Fly in frozen baguette among food safety complaints
A report for the U.K.'s Highland Council documented more than 160 food hygiene complaints that were investigated by officials last year, including one claiming a caterpillar was found in vegetables served at a table and another claiming to have found a fly in a frozen baguette.
The report by principal food safety officer Alan Yates also reveals that officials sent 1,168 warning letters to establishments alerting them to contraventions of public health legislation.
The report also shows officers carried out 2,958 visits across the north in connection with food hygiene, and 826 in connection with food standards – the composition and labelling of food.
The report comes as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has proposed a UK-wide system to grade the hygiene of restaurants, cafes, supermarkets and other food outlets.
The results would be displayed on doors or windows, as well as on a website to allow consumers to check ratings, in an effort to improve standards and cut food poisoning.
The agency believes a national scheme is needed to replace the plethora of "scores on doors", with nearly half the 435 local authorities already having or being about to introduce their own systems. In some areas, consumers and the media have had to use freedom of information legislation to find out the verdict of hygiene inspectors.
Reese and Jake brighten restaurant inspection disclosure
Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal are the latest Los Angeles celebrities to brighten up the city's letter-grade system of restaurant inspection disclosure, following Jessica Simpson and Larry David.
Here, Gyllenspoon pick up their morning drinks at Caffe Luxxe on Montana Avenue in Santa Monica, California on Sunday.
A philosophy of transparency and openness underlies the efforts of many local health units across North America in seeking to make available the results of restaurant inspections. Such public displays of information may help bolster overall awareness of food safety amongst staff and the public -- people routinely talk about this stuff. It's all about that food safety culture.
In Baltimore, Clean Crab award for clean restaurants?
I'm all for restaurant inspection disclosure, in a variety of ways -- colors, letters, numbers, smiley faces -- but a Clean Crab?
The Baltimore Sun reports that the Health Department would like to use the Clean Crab award, the image of a meticulous crab, hung perhaps at a restaurant's threshold, to alert people to Baltimore's most sanitary dining establishments.
Olivia Farrow, the city's assistant commissioner for environmental health, said,
"The consumer should know. We just wanted to try and really empower consumers."
But a Clean Crab?
Joe Edwardsen, owner of Joe Squared Pizza and Bar on North Avenue, said,
"Crabs are nasty. Crabs are disgusting. You don't see raw crab sushi out there, do you?"
The Real Housewives of Orange County demand restaurant inspection disclosure
Or maybe they don't care; it's an excuse to use a trashy photo.
But a grand jury report released Thursday says that Orange County could better protect people from food poisoning and other dining dangers by requiring restaurants to post letter grades based on their health inspections.
Almost every other county in Southern California has already adopted “A-B-C” restaurant grades, according to the grand jury report. Los Angeles County created its grading system ten years ago and saw hospitalizations caused by bad food fall by nearly 30 percent in the first 3 years, the grand jury noted.
Those results remain contentious. But public disclosure does lead to some sort of public discussion, and perhaps, contributes to a culture of microbiologically safe food.
Restaurant inspection results in Australia? Not happening
Matthew Moore writes in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald that food poisoning is an issue all over the world. To keep levels as low as possible, developed countries do three things: employ food inspectors, educate workers about food safety and, increasingly, they tell people the truth.
When Britain got freedom of information laws three years ago, one of the first decisions by the information commissioner was to rule that results of restaurant inspections carried out by public servants were public information. He said what's obvious to most people: it is in the public interest for people to know what inspectors found.
His decision was in line with what's been happening for decades in America, where restaurant inspection results are as common as restaurant reviews. And for good reason.
The New South Wales state minister responsible justified his decision to ignore what Britain and US are doing this way. "I am not saying any country is wrong, but this is Australia."
Meanwhile in Melbourne, the Victorian Government has rejected a plan to set up a website to publicly name and shame dodgy restaurants convicted for food safety breaches.
"The Government is not inclined at present to support the establishment of a central website."
The Age reports that a review by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission has concluded that the Government could save about $34 million a year by paring back red tape for food standards, particularly for charities, schools and community groups.
The City of Melbourne has reported that approximately 40% of the 3000 food premises in its municipality were found to have breached food safety standards in the past four years.
I got my views published in Sydney last May. Restaurant inspection results should be public -- although research is needed to figure out the most effective way to provide that information -- and anyone who handles food should have some basic training.
While you were sleeping
.jpg)
Doug's most recent post on BarfBlog emphasized the need for public communications about food safety to be rapid, reliable, repeated and relevant. He noted that the produce outbreaks of 2006 marked significant changes in how stories were being told on Internet-based networking like YouTube, wikipedia, and blogs.
The Internet is a wild world. And while companies are paying think tanks big bucks to brainstorm strategies to reach the millions of people that are flocking to new platforms like YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and the blogosphere, it would be wise to pay attention to what is already being said.
The Panera Bread Co. group for example, has a message board discussing the, "Nastiest things you've (employees) found in the bathroom!!!" -- great for advertising.
Last night (while I was sleeping), a kitchen employee commented on a Barfblog post that I created to highlight how restaurant inspection reports are made public in Manhattan, Kansas. He had the following to say:
"Everything that article mentions is true, and I KNOW from experience there have been an Incalcuable amount of unrecorded violations that occur in that disgusting kitchin. I know because I've cooked there since february."
SO... do you know what is being said online about your business? And how would you/are you dealing with the discussion?
Are Manhattan's (KS) Houlihan's staff still acclimatizing?
Across North America where restaurant inspection results are made available to members of the public, they are done so using a patchwork of food safety disclosure systems. In Los Angeles County, a restaurant must post a letter grade in its front window (A, B or C). Whereas in Toronto, a restaurant must post a color placard in its front window (green, yellow or red). In addition to onsite notification, both cities provide a searchable online database for a hungry public to look up inspection results by restaurant name, address or borough. A "carrot and stick" approach to improving food safety standards, public disclosure of restaurant inspection results are intended to reward operators who make food safety a pillar of success, and punish those who scramble when the inspector arrives on the premise.
Last night as I was flipping through the local newspaper for Manhattan, Kansas (population ca. 50, 000) I stopped when I came across its 'foodSAFETY' column for area food inspections which (evidently) is published weekly in Tuesday's Food & Drink section. Very cool. Even cooler was that the paper published the inspection findings for one of the town's newest restaurants -- Houlihan's -- which is but a 5 minute walk from where I'm living. Ouch... the findings are not good. See for yourself. When the restaurant opened on February 2nd, the Kansas State Collegian, reported that managers chose not to advertise the opening of the restaurant to allow employees to acclimate to the full 170-person capacity. Based on this report, I would say that almost three months later employees are still acclimatizing. It will be interesting to see (and hear about) the impact that this report has on the restaurant's business, and of course on the staff's attention to food safety.
