Two US counties have recently adopted systems to communicate restaurant inspection results with the public. They aren’t the first, likely won’t be the last, and demonstrate two different approaches to inspection disclosure.

The first is Calhoun county, MI, which has recently began posting inspection results online, reports the Battlecreek Enquirer.

The idea is to reward facilities that run a tight ship and to encourage the dirtiest ones to clean up their act, public health officials said.

Jim Rutherford, county health officer, explained,

"This is public information. It always has been. You could have gone and accessed this as a resident any time. What we’re doing is just making it easily accessible to the public."

Calhoun county inspection results can be accessed online, here, but details of inspection are lacking – the website only indicates if an establishment is “In compliance” or “Non compliant.”

Darien, CT has adopted disclosure at the premise, with inspection cards mandatorily being displayed at the premise, reports DarienTimes.com.

The rating must be posted in a conspicuous location clearly visible to the public near the current permit and remain posted until the next scheduled inspection…There are three possible ratings: good, fair and poor. Good and fair ratings do not require any changes.

Should a restaurant receive a poor rating, it has two weeks to clean up its act before a re-inspection.

Though there is some concern regarding the “Fair” card, Health Director David Knave feels the system will provide incentive for restaurants to have “clean and healthy practices,” and,

“This is an extra tool in addition to the inspection. That’s the intent here, to have ‘fair’ be a label you don’t want…Something to push them in the right direction.”

Both disclosure systems have the same main goal: provide incentives for those within foodservice to meet health requirements, while providing the public with information they desire and deserve.
 

The star-rating posted outside restaurants and pubs in Cumbria, England is making it safer for diners, reports News & Star. The county adopted the Scores on Doors scheme in 2007, which awards a maximum of five stars to establishments with high inspection scores, has noted a decrease in the number of “high-risk” premises.

Ruth Harland, an environmental health officer with 34 years experience, explained,

“The number [of high-risk establishments] we used to have to inspect every 12 months has reduced by 50 per cent. Because of the improvements they’ve made, they’ve moved up to 18…The general standard has been lifted.”

So successful is the scheme, it’s due to be extended to every local authority in the country.

Harland continued,

“It’s great from the consumer point of view because it allows them to make an informed choice about where they buy their food and eat out.”

However, like any program it has its flaws, and has experienced push-back from some operators.

“It’s all about attitudes. The scheme has been going long enough now for people to know what they need to do to improve. There are still 10 premises that have no stars and I think some people just don’t want to make the improvements. It’s laziness, a lack of understanding and, in some cases, a lack of finance. I’d be reluctant to eat at a premises with no stars.”

So would I Ruth, so would I. It’s all about operator attitudes and, as Doug always says, creating a culture of food safety.
 

Restaurant disclosure systems, like letter grades in L.A. or coloured cards in Toronto, communicate restaurant inspection results to patrons. This week Durham Region in Ontario launched DineSafe, a food safety inspection disclosure program that uses coloured cards to communicate inspection scores. Green, yellow or red cards must be posted at food establishments, similar to the disclosure system in Toronto.

According to newsdurhamregion.com, during the first day 30 restaurants were inspected, with only two receiving yellow cards, and the remainder receiving green cards. 

On Monday March 2, the first round of inspections under DineSafe resulted in two yellow cards, for the Akashia Japanese and Korean restaurant on Kingston Road West in Ajax and Wie Geht’s Amigo on King Avenue East in Newcastle.

Both restaurants have been re-inspected and received green cards.

Gorman indicated he expects about 80 per cent of establishments will earn a green this year, and things are going well with the new program. He continued,

"Some people are very excited … one got their green sign and they were cheering and clapping.”

In Durham Region the frequency of restaurant inspection is based on risk. High risk establishments are inspected three times per year, moderate risk twice a year, and low risk once a year. Overall inspection scores determine the colour of the sign issued to an establishment, green indicating a pass, yellow indicating substantial incompliance with provincial rules, and red indicating establishment closure.

Restaurant inspection disclosure systems, like the ‘Scores on Doors’ scheme in the UK or online databases available in some states, are ways to display inspection information to consumers. Many jurisdictions are adopting these systems after positive consumer reception, and increase in compliance among restaurants in jurisdictions where disclosure programs have been implemented.

 In the Canadian province of New Brunswick, public posting of restaurant inspection results has resulted in improved compliance, reports Times & Transcript.

One year after the health department started posting inspection reports on its website for everyone to see, officials have seen a definite increase in compliance by restaurants who want to make a good impression.

Nina van der Pluijm, regional director for health protection programs for the New Brunswick Department of Health, says,

"Compliance has gone up and if our inspectors find something, the restaurants want to hurry up and comply. If we give them five days to fix something, they usually say they’ll have it done in two days and want us to come back for the re-inspection."

In New Brunswick restaurants are inspected, unannounced, every one to three years depending on their risk category. Establishments are termed satisfactory, unsatisfactory, minor infraction, major infraction and critical infraction; and respectively color-coded green, yellow, dark yellow, red with warning stripes and critical red, indicating a shutdown.

van der Pluijm indicated the program has gotten good feedback from the public and the food service industry, but like most disclosure systems, there is concern regarding the manner in which grades are presented to the public.

Luc Erjavec, a spokesman for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association in Halifax, indicated industry generally doesn’t like color-coding schemes since the public may not try to understand it.
 
"They might look and see a yellow and move on without taking the time to see why, and the reports could give a restaurant a bad name for a relatively minor incident."

This may be true, but it may also encourage establishments to strive for a higher level of food safety. During development of the Toronto disclosure system – with green, yellow and red cards – a similar situation was encountered (right, above). Establishments didn’t want to receive yellow cards, and as a result over time yellow cards became nearly non-existent, being replaced by green pass.

There are many ways to communicate inspection results to the public, and each has pros and cons, but these schemes help to increase overall awareness of food safety amongst restaurant staff and the public.

As van der Pluijm said,
 
"The public likes to know what is going on and be able to read a report on a certain restaurant, see the ranking and be able to see what they did to get that ranking."