241 replies to this topic

[Wilfrid1]

In breaking news, the city Health Department, aided by the Mayor, seeks to throw yet more pointless obstacles in the path of an already struggling business sector.

Whoo-pee-doo

Restaurants will be "compelled" to display a letter "grade" - A, B, C or failed, as far as I can tell - to inform diners about cleanliness. The department "hopes" to hire an additional 45 inspectors - despite budget/staff cuts - which would bring the number to a hypothetical 185. There are more than 25,000 restaurants in the city, but if this expanded team can inspect three a week, including the necessary re-visits to check that corrections have been made where required, then at least the grades will be based on inspections within the last twelve months. Of course, that won't happen, so you'll have some restaurants with C grades based on an inspection last week next to restaurants with A grades based on an inspection eighteen months ago.

So it's meaningless. Although I admit, with only three grades, seeing Daniel get the same rating as a corner pizza joint - good or bad - will be mildly amusing.

Since the program will cost several million dollars to implement, one would expect, in these tight times, that the need for it would be clear, and its objective precisely specified.

"Every day more than a thousand people get sick from eating in restaurants." Thus Dr Frieden, our health commissar.

To put the quintessential Mouthfuls question - so?

What I'd like to know, first, is how that figure looks over a period of years. Is the number - assuming its valid - getting better or worse? Has it - my guess - remained much the same. What has occurred to necessitate significant emergency spending?

What I'd like to know, second, is what the commissar considers a tolerable rate of restaurant-related sickness. How many people eat in New York restaurants every day? I don't know. But if 25,000 restaurants is about right, one million customers would seem to be a highly conservative estimate (forty a day per restaurant).* That's one million customers. A thousand a day get sick (although how we know this is accurate...). That's...one tenth of one per cent. 0.1%. And it's probably much smaller, because I suspect I underestimate the size of the dining population. (And you can guarantee a proportion of cases reported will be sick for some reason other than restaurant hygiene, some factor or other the restaurant couldn't reasonably foresee.)

0.1% of diners on any given day get sick. Great job, New York restaurants!

Now what the hell is the target figure these extra few million dollars are aimed at achieving? O.001%? Absolute zero? Is there nothing else we need to spend this money on?

Mayor B., at a press conference:

It will give a major incentive to restaurants to improve their cleanliness, because if they don't, the grade will be there for everyone to see and they will lose business, said the mayor.

They are losing business already, hand over fist. Why do we actually need to spend money to expedite the path to bankruptcy?

Throw the whole stupid, pandering, inexplicable, idiotic project under the bus.

*Please someone check my figures, I am notorious for getting this sort of thing wrong.

[Orik]

I think, most importantly, the question is whether there's any correlation between diners getting sick at a restaurant and the results of health inspection.

For example I'd imagine people get sick often after eating oysters, raw fish, meat or eggs at impeccable establishments, than those who eat reheated, pre cooked, grey patties at a greasy fast food joint.

[Wilfrid1]

Absolutely, and in fact I just inserted a parenthetical sentence reflecting that thought.

Of the tiny number of cases of restaurant sickness, many will be the result of allergies, etc., nothing to do with passing inspection.

[Rail Paul]

But, if you know the chances of being inspected on any given day are 1 in 10,000, why bother picking up that patty from the floor? Or re-baiting your rat trap?

A "D" on the front door would give me a pause if I was considering entering the joint.

[Sneakeater]

If I were opening a restaurant now, I'd name it "C".

[ghostrider]

Wilf, you should write an op-ed for the NYT on this. Seriously.

[porkwah]

i know i have seen this done somewhere on the west coast -- SF or portland or maybe?

it seems silly.

are they going to include the report card with takeout too?

[mongo_jones]

it's been standard in l.a for more than a decade now. panties have remained largely untwisted.

[hollywood]

it's been standard in l.a for more than a decade now. panties have remained largely untwisted.

Quite so. It seems that Asian restaurants have a harder time satisfying health inspectors than others. Some diners are suspicious of Chinese restaurants that aren't B or C.
In extreme circumstances restaurants are closed. Here are recent closures and the reasons why. Lesser issues result in lower letter grades. Vermin eat well in Los Angeles.

[NeroW]

i know i have seen this done somewhere on the west coast -- SF or portland or maybe?

it seems silly.

are they going to include the report card with takeout too?

I think they do it in Louisville.

[SRD]

Dunno what all the fuss is about, we have inspections over here and it doesn't send people out of business, except those that are discovered doing something like serving rat and calling it chicken. One of our local, well recommended establishments, got caught selling beef that they claimed was organic but in fact came from the worst of the continental factory farmers which gave us a laugh.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that food poisoning cases go up in a recession so maybe there's a justification for increasing the inspectors now. Regarding the food poisoning figures do people who've been fool enough to eat raw fish etc. actually report their tummy troubles or is it a matter of reporting only happening when the customer hasn't been taking risks? Although eating out anywhere might be considered a risk I suppose. I know our GP laughed when we mentioned that we'd had dickey tummies after eating burgers at a local agricultural fair.

[Orik]

There's already an unreasonably high number of inspections taking place. I think if you read the article carefully you'll see the motivation:

Dr. Frieden said he did not expect the inspection program to be cut because, he said, “it will result in more revenues for the city...

Mr. Hunt added that he was concerned that the department would try to use the new system to bolster city revenue. “This could make it even worse for restaurant owners, making it more costly,” he said.

Under the plan, restaurants receiving an A grade would stay on a yearly inspection cycle. Those with B grades would get two inspections, and those with C grades would get three. Those with public-health hazards will be closed until violations are corrected.

So, one to three times a year a restaurant will pay anywhere from $200 to $2000 in fines... sounds like a plan.

[Stone]

A couple hundred people out of 300 million Americans get salmonella and the people here want to forcefully restructure the entire nation's food production and delivery system.

[Orik]

but only until it's discovered the e.coli comes from organic california spinach.

[Chad Ward]

Whoo-pee-doo

Restaurants will be "compelled" to display a letter "grade" - A, B, C or failed, as far as I can tell - to inform diners about cleanliness. The department "hopes" to hire an additional 45 inspectors - despite budget/staff cuts - which would bring the number to a hypothetical 185. There are more than 25,000 restaurants in the city, but if this expanded team can inspect three a week, including the necessary re-visits to check that corrections have been made where required, then at least the grades will be based on inspections within the last twelve months. Of course, that won't happen, so you'll have some restaurants with C grades based on an inspection last week next to restaurants with A grades based on an inspection eighteen months ago.

This has been the case everywhere I've lived (NC, TN, GA, SC, OH, KS). Every restaurant has an inspection plaque. Is this not the case in New York? Wake County, where I live in NC, has a searchable online databse so you can check on health inspections and even read the reports of violations. I'm surprised that New York doesn't already have something like this in place.

Chad