Post From The Past. Restaurant Inspections: Does Publishing The Results Do Any Good?

First posted on October 8, 2009

On our recent trip to San Francisco, my husband and I stayed at the Union Street Inn, a Bed and Breakfast located in the Cow Hollow district. We chose the Inn based on its excellent reviews on TripAdvisor.com.

When we presented ourselves at breakfast the morning after we arrived, I was delighted to see that the Inn had achieved a score of 100% on its most recent food service inspection. But – even though I am a food safety microbiologist – it hadn’t occurred to me to look into the food inspection history of the Inn before we made our reservation.

Most cities and counties in the developed countries carry out some form of routine restaurant inspection. Many local health departments post these inspection results on their web sites. Some jurisdictions – San Diego, Los Angeles and many counties in the United Kingdom, for example – go farther, and require that restaurants post their most recent inspection score on or near the front door (known as “Scores on Doors”). And a few agencies – including New South Wales, Australia – take the “Name and Shame” approach, publishing the names of food establishments that fail inspection.

Surprisingly, San Francisco does not require its restaurants to post their inspection scores. Instead, consumers must visit the web site of the San Francisco Department of Public Health to learn how their favorite restaurants stack up.

We stopped in at The Real Food Company, a local market and deli, for a snack one day.

I was favorably impressed with the care taken by a store employee in handling raw poultry as he loaded it into the rotisserie.

According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the store was inspected on September 3rd, just a few days before our visit. Real Food received an “A” rating, with a score of 90 points (out of 100). A score of 89 points would have meant a “B” rating. The inspector noted three violations – two “moderate risk” and one “low risk.” UPDATE: The store was last inspected on January 13, 2012, and “achieved” a score of only 81.

There has been a lot of on-line discussion recently on various food safety blogs about restaurant sanitation, “Scores on Doors” programs, and other food service issues. BarfBlog, in the United States and Le Blog d’Albert Amgar in France are both regular and responsible contributors to this topic.

I wonder, though, how many people take notice of restaurant inspection reports? Does anybody care?

Post From The Past. Free-Range, Organic, Air-chilled Poultry: Does Salmonella Care?

First posted on October 6, 2009

One of the stops we made at the San Francisco Farmer’s Market last month was Aimee’s Mountain Ranch Kitchen, where we learned the following about the Certified Organic poultry on display.

Last Thanksgiving, my husband and I opted for a locally raised free-range turkey in place of the our usual supermarket bird. I have to report that, while the local bird was tasty, it also was one of the toughest, boniest turkeys we had ever roasted. I guess you have to be tough to thrive in Vermont!

Although Aimee’s Mountain Ranch Kitchen does not claim that its Certified Organic, free-range, air-chilled chickens are microbiologically safer than conventional birds, some people believe that poultry raised and processed under these conditions is less likely to contain pathogens, notably, Salmonella and Campylobacter. Unfortunately, this is not so.

In 2005, researchers at the University of Maryland found that 76% of organic chickens and 74% of conventionally raised chickens available in retail stores contained Campylobacter.Salmonella was found in 61% of the organically raised chickens and 44% of the conventional birds. Similarly, in a University of Louisiana study, Salmonella was recovered from 22% of conventional chicken carcasses in the Baton Rouge area and from 21% of organically raised chicken carcasses.

What about free-range vs. cage-reared birds? Don’t count on seeing any microbiological benefit here, either. Studies in the United States and Great Britain have shown that free-range birds are just as contaminated as cage-reared poultry.

Then, is chilling poultry carcasses in air any safer than by immersing them in cold water? Air-chilling sounds as though it would be less likely to foster the transfer of Salmonella andCampylobacter from a few contaminated birds to an entire batch of “clean” carcasses. But research studies published in 2003 and 2007 failed to substantiate this.

Nevertheless, there are some benefits to free-range, organic farming and air-chilling of poultry carcasses.

Water-chilling often results in 8-12% water (by weight) being retained by a carcass, according to USDA. This “retained water” must be declared on the label. Air-chilling eliminates the extraneous water that otherwise is added to poultry carcasses – water that the consumer pays for, since poultry is sold by weight.
While conventional and organically raised poultry don’t differ significantly in their level of Salmonella contamination, the University of Louisiana study (mentioned above) found that Salmonella recovered from conventionally raised birds was far more likely to be antibiotic-resistant.
Air-chilling reduces the amount of water used by poultry processors – a serious concern in drought-prone areas.

Because free-range and organic farming are more labor-intensive than conventional large-scale industrial farming, organic and free-range chicken tends to be more expensive. Whether the outcome of these artisan farming procedures is worth the added cost is a judgment that each consumer has to make.

Whether you decide to buy a conventionally raised chicken or a free-range, organic bird, remember to handle the carcass as though it contains Salmonella and Campylobacter.

Cook the chicken to an internal temperature of 165ºF, using a meat thermometer to verify the temperature;
Clean and disinfect all kitchen implements, cutting boards and counter tops that may have come into contact with the raw chicken;
Wash your hands thoroughly after handling raw chicken; and
Sanitize wet sponges and dishrags by microwaving them on the highest setting for at least 30 seconds.

Post From The Past. San Francisco’s Other Chocolate Company

First posted on October 4, 2009

Located inside the Ferry Terminal building on the San Francisco Embarcadero is Artisan Confections, the retail home of San Francisco’s best kept chocolate secret – Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker.

The company was founded in 1997 by Robert Steinberg and John Scharffenberger, with the aim of producing full-flavored dark chocolate using traditional methods, while controlling the process “from bean to bar.”

Scharffen Berger sources its own beans, working with cacao farmers in South American, Africa and Asia. While the company occasionally produces chocolate from a single source – at present, offering single origin chocolate from Ghana and from Vietnam – most chocolate is a blend of beans from different regions. The origin of the beans, together with the fermentation conditions and adjustments to the blend all contribute to the final flavor and texture of the finished chocolate.

Here is how Andrew McIntyre of Artisan Confections explained the difference between single origin and blended chocolate.