Restaurant violations are nothing new. The shocking bits of this story is that there are 100 sushi restaurants in the Tampa area alone; and that sushi is considered “healthy and nutritious.”

The I-Team at ABC Action News reviewed the inspection reports of 100 sushi restaurants in the bay area over the last year and found serious critical violations that could make you or your family sick.

That includes raw tuna at 61 degrees, raw shrimp and fish over cooked tempura, which is a cross contamination issue and restaurants that had to throw out food because they were at hazardous temperatures. We also look at one sushi restaurant that tops the list in critical violations.

Seventeen years ago, Gregg Jesperson ate a burger that was still pink at a mom-and-pop restaurant in northern Alberta (that’s in Canada), where he and his family were living at the time.

The medication he’ll have to take for life is one reason why he’s not going to forget what happened anytime soon.

Jesperson, now a teacher at Booth Memorial in St. John’s, ate the burger on a Thursday.

By Sunday, it was determined Jesperson had developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, or hamburger disease.

Jesperson was hospitalized almost four weeks, undergoing dialysis and being hooked up to a machine that withdraws plasma and replaces it.

After his release, it took him almost a year to regain his physical strength.

Jesperson, who always enjoyed a rare steak, says he wasn’t aware of the dangers of uncooked hamburger meat before that.

“I’m a big fella, fairly hardy and that, and it really knocked the piss right out of me,” he says.

These days, Jesperson gets nervous when he sees people served burgers that are a little pink.

If he grills one himself, he “cooks the bejeezus out of it.”

His advice is to do the same, and not to be afraid to send undercooked burgers back at a restaurant.

Better advice would be to use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer because color is a lousy indicator of safety.

But this story is a lot better than the misguided letter-writer to a New Brunswick newspaper (also in Canada) who insisted dangerous E. coli like O157 only “grows inside of dairy and beef cattle that are fed a high proportion of grain.” Way to recycle a 15-year-old myth.

This is the chicken salad sandwich Amy will have for lunch later today.

I’ve done what I can to make sure she doesn’t barf (at least from this sandwich). And that means using commercial mayonnaise.

In a manner food pornographers usually reserve for wine and raw milk cheese, the New York Times devotes 1,661 words to mayonnaise today, and not once mentions the risk of using raw eggs.

Maybe in response, the Association for Dressings & Sauces – those folks know how to party – stated today that more than 60 years of research has proven that commercially prepared mayonnaise does not cause foodborne illness.

Commercial mayonnaise and mayonnaise-type dressings contain pasteurized eggs while additional ingredients such as vinegar and lemon juice create a high-acid environment that slows bacterial growth.

For me and my family, it’s not worth the risk. Despite the proclamations of foodies, raw egg mayo is not the key ingredient in a chicken salad sandwich; it’s the lime, which are plentiful and awesome in Australia.

For the sandwich, right, I used leftover chicken breast from the roasted whole bird that was part of dinner last night (covered in lime, rosemary, basil, sage and garlic, the remnants which are now rendering in the stock pot). I added small amounts of pink onion, celery, red pepper, dill pickle, Dijon mustard, and commercial mayonnaise, mixed and slathered between two slices of homemade bread from yesterday (30% rye, 50% whole wheat, 20% white flours) and topped with Mesclun mix and tomato slices.

My 4 a.m. risk ranking would be the cleanliness of my hands, the lettuce and tomato. Australia has a problem with Salmonella outbreaks linked to raw egg dishes so I use commercial mayo. The chicken was temperature verified to greater than 165F last night and leftovers refrigerated within an hour.

Sorenne doesn’t go in much for sandwiches, but she will have some chunks of chicken meat included in her lunch. Tonight will probably be bulgur and chicken and other stuff.

When someone asks, What’s wrong with Kansas, I reply with, What’s wrong with Canada?

My journalism friends have long complained that the flow of information about public health – public anything – is a tinkle in Canada compared to other places.

According to a report in The Province, British Columbia.'s Liberal government is poised to further choke off the flow of public information, this time with respect to disease outbreaks.

The Animal Health Act, expected to be passed into law by month's end, expressly over-rides B.C.'s Freedom of Information Act, duct-taping shut the mouths of any citizens - or journalists - who would publicly identify the location of an outbreak of agriculture-related disease such as bird flu.

"A person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose . . . information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle," Section 16 of the Act reads.

It is quite conceivable that the provincial government, in the event of a disease outbreak at a farm, would delay releasing a warning in order to protect the farm in question or the industry it's part of.

In that event, should you as a citizen hear about the outbreak, or if you were an employee at an affected farm, you would be breaking the law by speaking publicly about it or bringing concerns to the media.

Will the law also apply to farms identified as sources of foodborne illness, like tomatoes from a B.C. greenhouse, or BSE traced to a B.C. farm, or stupidity traced to a government bureaucrat who lives on a farm?

The proposed law will probably have no practical effect because there is no animal disease or foodborne illness traced to B.C. farms; it’s all imported.

Canada, where complacency rules.