How an “A” Food Grade Is Not Always A Compliment. 

by Don Moniak*

February 10, 2024 

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) conducts routine, annual to quarterly, inspections of food service establishments that include restaurants, food trucks, school cafeterias, and grocery stores. The 56-part inspections are titled “Foodborne Illness Risk Factors & Interventions and Good Retail Practices.”**

The primary aim of the inspection program is to prevent food-born illnesses and ensure clean, sanitary dining environments for customers. The basis for, and details of, the inspection process are within DHEC Regulation 61-25; whose purpose it to “safeguard public health and provide to consumers food that is safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented.” 

DHEC’s inspections are only one small food safety monitoring method. While the prospect of an inspection might induce some establishments to maintain good practices, most do so out of professional pride.

DHEC has thus far reported inspections of 42 Aiken-area restaurants and other food service establishments in 2024.  Five of these were pre-opening inspections required for the issuance of food permits.  

Of the 37 operational establishments*** subjected to routine inspections, all but one received an “A” grade that can be proudly displayed to assure customers that the food within is safe. Fortunately, not a single establishment was issued a “priority violation” citation resulting from chronic violations of foodborne illness risk factors; although numerous one-time “priority violations” were found that were subsequently corrected. (Figure 1)

Not all “A” grades are equal, and a grade is not a score. While more than half of those inspected received excellent scores of 98-100 pct, involving less than two violations, five establishments with “A” grades also received multiple violations resulting in scores of only of 84-89 percent; and 9 of the 37 A-grade establishments had enough violations to require followup inspections to ensure compliance with more critical food safety measures. Nearly all of these followup inspections resulted in scores of 98-100, and every priority violation was rectified. 

These measures include, but not are limited to, the following: 

• Proper hot food and/or cold food storage temperatures and thawing techniques. 
• Availability and use of dedicated hand-washing sinks. Specifically, employees are required to wash their hands before returning to the workplace, and “handwashing sinks shall be accessible at all times for employee use and that handwashing sinks shall not be used for purposes other than handwashing.” 
• Separation of raw meats and seafood from other foods to prevent cross contamination. 
• Presence of a supervisor whose qualifications to monitor the premises include a Food Safety Certificate. 
• Absence of toxic materials in or near food storage and prep areas.
• Basic good housekeeping such as clean food preparation surfaces, absence of food containers on floors, clean floors, absence of grease buildup on hoods and other equipment. (While DHEC does not conduct fire prevention inspections, its inspections do serve to prevent the buildup of flammable materials and substances).
• Absence of insects and rodents. 

The violations of A-grade establishments collectively included violations involving all of the above practices. Some of the violations were documented with photos, others with harsh words. 

Handwashing Violations

Inspectors seldom observe employees not washing their hands. They do often detect evidence of improper hand washing or even the lack of hand-washing. Two of the most common violations involve blocking of dedicated hand-washing sinks (Figure 1), and washing in sinks dedicated to cleaning and sanitizing equipment. Most A-Graders with sub-90 scores had hand-washing violations, but no A-Graders with scores of 98-100 had observed hand-washing deficiencies. Other violations include leaving or even cleaning cooking and prep equipment in the dedicated sinks, the absence of soap or hand towels, and/or insufficient hot water. 

Toxins Near Food

Nobody wants inorganic toxic substances anywhere near their food. Yet, some of the nine A-Grade establishments requiring followup visits were found to have violations such as: 

• “A chemical container stored next to hotdogs in prep area.”
• “Multiple chemical spray bottles stored with liquid soda, side of bread, and on prep surface.”
  
  Good Housekeeping Deficiencies and Fire Hazards

Some A-Grade establishments sometimes do not do a good job of basic housekeeping. One common violation is excess grease on hood vents, a serious fire hazard. Others include dirty back rooms and floors, dust and other particles in prep areas, food stored on the floor, and unsanitary bathrooms. Some recent findings included: 

• “Hood vents holding excessive grease, back wall circular fan holding excessive dust, grease buildup and trash thoughout kitchen floors and behind equipment.”
• “Observed floors upstairs covered in refuse throughout. Observed organic white growth in cooler. Observed accumulation of dust on walls in back kitchen. Observed back hallway covered in leaves and debris.”
• “Observed bin of rice sitting directly on the floor. Observed plastic bag of spices sitting directly on the floor.” 
• Buildup of “black material” was found in the ice machines of three establishments 

Food Storage Deficiencies

Keeping temperature sensitive foods cold or hot enough is a constant challenge in restaurants and stores with food bars. Some of the recent violations included: 

• Fresh fish in a display cooler kept at 56F
• “Prep cooler: beef 44 F, mozzarella 52 F, corn beef hash 50 F, black eye peas 49 F.” 
• “Advised (person in charge) that refrigerated, ready-to-eat, TCS foods prepared and held for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the use by, sold or discarded date, not to exceed 7 days.”
• Walk-in cooler/cooked rice: tub #1 51F, tub#2 55F, tub 49F. Per conversation with employees rice was cooked prior day.

Insects and Rodents. 

In the semi-good news department, only one A-Grade establishment had signs of rodent infestation—“observed rodent droppings in storage” (Figure 3)— and the only other observations in this category involved unsealed entrances or other access points. 

Footnotes

* The author’s Food Safety Manager qualifications have expired.

**DHEC readily provides documentation of food inspections, but not complaints. Complaints can be filed at https://apps.dhec.sc.gov/FoodSafety/FileAComplaint/

***Individual establishments are not named in this article. Since the inspection reports are searchable at this DHEC internet webpage, individuals with a desire to know the status of any individual establishments can search for the most recent inspection, or all inspections in any given time period.

The standard approach by some media outlets of selecting some establishments for criticism and others for praise is inherently unfair and generally lacking in context. The absence of recent inspections is not evidence of safe or unsafe ongoing practices. Reporting on individual establishments can provide an unfair advantage to their competitors. For example, four fast food establishments in a single block can be inspected in four different months. One bad day can lead consumers to, sometimes irrationally, choose to patronize a similar establishment that had a worse grade four months previously.  An establishment that has been warned is not an establishment that has been cited and subject to penalties.

Other reasons for not naming names include:

• Inspection quality is variable. Some inspectors inspire fear in their subjects, others are more prone to an easier approach. The absence of violations only means violations were not detected or observed; not that they do not exist. Two different inspectors can easily arrive at two different sets of conclusions. 
• Although all inspectors use the same form, not all inspectors are equally diligent or comprehensive. More intense inspections can be triggered simply by the outward appearance of an establishment. If anything is messy at the entrance, a more rigorous inspection can follow. Thus, the work habits of non-food workers can create bias in the inspection of food handling, storage, and preparation practices. 
• Routine inspections represent a single point in time, and not necessarily chronic work practices. A single day with unsafe practices(s) can lead to foodborne illness or discomfort. 
• Most grocery stores and franchise establishments are also subject to even more stringent corporate rules and in-house inspections; these are generally not recognized in DHEC’s inspection process. Owner-operated establishments could be subjected to daily inspections without acknowledgement by DHEC.
• Some food establishment operations are simpler and can more easily pass inspections. Establishments that do not handle hot foods are not inspected for hot food holding temperatures, those with fish or shellfish on the menu face deeper levels of inspection, etc. Inspecting a coffee shop is generally much easier than inspecting a steak and seafood restaurant.