Food service inspections may not be equal

With thousands of municipalities in the state, and tens of thousands of places, from Legion halls to gourmet restaurants, preparing and serving food, inspecting each one seems like a daunting task. In the interest of the public’s health and wellness, the job gets done at least once each year, but not always to the same standard.

In many municipalities, it’s the state’s duty to handle inspections. In others, a county health department handles the task. And yet other inspections fall under the umbrella of a municipal health department.

That fragmentation leads to claims of unfairness and a state effort to get everyone on the same page, or at least the same Web site.

Inspections in 62 of the 76 municipalities in Luzerne County are under the purview of the state Department of Agriculture. So far in 2008, department inspectors have made 1,515 site visits. Of those, 1,168 were initial inspections and 347 were follow-ups to confirm that infractions were corrected, according to department press secretary Chris L. Ryder. The establishments in the rest of the county’s municipalities fall under municipal health department regulations, which vary in reporting and inspection methods.

What inspectors find can be disconcerting. But at least when the state or certain municipalities are doing the job, diners can learn about violations on the Internet at www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=137994.A quick search through some inspections of Luzerne County businesses revealed 19 businesses out of compliance, including two posted over the past week. Most of the violations are easily corrected, such as failing to post a sign or a disclaimer on the menu warning consumers that eating raw or undercooked foods poses an increased risk for some illnesses.

One business in Pittston had “yeast growth in the soda gun holster at the bar.” A Jenkins Township establishment was noted to have “visible physical evidence of rodents (25-30 rodent droppings) observed in the corner of the downstairs kitchen dry storage area.” A Hazleton store was forced to throw out 30 pounds of pork products that had an internal temperature of 58 degrees. The law requires those products to be stored at a maximum of 41 degrees. A Kingston Township dining establishment was cited for using a cardboard box “to hold cooked chicken wings.”

Two local departments – Hazleton and Wilkes-Barre – are among about two dozen in the state that have begun contributing results to the state inspection database. Larksville, Nanticoke and Hanover Township will continue to do their own inspections and have not committed to posting those reports on the state’s Web site. Others, including Avoca, Pittston Township and Pittston, have handed over inspection duties to the state this year.

Officials in some other county municipalities said they might follow suit. Dupont, Plymouth, Sugar Notch and West Pittston all will look into having the state assume inspection duties, while Kingston has already determined it will hand over responsibilities to the state starting Jan. 1.

“It makes sense to have a uniform inspection across the state where someone from outside the community comes in and does the inspections,” said JoAnn Pilvelis, Kingston’s administrative assistant. There are 76 licensed establishments in Kingston that require inspection.

“Safety-wise it’s probably safer for the borough,” Pilvelis said. “They’re (the state) just so much tougher.”

Joe Mazur, Plymouth Borough’s coordinator, said the town is satisfied with its in-house inspector, but officials will consider whether handing over duties to the state might be cost-effective and in residents’ best interest.

West Pittston Borough Manager Savino Benita said he plans to bring up with council later this year the possibility of having the state do inspections. He feels there are advantages for smaller towns, including eliminating the potential for conflicts of interests between inspectors and business owners.

“There’s no question that the state comes in with no attachments. They’re just there to ensure safety,” Benita said.

In Hanover Township, health inspector James Desiderio has handled food safety inspections for the past 18 years. He said he hasn’t had to shut anyone down in a decade and doesn’t foresee his position being taken away any time soon.

Close to 80 establishments in the township are inspected annually by Desiderio, who said those inspections are not “a two-minute job. It takes a good couple of hours.” But he agrees that there may be some concern from the general public or eateries in neighboring towns that the information, though public, isn’t easily accessible.

Inspection reports are available at the Hanover Township municipal office for any establishment located in the township. Desiderio believes his work would have a bigger impact if it were posted online for the public to see. That’s something both he and the state said they’re working on doing.

“We’re looking into that,” said agriculture’s Ryder. He wishes more municipalities, if they’re not willing to hand over the inspection responsibilities, would at least consider posting their reports on the department’s Web site.

“We encourage them to use our system,” Ryder said. “The ideal situation would be for all inspection reports to be posted on our Web site regardless of who does them.”

Have a complaint?

If you live in any other Luzerne County municipality not listed above, call 1-866-366-3723.