Restaurant Health Inspections: Reality vs. Perception

A long time ago my dad told me that it’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.  I have had lapses at times of weakness, and I sincerely hope that this is not another one of those times.

So, here goes …  Whenever I see Dacula Patch post the , as a restaurant owner, I cringe.  There are sometimes readers making comments that they can’t understand how any reputable place can have such a low score.  Some folks have even said that they would not eat at any establishment that has a score of less than 93.  And, I just shake my head.  Why a 93?  Why not a 92 or a 94? 

Most recently, comparisons have been made between and scores, as well as negative comments made about and .  Why would anyone that does not have a grasp on Health Inspection scores, and the restaurant business in general, volunteer to make a comment?  Don’t they realize that inaccurate comments can make or break an establishment?  How many businesses and families must be destroyed by such carelessness?

For this reason, I wanted to quickly explain health scores.  Basically, there are two major types of restaurant inspections – “routine” and “follow-up.”  Generally, the routine inspection comes once every six months, while a follow-up inspection comes 10 days after a “bad score.”   A routine inspection is random, while a follow-up inspection will certainly come 10 days after the “bad” routine inspection.  So you can figure out for yourself that a follow-up inspection naturally produces a higher score.  The scores can be A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79) or U (69 or below) for “unsatisfactory.”

The other point to make is that consumers generally do not know whether they are looking at a “routine” inspection or a “follow up” inspection.  Even though it is in small print, I always look to see which type of inspection it is.  I would rather eat at a restaurant that is rated an 85 on a routine inspection than a restaurant that is rated a 100 on a follow up inspection.  Why?  For a place to warrant a follow up inspection, they must have had “critical” violations or a number of “repeat” violations.  Also, places that score a “U” (for unsatisfactory), can be closed down by the Health Department. 

Last, Health Inspections reports can at times be like comparing apples to oranges.  Fast food is different from casual dining or high-end dining.  A bigger menu produces bigger pitfalls. A fresh menu poses more risks than a mostly frozen menu.  My point is that any machine with more moving parts is bound to have more parts that can break down.  And then, when you throw more employees in the equation, there are even more potential issues.  In a nutshell – the simpler the operation, the better the score should be.

In the end, my belief is that Health scores should be treated more like a Mutual Fund’s return.  You never look at the last month’s performance of a mutual fund and declare it a winner or a loser.  You must look at their long term record and then decide.  If you fail to do this with a Mutual Fund, you may find yourself in a very tough financial situation.  And if you fail to do this with dining establishments, you may be jeopardizing your health, as well as the long term viability of those restaurants.  Either way, do your “homework”!