Blog note: this issue goes back to
a grand jury report in 2008.
County health inspectors logged
steep climbs in forced restaurant closures and major food safety violations
last year, raising new concerns about Orange County’s shrunken oversight of
restaurants and other food vendors.
According to county data
obtained by the Register under public records laws, the number of businesses
that were forced to temporarily close due to major health violations spiked by
38 percent from the previous year, to 722. Most businesses were small or
medium-sized restaurants.
Despite a similar number of
overall inspections last year, the amount of major violations found at all food
facilities in the county grew by 11 percent, to 14,800. Unsafe storage
temperatures, poor washing and pests drove much of the increase.
Inspectors issued 779 major
violations for cockroaches, 189 for rodents and nine for other infestations in
critical areas – 58 percent more than the previous year and nearly double the
total in 2012. Major violations are conditions that pose an immediate danger to
public health.
The rise in restaurant closures
and violations comes after years of declining oversight by Orange County health
officials. The county once inspected restaurants and other food facilities four
times a year – in sync with FDA recommendations. Today, most restaurants are
inspected half as often.
County inspectors last year
were responsible for monitoring food sanitation practices at 15,000 businesses,
including restaurants, supermarkets, catering services and taverns. Inspection
reports are searchable on the county’s website by name. Recent permit
suspensions are listed as well.
Inspectors closed 105
establishments in the past two months, mostly for cockroach and other pest
infestations, according to online data. About half were allowed to re-open on
the same day of their permit suspension.
INCREASE NOT CLEAR
Health officials aren’t sure
what prompted the increase in violations last year, saying many factors
influence the number of health permit suspensions and violations each year. But
they said some cash-strapped restaurants may have cut food safety expenses like
pest control to stay afloat and county inspectors have trimmed outreach efforts
because of budget cuts.
“We’re out there giving them
(businesses) the tools they need to come into compliance,” said Denise
Fennessy, who oversees the county’s food safety inspections. “They’re so
focused on their production of food that sometimes they’re not able to make all
the corrections.”
Fennessy said she would like
inspectors to spend more time with business owners, helping them understand
food safety laws and the reasons for those laws. But staffing losses have
increased pressure on inspectors to complete their work quicker.
Jennifer Muir, a spokeswoman
for the union that represents health inspectors, called the spike in closures
and violations “alarming” and said it highlights broader funding problems in an
agency responsible for overseeing one of Orange County’s most vibrant
industries.
“Just imagine how much more
frightening those numbers would be if the department were given the resources
they need to protect consumers,” Muir said.
Health officials have
consistently fallen short on annual food safety goals outlined in budget
documents. In each of the past three years, they hoped that fewer than one in
every six restaurants would be issued a major violation. Instead, it has been
one in every three.
“We call it kind of a stretch
goal,” said Richard Sanchez, a top county health official. “I don’t know that
we had an expectation to meet that with our current program.”
Higher costs of retired
employees and stagnant business fees are partly responsible for the drop in
inspections. Health permit fees, which largely fund the county’s inspection
program, have not been adjusted since 2008. Restaurants pay a range of $561 to
$925 annually, depending on their size.
SEEKING HIGHER FEES
Though the county Board of
Supervisors twice rejected proposed fee hikes last year, Sanchez said his
office intends to bring another fee increase before the supervisors this year.
Without it, he said, some restaurants could be inspected just once a year
starting in July.
“We’re still at the level ...
that we felt was pretty much the minimum we could provide and feel
comfortable,” Sanchez said. “If we got down to one inspection per year, we may
look at alternatives to our inspection program because I don’t think that would
provide the surveillance that we would feel comfortable (with) from a public
health standpoint.”
Matt Sutton, a spokesman for
the California Restaurant Association, which represents more than 450
businesses in Orange County, said the rise in major violations warrants further
examination by health officials. But it doesn’t necessarily indicate problems
with the county’s current inspection program, he said.
Still, Sutton said more
frequent inspections are “probably better for some” businesses, and the
organization understands the need for a fee increase to keep up routine
inspections. It just needs to be consistent and manageable for owners, Sutton
said.
“We know that if the county
remains unable to do frequent visits, that’s a problem for all of us,“ Sutton
said. “I believe there will be a fee increase. It just depends how it’s
structured.”
The Register requested to speak
with each of the county’s five supervisors this week about the rise in health
permit suspensions and major violations. None agreed to be interviewed.
EVALUATING SAFETY
Aiming to halt the decline in
inspections last fall, county officials requested a 5 percent hike in health
permit fees to continue inspecting restaurants twice annually. But the board
rejected the idea.
Supervisor Todd Spitzer cited a
lack of evidence at the time to question that two routine inspections a year
was needed and offered that sick patrons could always pinpoint unsafe
businesses by filing complaints with the county – a reactive model of
oversight.
“The evidence isn’t showing
that we have a pervasive problem,” Spitzer said during a September board
meeting. “At least the evidence that’s being presented to us doesn’t lead us to
a conclusion that we have to raise the fees.”
County health staff didn’t
provide the supervisors with data on the results of their inspections – only
countywide statistics on the prevalence of food-borne illnesses. That data,
representing all cases regardless of the food’s origin, showed no significant
change in response to conducting fewer inspections.
This week, Sanchez called
food-borne illness the most important indicator of a successful inspection
program. But he acknowledged that county health officials currently lack a
reliable system of tracking the information. They mainly gauge success based on
the rate of major violations, which reflect the leading causes of food-borne
illness.
Neither Sanchez nor Fennessy
said the recent rise in major violations necessarily marks problems with Orange
County’s restaurant inspection program, however. Sanchez said that “appears to
be so” based on anecdotal evidence but he wasn’t convinced yet that patrons
should be concerned.
“It’s really hard to tell
whether more inspections would resolve (the increase in violations) or whether
we would just find more violations,” Fennessy added.
GRADING SYSTEM
Food safety issues have long
shadowed the Board of Supervisors. Citizen grand juries
unsuccessfully urged the board in 2008 and last year to adopt restaurant
grading systems similar to those used by other Southern California counties. In Los Angeles, inspection results determine whether
restaurants get A, B or C placards on their windows.
Four out of five Orange County
supervisors verbally endorsed the idea of a grading system in April 2014 in
order to give patrons more information on the results of inspections. Spitzer
supported a letter grade system to be “regionally homogenous” while three of
his colleagues preferred a color-coded system.
Yet the supervisors failed to
agree on a plan before the end of the year. Elections then installed three new
faces on the board. John Moorlach, the only supervisor who voted for a fee hike
and a grading system, was among those who left the board.
Opponents of the grading system
focused last year on its additional cost and concerns that raising public
awareness of inspection results might spur more businesses to demand quicker
re-inspections after receiving poor grades. Health officials estimated in
September that a color-coded system would cost $40,000 annually, or about $3
per permitted business.
Business owners have been
divided on a grading system and higher fees to maintain inspection levels. The
California Restaurant Association urged the county to delay voting on either
proposal in September and to conduct more outreach with business owners. Two
months later, the proposals died altogether.
Supervisor Shawn Nelson argued
at one point last year that a grading system amounted to the kind of government
over-regulation that pressured restaurant chains, including Carl’s Jr., to
consider leaving California. But in August, the parent company of Carl’s Jr.
wrote a letter to the supervisors endorsing the proposed fee increase and
color-coded grading system.
April
18, 2015
Orange
County Register
By Keegan Kyle, Staff Writer
No comments:
Post a Comment