Serving food and crack may not mix

Posted: March 9th, 2010 - 3:43am by Doug Powell

More than 90 restaurants in Metro Vancouver were told to close their doors after they were found with rodent infestations, unsanitary conditions, or a failure to store food properly, according to an investigation of restaurant inspection histories for the past three years by CTV News.

And many more were repeatedly cited -- but not closed -- for other violations, the most common of which were leaving food out that should be refrigerated, failure to wash surfaces, and not providing hand washing stations to employees.

"We're looking for any signs that might lead us to believe there might be an outbreak of food poisoning," said Nick Losito, Vancouver Coastal Health's director of health protection.

One of those restaurants that was shut down was a Vancouver legend -- The Only Seafood Restaurant on Hastings Street.

Once a bustling destination for seafood since it opened the 1920s, The Only is now filled with rat feces and dead insects.

The health department closed The Only last year -- not just because inspectors said the food was a public health hazard, but because inspectors discovered it was a crack den as well.

CTV will be running a week-long series on food safety. Last night’s video is available here.

Your rating: None
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Arthur Jackson says:

"The idea that food grown and consumed locally is somehow safer than other food, either because it contacts fewer hands or any outbreaks would be contained, is the product of wishful thinking.
" It's funny because it would be easy for the big guys to argue that their food that is grown anywhere and consumed anywhere is safer than local food because it's growing, processing and packaging has been carefully controlled and arguably, may have not touched any human hands. (I'm not going to bring up genetic modification or AB's or anything like that because conventional food doesn't necessarily have to have these things). As a consumer and a foodservice operator, I have the ability to purchase products from conventional and local systems (and I do) knowing that there may be a chance that the product itself may be contaminated. But I know that it is the handling of that product by the consumer or operator that will most likely contaminate it. For example, if Subway switched to local/sustainable produce, I would venture to say that they would have just as many food safety outbreaks and most likely they wouldn't be due to the origin and processing of the product. So false claims by both sides seem unnecessary to me. In my opinion, both sides should be focusing on the safety of their systems and if there are things that are broken--fix them. And if there are methods of food production with a bad safety track record (like producing hamburger patties from trim from different states and countries), let the consumer know what their risks are--just like all the fine-print mumbling that takes place at the end of pharmaceutical ads on tv or the warning on a box of cigs and let them decide whether or not they want to eat it or take the risk of serving it to others. Who knows? Maybe small farms do produce the safest food? As long as I'm eating and serving food from both small and large farms I'd like them both to be equally as safe. It would make sense to me to see more complicated regulation at the highest levels of production and simpler regulation at the simpler levels of production. In other words, the more sophisticated the product, the more sophisticated the inspection and regulation--it should not be difficult for small farms to be compatible with food safety rules as long as the rules are designed to not make it impossible for small farms to do what they do.

Posted on March 9th, 2010 - 5:15pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.