Part 1 of 3: To Protect And Serve
Do Americans trust the food they eat?
By Allison Perlik, Senior Editor -- Restaurants & Institutions, 3/1/2004
The least-glamorous vital job in foodservice doesn’t belong to dishwashers, table bussers or line cooks. That distinction goes to those who peer under counters, crawl inside freezers and scrutinize storage spaces, done in the name of helping operators better protect and serve their customers. It’s all part of the restaurant inspector’s daily grind.
In consumers’ minds, foodservice site inspections rank among the industry’s greatest weapons against foodborne illness. According to Reed Research Group/R&I’s Food Safety Report 2004, which offers noteworthy insight into patrons’ thoughts on food-safety practices and threats, 54% say more-frequent inspections of restaurants definitely will increase food safety, while 60% say the same about inspections of food-processing companies. Another 57% believe increased inspections of foods imported into the United States definitely will increase food safety.
Again and again in the past year, consumers have seen foodservice linked to illnesses: E. coli in lettuce
at restaurants and
a school on the West Coast, hepatitis associated with
green onions in Pennsylvania, mad cow disease in the Pacific
Northwest
and, most recently, avian flu virus on the East Coast.
Such reports shake consumer confidence in food consumed away
from home and force operators to rethink the precautions
they take.
Lives as well as businesses are at stake.
The reassurance inspections provide customers should make sense to anyone familiar with the painstakingly detailed process. Proper sanitarians test everything from the cleanliness of soda-fountain nozzles to the concentration of sanitizing solution in the dishtowel bucket, monitoring the temperature of every sauce, protein and salad topping in between.
As the national spotlight continues to shine on food-safety questions, consumers’ trust in what they eat and the operators they patronize hangs in the balance. “The United States has the strictest and toughest inspection service in the world, so I have the utmost confidence in the federal government on that,” says Jennifer Cellarius, a 26-year-old homemaker from Dearborn, Mich.
Seeing is believing
Not all customers have the educational background
of Cellarius, who holds a degree in meat science,
muscle
biology and food
safety from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
but most consumers nevertheless base their perceptions
about food safety on criteria similar to that which
inspectors use themselves. The No. 1 factor on
the list? Cleanliness.
Asked what factors substantially influence their confidence in food safety, 81% of consumers cited cleanliness of plates and glassware, 77% mentioned clean tables and table coverings and 72% cited clean bathrooms, a fact that comes as little surprise to those in the know.
“That’s how my mom brought me up: If the bathrooms
are dirty, the kitchen’s dirty,” says
Scott Ward, vice president of operations for multiconcept
operator RDGChicago
in Glenview, Ill.
Additional responses reveal, however, that consumers don’t always know how to identify foodborne threats. Nearly three-quarters say how food tastes plays a substantial role in their food-safety perceptions.
“Taste is an inaccurate way of telling because foodborne illness is caused by bacteria that cannot be seen, smelled or tasted,” says Jorge Hernandez, vice president of food safety and risk management for the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation in Chicago.
Customers also look to areas addressed by inspections when it comes to the causes of foodborne illness. Half of consumers identified unsanitary kitchen conditions as the chief culprit, followed by personal hygiene among cooks at 48%, improper storage or handling of food at restaurants at 41% and inadequate cooking times or temperatures at 38%.
Only 28% cited improper storage by customers of food taken home from restaurants as a definite cause of foodborne illness, reflecting consumers’ tendency to blame restaurants for problems that often begin at home.
“When you go to a restaurant, there is a minimum standard of sanitation for them to be open. Most consumers don’t have that same level of concern in their kitchens,” Hernandez says.
Risk management
On a positive note, the majority of survey respondents—50%
of consumers and 43% of operators—say they believe the
chances of hospitalization from foodborne illness are decreasing.
However, the foodservice industry should be concerned that
30% of consumers and 27% of operators believe the opposite.
Compared to six years ago, operator opinions on this issue
have changed little, while consumers appear to see more improvement:
In 1998, only 22% said the likelihood of contracting foodborne
illness was decreasing.
“There is heightened concern about food safety and proper
cooking and handling techniques. People are more aware than
ever before
and as a result of that, the incidences are decreasing,” says
Jennifer Brixius, director of quality assurance
at Minneapolis-based International Dairy Queen
Inc.
RDG’s Ward credits increased vigilance and oversight for improvements. “Foodborne illness is decreasing by an amazing amount,” he says. “Each state, county and city is taking a stronger line on training and teaching their own health departments and holding restaurants accountable.”
Better safe than sorry
Reed Research Group/R&I’s Food Safety Report 2004 finds that consumers have strong opinions about causes and remedies for food-safety problems. How are foodservice operators responding? The following are among the food-related actions they have taken in the past 15 months.
30% of consumers say they or someone they know has suffered from a documented case of foodborne illness.
48% of consumers say articles or reviews in newspapers or on TV have substantial influence on their confidence of food-safety in restaurants.
50% of consumers say they believe the chances of hospitalization from foodborne illness are decreasing.
Special Report Part 2: Plating It Safe >>
View All Blogs
