren’t ill

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Ben Chapman

Food safety is about trust. Good processing, retail and food service companies choose suppliers that they trust – and sometimes that includes demonstrating they can manage risks during some sort of an audit or inspection.
Patrons choose food based on a whole bunch of things like price, taste, ethical philosophy and trust that they aren’t going to get sick — with not all that much safety information to go on.

In most jurisdictions, selling food means meeting some sort of licensing/inspection requirement. In better locales health authorities tell people about how individuals managed food safety the last time someone checked – and post the results online or in the window (even better if they have QR codes). I had coffee with a colleague last week and he asked me about North Carolina’s grade posting system. I said I liked the dialogue and interest it generates but that it’s hard to make a decision based on the sign – there are lots of limitations. I can’t tell whether the business lost points because of a bunch of little things like broken tiles or no hot water in the handwashing sinks (that I don’t really care about) or whether someone showed up to work barfing (which I do care about).

He just said, "I don’t eat at Jersey Mike’s because of the grade posting. They had a 94 (relatively low in NC -ben) for a couple of months."

Having poor inspection results can affect patrons’ trust – so can outbreaks.

In Jersey, land of Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Snooki and Jwow and Princeton, NJ health folks have pointed to a Mercer County Panera Bread outlet as one of the potential spots where a January 2012 norovirus outbreak was spread. According to Samantha Costa of The Times, Panera was reported as a common spot that a bunch of the ill college kids ate.

During the peak of the norovirus outbreak at colleges here this winter, as many as 150 Princeton University students could have been exposed to the illness at a local eatery, public health officials said this week.The virus that sickened more than 400 students at colleges and universities throughout Mercer County may have been spread through many venues, but health officials in Princeton suspect many Princeton University cases originated at Panera Bread on Nassau Street. In late January, the health department removed five workers in the restaurant from food handling after discovering that many students with the illness had eaten there.

“There might have been upwards of 150 different students, and there was no realistic way to get a total number of food histories on those students,” Princeton Regional Health Department Director David Henry said. All of those students had eaten at Panera, but there were many other potential sources of the virus that also may have been involved, health officials said.

Jackie Brenne, a spokeswoman for Panera, said that despite the precautions, “no Panera associates were found to be ill. Panera managers did review safety and illness policies with all cafe associates.”The health department report said inspector Randy Carter spent about an hour at Panera Bread, tracking down the food histories of where students ate and listed common foods they ate at Panera Bread to rule out salmonella (not sure why Salmonella was focused on here? -ben).

However, the students’ eating habits pointed to many retail food establishments, the report said.“In those particular cases, we can’t label or narrow it down to one or two food establishments. It was a community outbreak and Panera and some of the other places just ended up being victims of the norovirus,” Henry said. “We don’t know the one place. All we know is when we have a situation we have to contain it.”Nassau Street is frequented by many Princeton University and Rider University students alike, the department said. Rider’s Westminster Choir College campus is in Princeton.

barfblog

safe food from farm to fork

Tag Archives: grades